1857 posts • joined 18 Jun 2009
Re: Android phones running 2.3 still being sold
And exactly the same could be said of android 2.3.
The galaxy mini is old anyway, almost 2 years old. The s3 mini comes with jelly bean.
Re: lets just modify a typical Fandroid commentard on an iPad article
If a product holds its value, it's a sign that there isn't much progress being made in the newer models.
I wish I knew these tactics back in the last days of the Amiga - "£2000 for an Amiga 4000? Actually that's much cheaper than your Mac, because it keeps its value longer".
Re: lets just modify a typical Fandroid commentard on an iPad article
Not really. I've never seen people making those comments of the Apple stories. The problem is when the media concentrate on endless vapourware and rumourware only about Apple all the time. The Register doing it for many companies is less a problem. (Alternatively, perhaps it would be nice to focus on actual news rather than vapourware, but I don't see what that's got to do with your moaning about "fandroids".)
"Bollocks, Samsung rtipped off the iPhone 4s , which is why the s3 differs so much"
Which phone did Samsung rip off the 4S with? The Samsung S2 was released 6 months before the 4S! Looks like the "ripped off" came the other way round...
(Unless you're talking about a phone that was neither the S2 nor S3, but I'm not sure which one?)
"but it takes style to make it sell, thats why they are always following apple , never leading !"
Flagship iphone 5 features are 4" screen (Samsung Galaxy S, 2.5 years ago) and maps (with Android for years, presumably since the beginning). Who's following who?
Given their Android phones alone outsell Apple two to one, not to mention all their other phones which make them the world's number one phone manufacturer, I think it's clear they know what makes things sell.
Re: More like PCs every day?
My LG smart TV has to occasionally reboot for updates[*], and I note my Android Galaxy Nexus phone now takes longer to boot than my Windows laptop. People sometimes criticise PCs saying they should be "more like electronic appliances", but the reality is that as the latter become computers, they acquire all of the annoyances of computers too.
(And as much as I love Android, the crash count is still higher than with Windows 7 these days, not to mention desktop Linux; similarly with other phone OSs too, they still seem less stable.)
[*] - It does let you choose when to do so.
I find Symbian and Android fine, each have their advantages and disadvantages - I don't see what makes the former a "joke". Unless you're comparing to older versions of Symbian, which isn't fair - we should compare like with like (e.g., Symbian^1 to older Android, Symbian^3 Belle to Android 4 - and there were no Android or iphone smartphones at the time of S60 3rd edition or before).
S40 meanwhile is intended at low end hardware - so probably not that good, but it should be compared to the dirt cheap Android phones (which also aren't very good), or the much older iphones (a joke compared to today).
And as for an OS that couldn't even run apps originally, and took years to get basic features like copy/paste, multitasking, and doesn't even support homescreens - and you say that isn't a joke? Each to his own, this kind of thing is subjective - but there's no objective measure that puts iphone above other platforms.
Re: The Microsoft effect
The point is about growth. WP has long had the problem that it struggles to get past 4 million a quarter (and often less than that) for all manufacturers. 4 million from one manufacturer, in half that time, is a significant sign of growth.
The same for Apple - for years the sales were terrible, less than 4 million per 6 weeks even for a while, but it showed steady growth. Indeed, I've got to laugh - the media and fans praised Apple for its supposedly good sales, whilst moaning about Nokia because their share was steady or falling (even though sales were actually increasing faster than Apple's).
Well now it's the other way round - Apple's share is falling, and WP shows growth. If you believe that relative growth is a good measure, then that should apply now. If you don't, Apple should never have got all that attention in the years from 2007.
(And I own Android, so don't care about WP. Indeed, it's a bit comical seeing iphone and WP fans argue about who isn't the most unpopular - "iphone, not as unpopular as WP!" - meanwhile, Android goes onto sell hundreds of millions all year round.)
