1288 posts • joined Thursday 18th June 2009 13:17 GMT
Re: too easily shocked
"had a horrible touch screen (non-capacitive)"
There's nothing wrong with resistive - each has advantages and disadvantages. I hate how I can only use capacitive with direct finger, which is a pain when eating, or wearing gloves.
Yes, you can pick one rubbish phone before the Iphone, but so what? For every criticism you can pick in other phones in 2007, we can make several in the Iphone (e.g., no apps, no 3G, no copy/paste, no multitasking). All phones were bad back then.
I could just as well say that phones were awful before the Nokia 5800, and count the original Iphone as a poor phone too. Or that all phones were awful before the Galaxy S2. It's called progress - all phones get better with time.
"Apple released the iPhone and suddenly there was a smart phone that normal people wanted to actually use"
Utterly false - look up the smartphone sales, and you'll see that far larger numbers of people were using Symbian smartphones and so on. The Iphone was not "cool" - except to Apple users who thought it made them look that way. Also the original Iphone wasn't a smartphone. Smartphone is a marketing term - by 2004, even bog standard phones did Internet and apps, they were just marketed as "feature" phones instead. Using phones with Internet and apps was mainstream and "cool", even by 2004.
"If you want proof of success simply look at the share price of RIM and Apple. Apple make more from the iPhone than Microsoft would cost to buy"
What about Samsung?
Who cares about share prices - I'm a consumer, not a shareholder. Apple has never been number one in sales, either by company (it was Nokia, now Samsung) or platform (it was Symbian, now Android).
"It doesn't matter how much you or anyone else tries to rubbish the iPhone, these are facts. It DID change how the world looks at phones."
Sorry, that's an opinion, not a fact. And I could make the same claim about any phone platform. There are vast numbers of features that are standard in today's phones, and most of them weren't introduced by Apple.
Apple are like the kid who comes third in the egg and spoon race - the parents heap praise onto him, even though from an objective point of view, it's nothing special, and we should be better praising the one who came first.
Re: too easily shocked
And it's worth noting that Iphones only became used by a mainstream level of people with the 4S, by which time all those lacking features were added. People therefore were right to criticise the flaws in the original Iphone.
Saying that RIM changed their phones in response to Apple, is no more relevant than how Apple change their phones to add features from other competitors too.
Re: too easily shocked
You pretty much described the average Iphone fan. I remember in 2007 - all the people raving about Apple were people whose only experience with mobile phones were 10 year old dumb phones that they had. So this was all new to them. I remember discussions with people who were convinced that all other mobile phones could only access the Internet through WAP, for example...
We see this again with the Ipads. I've seen several people now say how the Ipad was the first device that allowed people to use the Internet in bed, convinced that computers are still only large desktop machines, and laptops and netbooks don't exist (smartphones are conveniently forgotten - indeed, it's interesting that people will happily forget Apple's own earlier phones and laptops, in order to credit them with yet another "first". Similarly, Apple's own Ipod Touch counts as an earlier tablet, but they'll conveniently forget that, so they can credit Apple twice, with "first" mp3 player *and* "first" tablet).
"referring to the smartphone market that began with the iPhone launch"
Indeed - though you'd expect the Apple lawyer to be biased, but I'm shocked by the Register's ignorance, which isn't part of Lee's quote:
"Lee said, referring to the smartphone market that began with the iPhone launch.
Um, right. Leaving aside that the first Iphone wasn't a smartphone (couldn't run apps) - the smartphone market existed years before. It's bigger now, but there's been continual growth before and after Apple, and if you look at sales, the main contribution of the market was coming from Symbian and Android. When the Iphone was released, Nokia were selling tens of millions of smartphones a year, whilst the Iphone's share was tiny - is that market meant to have sprung out of nothing mid-2007? Not to mention BlackBerry, and even Windows Mobile was selling more than Apple. When the market grew, most of this growth was due to the introduction of Android, with Apple playing no significant part above anyone else.
Then there's the point that smartphone is a marketing term, with no objective difference to feature phone. By 2004, even bog standard phones were doing Internet and apps. This was mainstream - in 2004.
Unless this is sarcasm on the Register's part - it's hard to tell when it comes to Apple.
Re: Fair trial?
So if Samsung didn't design and invent their Galaxy, who did?
Re: Fair trial?
As an aside, I'm amused when people talk about the Iphone "being invented" or being an "invention" - as if comparable to say the invention of the smartphone, or another generic product. Also it conjures up the image of Steve Jobs sitting around in his garage, then suddenly having an "Aha!" moment, as he hammers out an Iphone - as opposed to phones being the culmination of large amounts of different research and technologies.
2009, years after mp3 players became mainstream - so that's pretty late. But glad to see it's no longer there.