"I think it clear, instead, that if you have a wide range of phones covering a wide range of features, then you'll appeal to a wide range of demographics within the public and therefore sell more phones. Consumers don't prefer choice"
Well that's exactly what I mean :) If I end up buying Samsung model 23 because that suits me perfectly, where as Apple model 2 doesn't, then I'm glad that Samsung offer the greater range of choice. (Sure, pedantically speaking if Samsung _only_ had model 23, I'd have still have bought it, but that would be luck - I still prefer that they offered me the choice of models.) And it's also clear that that's the stategy that's more successful.
Re: The Microsoft effect
iphone once had poor sales - a million in 76 days for example - yet that was hailed as a great success, even though companies like Nokia sold more than that _every single day_ (not just in the first weekend of a new release).
But when it's someone else selling a few million, that's poor. Right. Same old double standard.
"The only people I see buying it are people who do not care if it's Android, iOS or Windows - i.e. they just want a phone and they happen to like the look of that one."
Which describes most people, then.
"It's like the titanic - well made but a fatal flaw - it runs Windows in a market where people are buying iOS and Android."
If you're going to simplify things, people are buying Android full stop - or Android, and a few other minor OSs. With Android at 75%, iphone on 15% and falling, it's misleading to put them on the same level.
Indeed, it's interesting to note that the gap between WP and iphone is much less than the gap between iphone and Android (either by proportion, or absolute numbers of sales). Android really is that much way ahead. Even Samsung Android phones alone outsell iphone by two to one.
"Windows phone and Blackberry are probably going to account for less than 10% between them within 12-18 months."
And iphone are barely above that, so again it's odd to portray iphone on the same level as Android, but write off 10% of nothing.
"it's already a 2 horse race."
No, it's a race won by Android. The only question is how iphone, WP and Blackberry will do competing for the remaining shrinking share. (And it was _never_ a 2 horse race, btw - the "Android and iphone" is a myth; iphone only came 2nd place as late as a year ago, with the demise of Symbian, and at that time, Android was already way ahead and the clear winner.)
Didn't they do this a year ago? I'm sure I remember seeing this story early 2012, if not before.
"Apple, meanwhile, is limited in its range of phones while Samsung has an array of feature and smartphones."
Indeed - whilst focusing on a limited range may have some advantages (as Apple fans often tell us, e.g., making it easier for developers), it's clear that consumers prefer to have choice, and Samsung's (and still Nokia's) model wins out.
As an aside, the whole "feature" vs "smart" phone is rather ill-defined - feature phones are smartphones by any objective technical definition, albeit it usually lower end, not dumbphones. The term was only ever introduced as a marketing distinction around 2004, when Internet and apps became standard, to distinguish them from more expensive phones. (And the original iphone was marketed as a "smartphone" when it couldn't even run apps, when feature phones could!) But now with all the media hype on smartphones, I wonder why Samsung and Nokia still limit their lower end smartphones with the "feature" phone label. As an example, Nokia's new Full Touch Asha smartphone platform sold a massive 6 million in its first quarter earlier this year (iphone only managed 3 million in the first 6 months, despite vast amounts of advertising and media coverage) - more than their Windows Phone sales - but most reports seem to conveniently ignore it in the "smartphone" stats, because heaven forbid people realise Nokia are still more popular than believed (you would have thought "Nokia doing better on unknown platform than Windows Phone" would make a great anti-MS story, but there you are).
It also makes most sales comparisons unfair, as the media usually focus on "smartphones", which compares 100% of Apple sales, to only a fraction of other companies. This article shows the true picture.
Re: Doing it for the consumer?
Yeah, pursuing profits by innovation and competing in the market, and not the courtroom, unlike a certain other company. Heaven forbid, how dare they!
(And of course, once again we see that making a profit is bad when any other company do it, but when Apple do it, it's a reason to praise them.)
Re: Hello fanboy, repeat after me
"Retina" is a trademark - it makes as much sense as saying no one else does Pureview cameras. And talking of a "first" makes little sense, when resolution is a quantity with a large number of possibilities - it's not an either/or. (I suppose you could say "first to make a device with a particular resolution", but there are *many* such "firsts".)
For years iphones had low resolution (my Nokia 5800 had 640x360, much higher than most phones of the time) - for some reason, this wasn't deemed a problem, until they made it their single advertising point. My Galaxy Nexus has a higher resolution than a "retina" iphone, and there are phones with higher resolution still. Many much cheaper Android tablets have higher resolution than an ipad mini.
In conclusion, there is no clear winner at all as to who leads on high resolutions.
Re: Rational decision
But that's just it, there are no "Samsonites".
There are people who enjoy using particular products/platforms/etc, and in some cases they get quite fanatical about it. But people don't get fanatical about a _company_ - people don't treat this like football teams where you want one side to win, they don't care about the company success unless you're an employee or a shareholder.
But Apple fans seem to be the exception. I love a good old which-product-is-best debate, but here it's like a tennis match where only one side is serving - rather than arguments about which product is best, it gets deflected with arguments of praise like "Look how much profit they make!", "Look how much valued they are by the stock market!" which leads to absurdities such as praising a company for having overpriced products, because high profit margins are good for the company (where as in any other debate, that would be a reason for consumers to criticise). I remember reading an article about the wonder of some Apple product, but it was only after a while that it hit me - not a single point of argument was about the product, but it was all about things being good from the company point of view, such as profits, shares, etc.
No one is arguing for Samsung for the sake of it. Rather, people enjoy using Samsung products; and also, people dislike the market being stifled due to software and design patents, especially the ones in question here.
Re: My word...
I agree there's no point in these super-high resolutions, but that goes for Apple too (I never understood where one is meant to get the media in such high resolutions, given that you can't even fit one Blu-Ray quality film on an entry level 16GB model, and most people won't have the mobile allowance to stream that). The point is that Apple made it their single marketing point, and Google/Samsung beat them at their own game - for those people who think "Retina" is important, the Nexus 10 beats it.
For those of us who think it isn't important, it's not a consideration in the first place - and there are many other tablets to then consider.
"Retina" is just a trademark. What the actual best resolution is is a matter of personal preference and needs.
(I'm also amused that Samsung outdoing Apple is spun as being something to criticise Samsung over.)
Re: The venomous Leach at it again.
"cheap and nasty kit that doesn't compete with the iPhone."
Given that Apple fans managed to put up with a phone that, over the years, couldn't do video chat, multitasking, copy/paste, homescreens, picture messaging, 3G, apps, or even be a smartphone at all in its first incarnation, that must be some pretty nasty kit to be criticised.
Or perhaps actually, people are buying smartphones that are more than good enough for their needs, and easily compete with the stuff that Apple puts out. Latest flagship feature, the same but slighty bigger?
As for sales, I don't need to dismiss it - it's simply of zero importance to me. I don't see you worshipping Android or Samsung for their massive Apple-overwhelming sales. Even Nokia sell more phones still - but I bet you'll find a way to dismiss that.
Re: Apple phones are (mostly) well made*
Ah yes, copy and paste - the very thing the iphone couldn't do for years, yet Apple fans said this was not only a problem, but it was better not to have it - it was a whole new "paradigm". Oddly that logic didn't work when Apple did add this basic UI functionality, years behind the competition.
I hear these days to use Swype-like keyboards on an iphone, you have to run it as a separate program, then copy and paste it into where you actually want to type. This is an example that its users consider a great UI.
The S3 sold 10 million on release. That's just one of many Samsung phones, and of hundreds of Android phones, which now has 75% share and rising to iphone's 15% and falling.
Apple are like the 9 year old kid who comes third in the egg and spoon race - for some reason they get hyped, even though what they do is nothing special for multinationals. Sorry, most of us are fed up of hearing about them.
Re: The signoff is the important bit
Just one Android phone out of hundreds (the S3) now outsells Apple, who only have one iphone per generation. If we compare by company, or heaven forbid Android to iphone, the difference is massive.
Re: Maps worth more to Google than Apple?
A real blinder, it only cost them their reputation, made them a laughing stock in the usually apple loving media, and drew criticism from their previously fanatical users. Brilliant move.
(Apple should know the benefit of having things work ootb, else they wouldn't have hyped things like voice recognition and panorama camera, things previously available as apps anyway.)