The problem is that even without DRM, it's a pain to transfer stuff. Trying to play stuff from an Ipod on another computer just results in seeing the garbage scrambled filenames. On my Sansa, this just works. Even if we tried installing Itunes, we were unsure if this would result in the Ipod "syncing" with the new machine, and generally messing things up. I'm glad that my Galaxy Nexus (and my earlier Nokia 5800) also work in a sensible way, allowing drag and drop, and not scrambling the filenames to its own format.
"Hope the outcome will give some breathing space to really creative companies like Sony"
You really think that will be the outcome if Apple win?
It's Android that has allowed lots of companies to make good smartphones without worrying about creating an entirely new platform. It's also Android that allows compatibility - so if you like Sony, why does it matter if their market share is small? Buy a Sony device and enjoy it - and because it's Android, you still get the software support as the largest platform. And if Sony give up on phones, you can still stick with the same platform, and easily transition all your software and data, when you move to a new Android phone from a different company.
A win for Apple is just a win for Apple, not Sony. Harm to Android makes it even harder for companies like Sony. It's thanks to Apple that we still have loads of companies only producing "apps" to access their websites and services for the minority of Apple phone users, and not the more popular platforms (Symbian, and now Android).
And if Apple succeed with trivial patents, why would they stop with Samsung? If Sony gain market share, they'll be just as much a target, especially if they use Android too. Nokia have probably only survived attention as they have plenty of real phone patents that could presumably destroy the Iphone if they pulled the plug on them.
Re: was all about? [icon]
I still don't see the answer. Get out of jail free, what does that mean?
It took Apple five years to think of rounded rectangles? Samsung were in the smartphone market for years before johnny-come-lately Apple, the idea that this is now spun as Samsung coming later is ludicrous. But with the widespread myth of "Apple invented smartphones" (even though the first Iphone was a dumb phone - couldn't do apps), I worry how this trial will go. Selecting from a grid of icons is how phones (and computers in general) have done things for years, even bog standard feature phones from 2004 or so.
Even if it was the case that Samsung had intentionally tried to make it look like Apple's device (for which the evidence seems non-existent, both in how they don't look similar other than what you would expect for phones, and given the evidence that they were working on such designs earlier, and that other companies had already produced similar phones before Apple), their argument is still ludicrous - it suggests that that's the only hard thing about making a smartphone. As if Apple spent 5 years deciding about rounded rectangles, and drawing icons, and all Samsung had to do was copy that, and hey presto, you have a smartphone (or dumb phone, if you're copying Apple's). All the hard work in developing the phone hardware, and marketing it to people, which was done by companies like Samsung years earlier, for Apple to take advantage of, is apparently irrelevant. I myself just made myself an original Iphone copy in my spare time, all I had to do was copy it!
The lawyers are walking RDF machines.
"Or more truthfully that they don't give the the slightest shit about who they harm in the process. Still, Samsung are the good guys, right?"
How do you mean? I don't see how them charging less harms others in any unethical manner (if it gives other companies less sales, tough luck).
It's not like the extra money Apple charges is going to charitable purposes - it's money going straight into the bank for Apple, for them to use to "destroy Android" (though so far, they've failed miserably).
Yes but it's another case of a misleading headline, making a tenuous link to Apple to appear to give them credit, whilst leaving the true details buried in the text. It means people who see this headline in the front page or "popular" topics will be misled, if they aren't interested enough to read the full article. It's bad enough the endless such-and-such "done with an Iphone", when when the use of a phone is the least important part of the process - now we have references where it isn't even anything to do with Apple in the first place.
Re: It is about multi-touch
Multitouch is an additional feature, but it's not clear to me that's any more significant than saying lots of people want a phone with Wifi, GPS, apps, camera, or anything else, for which we could credit lots of other companies like Nokia. Or indeed, simply wanting a phone with touch - having used a single-touch phone (Nokia 5800), I found that the advantage of having any kind of touch is far bigger than the distinction between single-touch and multi-touch (which most of the time is irrelevant). And given that Symbian single-touch screens were vastly outselling the multi-touch Iphones (Symbian only added multi-touch a bit later), I'm not convinced by your argument that no one would be buying Android if it was only single-touch. And we might as well say that no one would be buying Iphones if they didn't add, say, copy 'n' paste.
Re: or maybe
The last thing I want is something that looks like an Apple phone - a tacky fridge-magnet logo, tiny screen, and have people think I'm an Apple user?
No, I bought Samsung because it's the best hardware available (the latest 4S has poorer specs than even last year's S2), a decent sized screen that still fits in my pocket (Apple's porridge offerings are either too small, or way too big). I avoided Apple in particular because I wouldn't want to wait years for standard features that have long been available in Android, Symbian and even bog standard ancient feature phones. And yes, I want to install what software I want, without Apple telling me I can't (e.g., freedom of browser choice), as well as being able to write code for a device I own, without needing Apple's permission, or having to buy a special Apple computer to do so. The fact that they can deliver all this, and also do so at a lower price, just shows how good Samsung are.
Re: If they do this
I don't think it's true either, but I can see them looking at the (lack of) achievements those OEMs have had with Android so far, then looked at the amazing success already of the Nexus, and deciding that they should do what Google are doing up front.
Do you think Google will be hurt with their low cost Nexus? And your second paragraph makes no sense - are Android fans having to defend the Nexus in the same way?
Re: Original XBox Anyone?
The only reason the Ipad sells is because right now if you go into John Lewis, you see an Ipad *alongside nothing else*. Same with every other shop which has Ipads on for sale, but it's hard to see an Android tablet in the flesh - mostly just cheap crap ones from unknown brands in Maplin (who are still up Apple's arse with their only offering an "Iphone" app for their website - sorry, like most people, I don't have an Iphone).
Time and time again, Apple lose when they compete on the same level. Mac OS versus Windows; Iphone versus Symbian and now Android. Take away the unfair shop advantage (and maybe some of the media bias), and let's see how well they do on Ipads then.
Re: Original XBox Anyone?
"It has to sell for a good margin below the iPad or...you'd just buy an iPad (well I wouldn't but Joe User would)."
Apple has only benefit from vast amounts of media hype (free advertising) and support in the shops, which Android gets little of. Since MS can get hype and shop support too, there's no reason why it has to be a lower price.
I might as well say Apple need to price below MS, otherwise most people will just buy MS - after all, that's what happens on the desktop.
Also remember that the Surface is just one Windows 8 device. It doesn't matter if it's more expensive, sells less, or whatever, as long as Windows 8 as a whole sells well. Indeed, the Surface may well be a premium device, intended to be a high end that sets a standard, leaving other PC manufacturers to sell cheaper Ipad-like products that, like the Ipad, aren't as good, but might sell more due to the cost.
"If it's $400+ then it's dead in the water and guaranteed a place in every "Failed Tech" article for years to come."
The problem is that "Failed Tech" media articles often have little to do with actual success. The media will declare it a flop based on what they want, not on what actually happens When Apple get 5% in a market, it's an amazing success (e.g, the Iphone), when MS get 10%, it's a flop (e.g., the Zune). Or for Apple, the media just invent a new market category to say Apple are number one (e.g., tablets but not including smartphones - which are tablets by any reasonable definition; or indeed "smartphone", which is defined to compare all of Apple's sales to only a fraction of Samsung's and Nokia's, even though the original Iphone wasn't even a feature phone, since it couldn't run apps).
$600 is £400, in line with other high end IOS and Android 10" tablets. So that price is fine, albeit nothing special. $400 would be a success - that's under £300. At $300 - well if it's not a hit at that price, it'll be due to other problems (e.g., media bias, or lack of support in the shops, or unfair bias in software support, as happens for Symbian and Android for phones, since so many companies only support the less popular Iphone).
Well, I've lost track of the number of "Win a free Ipod/Ipad/Iphone/Istale" ads - can't even give them away it seems, and still Apple lose massively to Android. So instead they have to go after Samsung for "rounded rectangle" licenses.
And why shouldn't they. Google have written an OS and given it away for free, so they can dominate and make money from smartphone software/content. Apple have tens of billions stashed in the bank, solely to use to "destroy Android" - and it tooks years of wall-to-wall media hype before Iphone sales finally struggled to be comparable to mainstream companies like Samsung and Nokia, or to get anywhere close to Blackberry and Symbian. Today Apple are spending shitloads on Ipad, Iphone and laptop ads, in a struggle to remain relevant in the face of domination from Android and Windows. It's called marketing, and MS are sensible to be doing this just like anyone else.
And the AC above has never used Windows 8.
MS have been making strides in improving efficiency since the bloated days of Vista - each new iteration of Windows these days is requiring less, despite technology advancing. And whilst I like Android, he has a point - it's not like smartphones these days are using tiny hardware. Phones these days have multicore CPUs and a GB or more of RAM, just like Windows PCs
Indeed - tablets will become mainstream, but only when they become low cost, cheaper than say more functional netbooks (perhaps tablets are the thing to finally give us the £100 computer). It won't be Apple that popularised tablets, it will be low cost Android (or Windows RT) tablets. At £400, a tablet is an oversized phone that can't be used as a phone, and is money I could be better spending on a phone or PC. But at £100 or less, well, I might end up with 2 or 3 tablets of various different sizes just dotted around the house.