Maybe ppl would be buying netbooks if the specs weren't stuck at 2007 1024x600 1gb ram, with no fall in price either. I'd gladly take something with a keyboard that i don't have to hold rather than an oversized phone, but everyone's already got netbooks, and there's no reason to upgrade. The same thing will be true of tablets in a few years, if they do the same thing.
As for shop shelf space, it would be nice if so called pc shops didn't devote half the place to apple laptops - shop space isn't simply about market share, it's who buys the most advertising space in the shop, or gives them the bigger margin. You won't see the low cost tablets in most shops either.
The nexus 7 is made by Asus, a pc company, the nexus 10 by Samsung, so the tablet vs pc company argument doesn't make sense.
Re: How about £44.50
I don't want cheap tat, i want a 7" tablet with micro sd and Google play access. Honest question - what choices are there?
Re: Long game
"Apple not getting its maps right the first time could well see their respective market shares following a similar path to Safari and Chrome."
I don't think you meant Chrome - it's now the number one browser!
Re: My plumber has an iPhone
Given the original claim about bringing "to the masses", I assume he was talking about an earlier iphone, which was even more expensive.
Re: My plumber has an iPhone
"the iPhone brought the smartphone to the masses"
False - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Smartphone#Historical_sales_figures
"Before then there were a toy for geeks."
The early iphone was a toy for geeks too. And the first iphone wasn't a smartphone anyway (couldn't run applications).
Mainstream usage came with Android, or perhaps Symbian shortly before that in the late 2000s. (Plus the whole "smartphone" definition is ill-defined anyway - phones with Internet and apps, something the original iphone couldn't do, became standard and mainstream around 2005, it's just that only some were arbitrarily marketed as "smartphones" - the change more recently is simply that more phones are now marketed as smartphones.)
As for before and after, we might as well say before the Nokia 5800 the iphone didn't have apps, and afterwards it did; or before the Samsung Galaxy, the iphone was tiny, and afterwards, it had a larger screen.
I love how the consensus here seems to be either that Windows 8 is awful for being more touch friendly because people want keyboards; and also that keyboard/mouse is dead, everyone should throw away computers and use ipads...
Which is it?
(As for desktop market, most PCs are mobile in the form of laptops, not desktops.)
"They will see that it is possible, even enjoyable to move away from the Beast of Redmond. Microsoft ... Or the 30,000 deployed Macbooks at IBM."
Seriously - why are people here so eager to praise and what the success of Apple over MS, a company that's trying to block the most successful open source operating system, with software and design patents?
Not to mention that that would leave us with a company controlling the hardware and OS, rather than just the OS.
I'd love to see more open source success, and more choice in operating systems. But your vision is of a world with less choice.
And I could say the same of Apple - just because they still sell "Macbooks" (why not call them laptops or PCs, like for any other company?) doesn't mean it's important.
And to think people here still criticise MS for lock-in...
You can webcam on Windows btw. And since most people use Windows, most people are better off web-camming with something that runs on multiple platforms, rather than just a minority platform like Apple. I guess you asked an Apple fan - for most people, that really doesn't make sense.
"Facetime" is just Apple's trademark for something that everyone else did years earlier (flagship feature on an iphone 4? This was standard in 2005 on a feature phone).
And "true" market share of ipods is smaller, too
"Do I have Windows systems? Yes. Do I plan on refreshing them any time in the forseebale future? No. In fact; I am "Libre Office that works with touch, keyboard and mouse on Android" away from being able to walk away from Microsoft for anything except my collection of older Steam games.
For the actual heavy lifting stuff, I find that all the big apps I need have been ported to OSX."
It's great that you're smug about being free of Windows and supporting Free software - but then we find you're an Apple user! I never understand that logic.
Plus it sounds like you're in agreement with the OP - yes, why not include TVs, along with microwaves and washing machines - that Windows has smaller share when you include the market you're looking at is hardly suprising, and nothing new.
Apple's market share of mp3 players is a lot smaller, if we included all devices that can play mp3s! Or especially, all devices that play music. Why not include all the sales of phones, laptops, tablets, stereo systems, and then see the "True" market share of ipods!