(Alternatively, tablets will be mainstream when every Windows 8 laptop is marketed as a "tablet" on the grounds that it also has a touchscreen... - again, Windows, not Apple.)
Re: That's 500 dollars for the hardware.
Well maybe it's not that much better, but you could say the same each of IOS and Android - why get either of those, and not anything else?
"other than the ability to drop into desktop-looking Windows and run Office (and that's it)?"
Which are pretty big things in themselves. What are the reasons to get IOS or Android tablets over Windows 8? And don't tell me "apps" - raw counts are useless as a measure of software availability on different platforms. Especially for tablets and phones, where most the "apps" are pointless website-wrappers advertising for a company.
Re: That's 500 dollars for the hardware.
It does? Having tested out Windows 8 on a laptop without touchscreen, I find I can use it just as well as Windows 7 with keyboard and mouse. The standard windows UI is still there unchanged (unlike the disaster that is Unity on Ubuntu, with their attempts to make it touch friendly, that just messes it up for everyone); the full screen mode still seems usable with mouse and keyboard, and the start screen works just the same as on Windows 7 with mouse or keyboard, but making full use of the screen space.
Re: You would have to be an idiot
If this rumour is false (as seems highly likely), I very much doubt it's MS putting it out. This rumour has the risk of being devstating - if it sets people's expectations of the Surface being $199, and then it comes out at say $599, it'll be a disaster, even if the $599 price would otherwise be perfectly reasonable. (Hopefully though, most people will realise the rumour is unlikely to be true.)
This is the kind of low tactic that Apple would play - indeed, it seems that many of the tech stories in the news seem to be Apple press releases.
It's true Windows RT doesn't have the benefit of the familiar traditional Windows UI - but I don't think the lack of that will keep people away (otherwise, no one would be buying Android and Apple tablets at the moment).
Also consider the effect once people get used to the new Windows 8 (both "desktop" and Metro) when they upgrade their normal PCs (or use them at work, or whatever). If they then look for a cheap laptop, Windows RT will in time have the advantage of a familiar UI (as well being more compatible in lots of other ways - e.g, easier to network - I have no idea how I might get Android to read/write my local network, but I presume Windows RT it would be as easy as with Windows 7.)
Re: It's about time prices came down
I agree, though that's the good thing about Windows 8 - the first tablet OS that will be a full blown PC, not an oversided phone.
Re: Win Win for everyone
Though my understanding is that Apple started this case, not Samsung. And it's Samsung devices that are banned in the US in the meantime, not Apple's. So it's not really as case of "they're as bad as each other" - it's rather one-sided, and Samsung are just quite reasonably doing their best to fight against this.
Didn't you know, Steve Jobs invented the Internet too?
(Seriously - when Jobs died, I actually saw someone crediting Jobs for inventing "sort of" the Internet. Because TBL had uses a Next computer, and obviously he wouldn't have been able to do that without Jobs. The idea that he might have used another computer was beyond this guy. I tried pointing out that by that logic, we might as well credit the CEO of Motorola, who supplied the CPU - but he didn't even have a clue who the CEO of Motorola was at that time, let alone know if he'd have died. Or indeed, the CEO of the company that made the floppy drive... And sadly, that was one of the lesser mad claims I saw made on that day.)
But isn't this the one who decided that Apple had a case on rounded rectangles in the first place, and got Samsung's products banned in the US for two years until that trial? If she was a fan of common sense, these claims would be thrown out...
Re: Left to the Jury...
I agree, though interestingly, many people will have one or more Samsung products - they're an incredibly successful company with a huge range of diverse products in different markets. The problem is though the RDF - most people don't care about using a Samsung product, but Apple users get fanatical about it. And the fact that there's far more awareness - as you say, Apple products are always referred to by their brandname, whilst other products are just generic.
It's not just indivduals talking about their own products - it's painful everytime I see this in the media, e.g., an article about the police taking a suspect's devices, or an article about what product someone owns: it'll be "Iphone and mp3 player" or "Ipod and phone" or "Ipad and laptop" or "tablet and iMacProBookBMP" - even though one would hope the journalist has no interest in the brands, and it's irrelevant to the story, we always get told everytime it's an Apple product, but not if it's anything else.
Apple are indeed a marketing company - they get sales, where people buying them are completely unaware of alternatives, both better ones, those that were there first, or those that are more popular. And it's sickening that they are helped by the media and the shops, constantly advertising "Ipads, Ipods, Iphones and Macs", whilst everything else is a tablet, mp3 player, phone or PC, laptop or computer. To have the legal system helping them too is even sadder.
Re: Dodgy argument...
I agree, though note we can't even credit Apple for selling more due to marketing. It didn't - in the early years, Apple's sales were nothing compared to other smartphone platforms like Symbian, BlackBerry and even Windows Mobile. It was those platforms that got people buying more smartphones, not Apple - and more recently, the massive growth has overwhelmingly been due to Android. If you removed all of Apple's sales, it would have made little change, especially in the earlier years.
Re: Dodgy argument...
"No, in the sense that several Apple developments are widely accepted as instrumental to a tech revolution. The iPhone was one such development. If you disagree, take it up with the myriad industry commentators who have said as much."
The Iphone caused a tech revolution, because Apple fans say-so? If you say so.
As everyone here has noted (see, I can do weasel-worded appeal-to-popularity too), the history of smartphones has been long before Apple, and it would have continued on its development with or without Apple. For every good thing you can say Apple did, there are countless ones we can also say for the other phone companies like HTC, Nokia, LG and Samsung.
"The iPhone provoked a huge amount of controversy when first presented" - false, it was hyped widely by the media even before it was released, further proving that the media focus was not due to the actual product released, but because of the usual Apple bias.
"could a device with no keyboard attract broad acceptance?" - false, there have been keyboardless phones before, and there was no broad opposition to the idea.
"wouldn't a touch-only interface get a bit streaky and disgusting?" - well I think that still is a problem with capacitive touchscreens, however you're making it up to claim that there was some big opposition to Apple here from the media. The bias has been against resistive touchscreens from the start.
"The iPhone wasn't referred to as the potential killer of a similar rival, but many phones afterward were dubbed 'iPhone-killers'." - yes, the media are biased towards Apple. I don't see that as a good thing though.
The Iphone *was* "killed" - as a model, it was rivalled in sales by the Nokia 5800; as a platform, outsold by Symbian and now Android. Did any of those media commentators acknowledge that? No, they still only go on about Apple. Referring to something as an "iPhone-killer" isn't that the Iphone was new, all it says is that the author is an Apple fan, and chooses bias wording. It means that even if the other platform completely outsells Apple, he can still spin it by saying "Oh look, but the Iphone was first, and it wasn't completely killed off!"
The original Iphone gave Apple appalling phone sales compared to the competing companies. Only years later, did they finally gradually increase their sales to be more (though still 3rd place). The original Iphone was years behind in basic features. These are now finally added, but it's laughable to suggest that Apple defined the smartphone with the Iphone 4S.
"Apple defined the benchmark." - what benchmark? Of releasing an expensive phone with features years behind the competition, but still getting the media hype? I agree entirely.
Re: Right moves my ass! @ Tidosho
The OP was out of order with his abuse - but it's tiring to see the Apple fanatics once again take it as an excuse to shill.
The same can be said about many companies, such as Nokia or Samsung. Why aren't you going on about how these companies revolutionised markets, even if they didn't invent everything first? No, it's only Apple Apple Apple we hear you going on about all the time, even though loads of other companies are selling by the bucketload (Apple are 3rd place in the phone market, not 1st).
And Apple didn't create a new product with the Ipad, the first Android tablets appeared in late 2009. Apple were just first in getting vast amounts of free media hype, even before it was announced, let alone released. But 2.5 years on, I'm still waiting for the "revolution".
It's not clear to me that tablets are a better form factor - I have to constantly hold it in my hands, or lie it face down flat and then strain my neck, whilst netbooks/laptops can sit nicely on my lap, or wherever, and sit at a nice angle. The advantage of touchscreens will be lost when they become standard of laptops (as seems will happen with Windows 8).
A new market will always grow rapidly, whilst established markets that are at near saturation point won't, and in this economic climate will suffer. That tells us nothing about how the two market sizes will compare in the meantime. Plus dividing into PCs and tablets will soon be meaningless - will the Windows 8 hybrids like the Surface, or equivalents of ASUS Transformers, be "tablets" or "PCs"? If all the new PCs are counted instead as "tablets" simply because they have touchscreens, then it seems obvious that PC market will shrink whilst tablets grow, but that's just an exercise in sematics. And if they're being sold by traditional PC makers, then the market hasn't be "hurt".
It's also worth noting that this works both ways. I'd argue that the market for smartphones seriously hurts the market for large tablets (if a 7" or 10" tablet was the smallest device you could get Internet on, they'd be selling massively; instead, there are far more people out there buying Android smartphones). Similarly, if laptops and netbooks didn't exist, there'd be a far bigger market. I could just as well spin it that sales of PCs hurt the market for tablets.
What we should be looking at is the overall size of all these devices together, and if that market is growing, then it seems all good for the manufacturers as a whole. It will always seem that similar kinds of devices will be in competition with each other, but it's not clear that's a problem. We might as well claim that touchscreen phones have eaten into the market for non-touchscreen phones, or that diesel cars eat into the market for petrol cars. Of course when you subdivide the market, the sales in each subdivision are less, but that doesn't mean the market has been hurt overall. Another example will be that standalone mp3 players must be hurt by the dominance of smartphones, but I don't see people complaining about that.