Couldn't agree more.
If we're looking at "any kind of computing device" this is nothing new. I'm sure that the media want to pretend it's something new, as part of some Windows decline, but we've had mobile phones being mainstream for ten years (Symbian was dominant until 2011 - and why stop at "smartphones" when "feature" phones are also mobile computers, just with a different marketing name?), and before that, we also had games consoles. It's also long been obvious that phones will sell more than PCs (phones are intrinsically something one person has, where as many people still share computers; and people upgrade phones more often).
I'm sure people could make the same claim about the popularity of ARM versus Intel - but again, it's nothing new! I remember in the 1990s reading an article pointing out that actually it was ARM that was very popular, on par with Intel, because of all their use in embedded and mobile hardware.
It's also worth noting that this kind of argument makes every platform look smaller. So Windows is only 20% - but OS X and GNU Linux are also a lot smaller. And Android is no longer at 75% in mobile, it's a lot smaller. Let's throw in all those feature phones too, as I say, and watch the share for Android and Windows go even smaller... (Nokia's S40 still probably sells more than Android, for example.)
That's not to say that it isn't interesting to look at operating system share as a whole, on all kinds of devices - but it's nothing surprising to see a different picture, nor is it anything new.
Re: Not much chance of that
"they can release a 3840x2160 Retina TV"
You mean, 4K TV, which already exists in TVs today (Retina is just a marketing trademark, not an actual standard term for a resolution size).
"Being the only people offering convenient one-click access to quad-HD content ... I would pay $0.99 per half-hour for the BBC Wildlife Film Unit doing what it does best in quad-HD."
I would not be happy if the licence-payer funded BBC programs were only available for users of one company, thus locking out the majority of users who use other products, limiting competition in the market, and letting that company also have a 30% cut of the fee that customers pay. There was an uproar when iplayer "only" supported the 90% of Windows users, let alone this...
Re: What could Apple bring to the table?
"What I can do is outline some of the problems with TVs at the moment that need to be solved."
Great. Nothing to do with Apple though, anymore than it is with Microsoft or Hoover or Debenhams or anyone else who doesn't make TVs.
"The main problem is the vast collection of remote controls and their associated buttons that you need to control the TV and all the other stuff attached to it."
LG Smart TVs have a remote with hardly any buttons. Already solved.
"The second big problem is the confusing array of different user interfaces you have to deal with, depending on where you are."
Not sure what you mean?
"Apple would definitely sort that out ... Apple would make that much more consistent."
It's the "They are better than the competition" argument, based on products that *don't even exist*.
No reason to think that Apple would do anything for the second problem you list, since all the applications on their products can have different UIs too. Even for the first, a touchscreen actually allows UIs to have more buttons etc (just that they're in software, rather than physical) - indeed, that's the good thing about them. But they certainly don't reduce the number things to press. My experience is that older less computer-experienced people prefer to stick with phones with a physical keypad, as it's easy and simple, compared with the multitude of UIs in a touchscreen device. Similarly my parents found the aforementioned LG remote confusing because they didn't like clicking icons, and prefer to stick with a traditional remote with all the buttons on it.
As for your bank balance, probably not - ideas are cheap, it's building the products, bringing them to market, and marketing, that's all the difficulty. You couldn't make money just by thinking up the idea (nor would it stop anyone from later patenting it, based on recent events...)
Re: If all they do is improve Smart TV UI's...
Well sure, but I don't see how that relates to what the OP said - every iphone app has different UIs too. (Indeed, it used to be the case that mobiles would use the common standard UI of a web browser, but now we have every site having to have its own different "app".)
I agree it would be good to have some open standard where by online video services came through a common protocol. No reason to think that Apple would do that though.
Also note that Smart TVs already *do* offer this for local streaming. The people saying "Just use HDMI on a TV" have the problem that every device they connect to to play has its own different interface. But when I stream to the smart TV, it doesn't matter what kind or make of device I use (PC, tablet, phone, network hard disk, connected USB hard disk or media player; Linux, Windows, Android, etc), it all comes through the same standard UI on the TV. If anything, based on historical precedence, Apple would be worse here - they're likely to tie it in with itunes.