"I have an Ipad! I have an Iphone! I have a MBAProBookApple! Galaxy Note users look silly!"
This post really did come across as a stereotypical fanatic. Perhaps people just have different needs and desires to you? I've seen the Galaxy Note, and it looks fine. Large phones are the norm - these days, I think people with small feature phones, like Apple's, look silly, but that's just me.
"a phone as big as a tablet, or a tablet as small as a phone"
This sentence makes no sense - just because an Ipad is 10", doesn't mean that's the size of tablets. Phones can be big, tablets can be small. There is no one true size for either - despite you trying to push the Apple spin that a tablet must be 10", and a phone must be 3.5". A tablet is a device that isn't a smartphone. It's just that these days, there's no point making a small tablet that isn't also a phone - but there is nothing about size in the definitions of these terms.
A 4.8" smartphone is the perfect size for giving as large a screen as possible, whilst still fitting in a pocket. If I have room to fit a 10" device in my bag, then I have room to put my far more functional Samsung N220, which can wirelessly use network off my phone (and I find it odd that you travel with both a laptop *and* a 10" tablet, it seems odd if there are things that an Apple PC can't do that an Apple tablet can).
"Tablets are on the rise and will take over the place of smartphones."
I think this is really just semantics. If you mean that the phone functionality will be less important, then we're already at that point. Even bog standard non-smartphones, since around 2004, have actually been handheld computing devices, that just have the ability to make phone calls for backwards compatibility.
As for the idea that most people will switch to carrying around a very small phone for phone calls and data access, and have a separate larger device, I'm not convinced. The limiting factor for many people is the pocket - many times I don't have room for something that's larger than pocket size, so I only have room for a phone. Therefore, I might as well choose a phone that does what I want as a smartphone. And for people who do have room for something bigger all the time, there's still no reason not to give up the built in phone functionality, or faff around with a separate device, so why not have it all in one, with something like the Galaxy Note?
Another problem with your argument is that phones stopped being dumb years ago - so all the while people still buy phones, they will still have support for applications and Internet, because those features are cheap enough to have at standard. I suspect that with time, the average price of a phone will fall again, and even a cheap phone will have high end smartphone features that are good enough for most people. But whether or not people also carry around larger non-phone tablets - I doubt that we're going to go back to phones being dumb phones.
So phones won't be replaced, nor will they lose their "smart" features. And we've already long been at the point where "phones" are actually tablets anyway, it's just a matter of semantics.
Re: Consumer confidence
Apple's position is down to these factors:
* Apple's Ipads gets vast amounts of media coverage - which started even before it was announced, let alone released (so could have nothing to do with whether it was any good or not). Most people don't even know about "tablets", they just hear about "The Ipad". Tonnes of free advertising, even before you add the immense advertising campaign from Apple.
* Vast amounts of support by shops. It seems that every shop round here is selling Ipads, with hardly anyone having Android non-phone tablets. Even phone shops have ceiling-high banners for old Ipads, whilst the latest better selling Android smartphones are ignored. Yes you can order an Android tablet off the Internet, but that doesn't go well for large sales.
It's never got to the point where most people walk into a shop, and see an array of tablets given equal prominance on display. Instead people walk into a shop, look for what they've been told is "an Ipad", and then see the row of Ipads on display. As always, Apple can only win with support from the media and shops, and when it isn't a fair fight.
To be honest though, given all this bias, I think it's shocking that Apple only have 69%, compared to 31% for Android. 31% is pretty damn good given hardly any media coverage for media tablets, and generally being ignored by companies that are happily writing "apps" for their services only for Ipads. In comparison, OS X gets tonnes of coverage, and companies happily support Macs - yet the share of OS X is only 10%. It's mad.
But as I say in my other comment, the real problem for Android tablets is that most people aren't interesting in paying loads of money for an oversized phone with less features (by which I describe the Ipad, just as much as any other tablet). The only people attracted towards spending loads of money just because they think it looks cool are those who are Apple fanatics. Same reason why Apple do best at "ultrabooks" - because most people aren't interested in spending hundreds just for something they think looks cool, or is 1mm thinner. They'd rather stick with a more popular, and portable and cheaper Windows netbook, or instead a more powerful Windows laptop.
Then Apple had better hope Samsung don't release something with 10 times the quality of an Ipad 4, but costing only 50p. (See how it's easy to argue with made-up products and prices?)
I'm not convinced that most people are willing to shell out for not one, but two large data smartphone-level contracts, but I may be wrong. I'm certainly not, and I'm someone with an interesting in technology.
Why not just use your smartphone as a hotspot, which mainstream platforms like Android and Symbian can do for free. As for niche markets, I could say the same about the Islates.
Most "tablets" are smartphones; lies and statistics
Most people have tablets - they're called smartphones. Where Android dominates. When the "phone" functionality is now a minor part of a smartphone's features, it seems odd to divide the market - and doing so is just to trick to make Apple look better. So, they are number one in a small arbitrary market? Does that really matter, when Samsung and Android in general is on far greater numbers of tablets in the form of smartphones? If we are going to divide the market up into arbitrary categories, we might as well say that Apple are number one at selling Ipads.
Ipads are just what we used to call media players, and we already knew Apple was number one there (the Ipod). Counting this as a separate market is just double counting for Apple.
Meanwhile for people who want larger devices, most people are still out there preferring laptops, most of which run Windows.
(And why is it only news when Apple are number one? Where are all the articles about Android's immense dominance in a far bigger market? Where are all the articles pointing out how Apple's smartphone sales have plunged dramatically every quarter this year? Or all the articles about Symbian's dominance until 2011? Or all the articles about Windows's dominance over OS X and Linux?)
Re: official now
It's anti-competitve to decide not to sue each other over pointless patents? I wish more companies would do this...
People have pointed out the differences, but a bigger question is why doesn't Apple see it as a copy anyway - since Samsung haven't copied either, but Apple still thinks they have.
An obvious question is that Apple have a lot more to lose here - Apple aren't going to blow this agreement for some joke "we invented rounded rectangles" claim, as MS could then go after them for use of real patents. These kinds of cross-licensing deals are common between companies (and are a reason why patents are bad - they don't matter for large multinationals with lots of patents, but make it harder for small/new companies to enter a market). This is presumably why Apple aren't going after Nokia either. If Apple tried to ban Nokia's phones, then Nokia would just pull the plug on their real patents, and get all Iphones banned.
Not sure why Samsung don't countersue with some of their patents - perhaps they don't have any that they can do so with? (And unlike Apple, didn't bother to patent simple things like basic geometry.)
Re: Expect lots of furious customers........."
They always seem to grill me on anti-virus. The first time, he wouldn't believe me when I said I planned to install a freely available anti-virus, claiming that such a thing didn't exist, and that I had to buy Norton that they were offering. The second time with my Samsung netbook, he was willing to believe that such things exist, but still seemed to want a promise from me that I would do so, since I wasn't buying Norton. (Well okay, I guess encouraging anti-virus is a good thing, but if they were that concerned, they should just tell people about the free options from the start.)
Re: Mark my words: these won't sell
It will be indeed interesting to see how things go. Remember how when netbooks first appeared, with the revolutionary Asus Eee PC - to begin with, it seemed like Linux was way ahead. The argument was that most people don't need x86 compatibility if they just want a low cost machine for email and web. But still, my understanding is that there was consumer confusion, and when Windows 7 Starter came out, pretty much all netbook manufacturers switched over to Windows.
But I fear that MS may be shooting themselves in the foot if they make a switch from x86. It shouldn't be a problem if there's still a choice for x86 at the low end (in which case, they could let the market decide), but as I say in my comment above, I worry that the choice for x86 netbooks will dry up. Microsoft's strongest advantage is x86 compatibility, and a windowed desktop environment, especially when we're talking about laptops/netbooks/hybrids rather than pure tablets. But most people don't want to spend hundreds of pounds extra for the high end ultra-portables.
I guess that's the question - what are OEMs planning for Windows 8 x86? The Surface Pro looks cool, but what will be available at lower prices?
Re: Apple 2?
Windows 7 Starter is already like this - AFAIK you can't buy it on its own. Whilst things will perhaps become more significant as it rules out building say an ARM desktop, it's not closed in the Apple sense (where you can only buy hardware from Apple), and since this is targetted at ultra-portable/netbook/tablet type machines, it doesn't seem to me a problem that you can't buy it separately.
The bigger concern as far as being closed like Apple is the idea that WinRT only runs Metro applications (except for Office), and if these can only be distributed via Microsoft's site.
I do wonder if WinRT PCs will end up replacing current x86 netbooks, in the sense of being low cost portable PCs. On the one hand, it seems a good thing to improve netbooks with touchscreens, make them even lighter, and give them even better battery life, and perhaps ARM is more suited to that than Intel Atom. On the other hand, I like having x86 compatibility in a netbook, and would still want to be able to run windowed applications rather than just Metro. So it would be a shame if the options for x86 low cost ultra-portables/netbooks dries up, meaning our only option is to spend far more on the high end ultra-portables. If MS don't have a low cost "Starter" version of Windows x86, and instead only do for Windows RT, then that will make it even more likely this change happens...