Re: If all they do is improve Smart TV UI's...
I'm still waiting to hear what this amazing whole new UI was, that others than supposedly copied. At a fundamental level, my Android works like my old Symbian. And my old Symbian is the obvious touch-extension from the way my 2005 feature phone worked (touch on icon rather than click with button on icon). There are things like multitouch and bounceback, but these are just additional touches. By far the biggest advantage comes from having a touchscreen at all. And by far the biggest thing that made touchscreens more usable was having larger (~4.5") screens. (First generation iphone wasn't a smartphone btw, couldn't run apps.)
You also play the classic vaporware trick, where you assert that a product *that doesn't even exist* will be better than what's available. It's impossible to argue against. I might as well say, I wish there was a new Amiga TV, because it'll be better than the current rubbish, I just don't know how.
(I don't find TV UIs that bad - you're basically limited when you just have an infra red remote. LG TV have a bluetooth pointer that works better, but it's still a bit difficult to use, again that's a problem that will apply to any TV that's controlled from your sofa. Perhaps the best would be to have a mirrored application control on a phone/tablet/laptop, but then LG already offer this. Other possibilities would be voice control, again you already get that on some TVs.)
Re: A quick shareprice boost is all
I agree - although note, it doesn't really matter if they released a TV that couldn't do what most TVs could do, and where Internet-only TV doesn't yet make sense for most people. They could still do it, and get all the praise for being "first" (never mind that Internet playing is pretty much standard on TVs, and the reason TVs aren't Internet only is because it doesn't make sense).
It doesn't matter if initial sales are poor just like the first iphones, and it takes years to grow - people will still declare it an amazing success as long as it sells one million in 76 days, and ignore that it's only years later (and when they finally add in the functionality that other TVs have) that sales actually become mainstream. At which point, they can reap the profits, as well as being falsely credited for being first, or popularising something - even though any other company doing it now would be written off as a flop.
You're right, it doesn't make sense - but with the RDF, these rules unfortunately don't apply.
I'm not sure what the point of this speculation is - yes, if any multinational company with billions of dollars entered a new market, then after several years and vast amounts of advertising, it would gain some reasonable share, and make money. But that's true of any such company (same with Samsung, LG, etc) or any market (TVs, cars, fridge-freezers). And it still has to be weighed up with what other things the company could do with those resources.
Yes, I'm sure that lots of people say they might think about buying some new TV, but that would be true of any smart TV. I considered buying a Samsung TV - just as I also considered a Panasonic TV, an LG TV, and so on, but ultimately I didn't buy one from Samsung or Panasonic, as I had to choose one.
I'm really not looking forward to the unfair vast amounts of media hype and free advertising they'll get if they do release one, whilst the smart TV offerings already here today (as well as platforms like Google TV) go almost entirely ignored by the press. We'll have to put up with morons saying how Apple revolutionised TV, or "popularised" smart TV (even though smart TV functionality is *standard* on all non-dirt-cheap HD TVs these days). Yet the reality for actual smart TV owners like myself will be that even if the likes of LG and Samsung remain more popular, we'll no longer be able to get online support for our TVs, because they'll only cater for the minority of Apple users. (Even now in phones, with Android at 75%, and iphone never having been number one or anywhere near it, I still see plenty of companies only advertising apps for the minority of iphone users - in 2005, you could get apps that worked on any phone.)
Jobs is dead - please dear media, stop hyping what just one company does.
Smart TVs do exactly what you want.
I think you're confusing it with that hypothetical Apple TV :)
Smart TVs do exactly what you want. Well, of course, any TV these days can act as a big monitor, in that you can connect to a PC or other device via HDMI. But smart TVs can also stream wirelessly, which saves loads of cables, or is useful if the device is on your lap or in another room. They can also "pull" rather than just "push" (i.e., you can use the TV remote to browse things to watch on a device, rather than having to use the PC with the TV acting as a monitor, although you can still do that too).