Re: Apples innovation is more than I thought
The quarter before that it was 40m, and around 30m the quarter before that. So that's already over 100m. And Samsung have been making smartphones for years.
Yes, the Galaxy brand is arbitrary, as is "Iphone", so it would be better to compare on something concrete, like the sales from each company as a whole. And Samsung's performance is excellent. Sorry, what's your point? It seems like a hit a sore spot when I pointed out that Samsung sell hundreds of millions, I'm not sure what your point is here.
"I am not sure anyone lumps devices in a market group by their name alone,"
The media do it all the time for "Iphone".
"In this specific case immediately after a major product launch by Samsung versus immediately prior to a product launch by Apple."
Q2 figures were April to June. And there's still no sign of the mythical Iphone 5 in Q3 - so "immediately prior" isn't true. This vaporware product has been rumoured for well over a year now. Also the Samsung Galaxy S3 was only released towards the end of Q2. And if Apple's excuse is that a new product release *6 months away* is causing low sales, then that's a problem for them. Samsung have no trouble - their sales hold up all year round. In Q1, just one quarter before their S3 release, they still sold 40 million smartphones - yet your excuse for Apple's 25m is there's a new release two quarters away? And you have the cheek to question my analysis of markets?
Re: Apples innovation is more than I thought
I don't have Samsung's exact figures to hand, though at 50m in the last quarter alone (compared to Apple's 25m), I'm not sure what you find surprising about my comment.
Who had the first phone with Wifi? With 3rd party apps? With an operating system? With 3G? With GPS? With maps? With sat-nav? With video calling? With voice recognition? With a web browser? With email? With multitasking? With a touchscreen? With a camera? With a video camera?
I find it interesting that you remember the one thing that Apple did first, and portray it as the be-all-and-end-all of phones. Yet I bet you don't have a clue on who was first with a wide range of features that are standard in phones today, including your beloved Iphone.
(And if you're going to tediously come back and say "But the Iphone popularised those things", please look up the actual sales figures of platforms, before showing yourself up.)
Re: Apples innovation is more than I thought
I didn't say that Apple claimed they invented smartphones (though to be fair, I can see my wording might have been misread that way), I said that's what fanatics believe. I didn't mean to imply that this was due to Apple - just that it's a rather state of affairs anyway.
"Apple just has an uncanny knack of taking something already existing and drastically overhauling many user-orientated aspects and physical design to the extent that other companies suddenly feel they should've been doing it that way all along, and popularising it with the general consumers in the process."
Just like many other multinational companies do too.
"Yes, there were MP3 Players before the iPod, tablet computers before the iPad and smartphones before the iPhone, but everyone here must see that Apple's re-inventions have re-defined what people expect such devices to be like."
What - rectangular with rounded corners?
Again, the same can be said of any of the companies in these markets. There's no reason to focus on Apple, nor is any of your Apple advertising relevant to anything I said in my comment. Companies like Nokia, Google, Samsung, Sandisk, Asus, Microsoft, ARM, NVIDIA and Intel have redefined what people expect devices to be like, and have done so for far larger numbers of customers. But that doesn't mean I can get away with claiming MS invented computers or Samsung invented phones.
Iphone is just a brandname for a product family, same with Ipod and Ipad. Same with Galaxy. I love my Samsung Galaxy, which has sold in the hundreds of millions and revolutionised smartphones, but so what.
Apple are like the kid in the family that comes 3rd in the egg and spoon race at school. For some reason people like you give them endless praise, as if that was special or anything different to what many other multinationals are doing. And anyone who disagrees, or is tired of hearing it, is branded "anti-"Apple. (And I like how you say "rabid Apple fanbois" as if referring to other people, then go into a big speech about the wonders of that one company, even though no one requested it.)
Re: Apples innovation is more than I thought
Indeed, talk about revisionist history.
Feature phones always have been smartphones by any sensible objective definition - "feature" vs "smart" is simply a marketing term, usually to distinguish vaguely between low and high cost.
Apple released a dumb phone in 2007 (couldn't run apps), but marketed it as a smartphone. Now they've got fanatics (including much of the media) believing that they invented smartphones and software ("apps"). Now they have the cheek to suggest that feature phones - also commonly available since around 2004-2005 - made use of Apple's inventions.
Perhaps Apple invented the time machine too, it would be the only way to actually explain this.
- Product Round-up Smartwatch face off: Pebble, MetaWatch and new hi-tech timepieces
- Geek's Guide to Britain BT Tower is just a relic? Wrong: It relays 18,000hrs of telly daily
- Geek's Guide to Britain The bunker at the end of the world - in Essex
- Review: Sony Xperia SP
- Dell's PC-on-a-stick landing in July: report