Online services come from anywhere you want - iplayer, netflix, youtube, or even just a random webpage. In fact I don't think LG even have their own services, let alone a walled garden.
I can easily see one manufacturer producing a TV that only works with their online site, with their devices, with their custom cables, connectors and wireless protocols... but that's not any smart TV around today.
Re: Smart tv's run Android
I thought that at first, but now I disagree. Firstly Smart TVs get upgrades - and this time not held up by the networks - so Google TVs could see updates as long as the hardware supports it.
Secondly, the reason people upgrade TVs less often is because there's less need to - which also means there's less reason to care about having the latest OS anyway. It's still extremely useful having features like streaming (from local network and Internet), web/Youtube/etc, PVR built in as standard, saving the need for an extra box and yet more wires. It also means less UI hassle, as you don't have to switch TV inputs from TV to "smart box".
These things will still be useful in years to come when new things come out - and if I decide I want something more in five years' time, there's nothing stopping me adding a separate box then.
By your logic, do you buy TVs without freeview, because that can be a separate box? Eventually I suspect that smart TV features will be a standard, just like freeview - it already is in most non-cheap TVs these days - at which point you might as well get it anyway, there's no advantage to actively avoiding it. (If you mean it was dumb for the industry to do it this way - well maybe, except no one was buying the separate standalone boxes.)
Re: Smart tv's run Android
Er, not quite ... most "smart" TVs don't run Android, there are a whole range of systems that they use. There is Google TV, which certainly has a head start on anything from Apple or MS, though it's not the standard platform yet. E.g., I believe LG have now started using Google TV for their latest 2012 range, but only in the US market. I have an LG Smart TV, which is great, though no sign of Android.
Yes, there's one camera that runs Android, the Samsung Galaxy Camera. The division between cameras and phones is increasingly blurred anyway (I wonder how the Nokia 808 Pureview's camera compares to the Galaxy Camera...)
Re: final blow for Windows
I don't see why a non-Windows console is a killer blow for Windows PCs - we already have plenty of non-Windows consoles.
"In a couple of years, when office-like products will be on all tablets, there'll be absolutely no point in having a PC with Windows."
Ah yes, Windows 8 is doomed because no one wants to use touch at all, but everyone will throw away their PCs and run pure touch tablets. Which is it? Given the usual strong dislike of replacing keyboards/mouse with touch, I've got to laugh that the opinion is suddenly voted up when it's used to criticise Windows again.
What, office workers are supposed to spend all day holding up their arms with a touchscreen? Yet, go to one of the Windows 8 threads, and I dare you to suggest that touchscreens are good for replacing PCs, and see how quick you get voted down. The double-standard is ridiculous.
"As far as I'm concerned, my games portfolio has already moved to Macos and I'm looking forward to seeing it on my TV, with a box !"
Ah, an Apple user. I do find it odd that people are smug to have moved away from MS - and then you find they're an *Apple* user. Sorry, I don't see how being stuck with one company for hardware and OS is better than being stuck with one company for OS! And your vapour TV, if they ever release it, will presumably be running IOS rather than OS X (unless you just mean plugging your computer into a TV, which anyone can do...)
Personally I like Linux and Windows - but above all, I like my choice of PC hardware. A world where there's only one choice of hardware, and we have to use only tablets, is not what many of us want! Nor do any of the advantages of Linux/Android over Windows apply to OS X or IOS.
(And for other readers advocating Linux - if PCs get replaced with consoles and tablets, whilst many may be running the Linux kernel, it will also be the end of the GNU/Linux distributions running on machines with keyboards that we love - there seems to be little attempt to get them onto tablets, and phones with Linux distributions like Maemo/Meego are no longer available.)
Does the Google maps website do satnav? I think that's only for Android.
Shouldn't a smartphone Just Work, rather than needing to carry around big paper maps, and have backup links to other websites? At which point when driving should one decide that the phone provided satnav isn't working, and you have to stop and dig out the paper map, or start browsing manually on a map website?
Re: Why doesn't Apple simply 'Man Up'?
Does the Google maps have satnav? If not, it's not an alternative.
Sure, you can pay to get a 3rd party one, to get functionality that's been available in Android and Nokia phones for years...
Re: Google has trademarked their "G inside a box with curved corners"...
I'm not sure it's much of an argument to say "Just because this more complex thing can be trademarked, therefore this very simple thing can be too". We're not talking about the combination of a particular style of a letter, together with an additional geometric shape, we're talking about a single simple shape formed by two curves.
If there's no line, then can anything be trademarked, even say a single line?
Note that the last one about the Apple Farm is a parody. Though I think that in itself makes a point, it's sad that it's so hard to tell the actual real life events from parody (I only suspected it was parody from the over-the-top ridicule in the quotes - the basic gist of the story came across entirely believable, given the recent events with rounded rectangles...)
Indeed - similarly Apple Records is a company that sells music, and Apple is a company that sells music. Wait a minute.
When I bought a house, I was thankfully able to have a full choice of houses, even though most of them followed this rectangular-corner pattern, and all followed this same basic design.
I'm not sure why having fewer choice of models is relevant in anyway. It's a different way of working.
I wouldn't favour or praise a company for having higher profit margins either - that's higher prices, without the higher quality.
"the world likes iPad and Windows, for whatever reasons"
The former isn't anywhere near the same scale as the latter. True, most people don't hate them, but most people don't care either, and are using Android and Windows.
I agree, though just to note:
"The genius of Apple's catalogue is that nobody knew they wanted these things - iPad, iPod touch et al - until they saw one. Then they became overnight must-haves."
The "genius" is indeed marketing - and note this was not overnight, but there was vast amounts of free media hype for months before the products were even announced, let alone released.
Nor are their products overnight must haves, but grow just like any other product line. Just look at the iphone platform compared to other smartphone sales since 2007 - it wasn't until iphone 4 that sales were really anywhere near mainstream. In the early years they were behind even Windows Mobile. Or the original ipod only worked with Macs, and was a flop, only growing with later generations.
But I do agree that they are in a corner, now that the "computer" market is saturated with a continual range from small handheld to large full desktop, with everything in between, and no more gaps. Their mp3 player products will face increasing competition from smartphones and tablets (especially now that they changed connector messes up all the free unfair advantage they get from those making speakers and stereo systems in cars, by only working with ipods/iphones).
Of course there are other markets to enter - TVs, consoles, washing machines, and no doubt they'll get loads of media hype for any new product there, even though other companies have been doing the same thing just as well for years.
High quality fashion brands don't need to stick their logos everywhere (let alone make them light up) - people know what they are from the design itself, and if you don't know, you're not considered the target market (or so the argument goes - personally I find the whole "designer" thing a bit nonsense). But what they do is more like Adidas, with logos everywhere. No doubt the buyers think it makes them look cool, but that doesn't mean anyone else cares. If someone has, e.g., an Armani suit, you know (or don't know) because of the suit - not because there's "Armani" written in light up letters across the back. Similarly with watches - indeed, it's the cheap ones that put a logo there.
Re: A n o n y m o u s
"that hasnt changed the development pattern or profits for developers. iOS is still king."
Because there's plenty more for free on Android, which I'd say is a better thing. But remember it's not all about profit - many apps are free, because they're given away by companies for their websites, or to advertise a product or service. There the key thing is market share (or it ought to be - unfortunately a lot of ppl think that iphone is the largest platform, but eventually the truth will catch up).
"It hasnt changed the web usage either with the vast majority of web usage still done on iOs devices."
Citation needed. There are various tracking sites making various claims, though I've seen plenty that show Android on top, as well as ones showing other platforms like Nokia above iphone. There was only a short period a few years ago where iphone was top, but the other platforms quickly overtook.
- Vid Google opens Inbox – email for people too thick to handle email
- Pic Forget the $2499 5K iMac – today we reveal Apple's most expensive computer to date
- RUMPY PUMPY: Bone says humans BONED Neanderthals 50,000 years B.C.
- Is your home or office internet gateway one of '1.2 MILLION' wide open to hijacking?
- Review Vulture trails claw across Lenovo's touchy N20p Chromebook