1281 posts • joined Thursday 18th June 2009 13:17 GMT
Re: No matter whos in the wrong here....
And how is being rectangular with rounded corners not an essential part of a phone? I mean yes, you could work around it with oddities like sharp corners or triangular phones, but that's worse than missing out some of the standards that you list (evidently Apple fans have no problem with a phone lacking 3G, after all...)
Anyone would think this was an inquiry into a criminal investigation, not squabbling claims over the invention of the rectangle.
Maybe Samsung decided to focus on innovation, rather than wasting time training thousands of employees to save endless emails in case of bogus claims[*]. It's sad if the number one smartphone company is going to get dragged down, because employees are forced to change their practices, getting swamped in unnecessary old emails, just because other companies use their money for lawsuits.
Regarding the timescales - so if an individual sends an email to Apple claiming that said person invented the rectangle or whatever, this means Apple has to retain emails from that date, no matter how bogus the claim?
And hang on - if Samsung is disputing patents with Apple, why aren't all relevant Apple devices being banned in the US?
[*] Declared a fact to be bogus, in the UK.
Re: bloody ridiculous...
How many were Ipod users? The thing is, by 2007, Apple had already built up a niche of Apple fanatics, even if they weren't using Macs.
Also note that it's not just about sales. The advantage that the original Iphone had was not the sales (the platform sold poorly back then, other companies sold and popularised smartphones way more than Apple), but the wall-to-wall endless hype in the media, even before it was released. Presumably due to Apple obsessed journalists.
How is the Ipod Touch not a tablet?
Tablets have been around, and mainstream, for years - we just gave them other names, like media players or smartphones. I remember looking at mp3 players in 2009, and noting that at the low end were simple small mp3 players, and at the high end you had devices that also played videos, on large screens, with Internet and apps. Tablets. Some ran Android, some ran other OSs. The only game changer recently has been Android, meaning that a decent OS is available for any hardware manufacturer to use to make tablets, rather than every manufacturer (Apple included) having to maintain their own proprietary OS.
I find it interesting that Apple fans don't call the Ipod Touch a tablet, surely that would make Apple look better, having released a mainstream tablet years ago? But no, the reason is that they'd then have to admit that tablets, Ipad included, are nothing new.
Re: bloody ridiculous...
The Star Trek transporters weren't actually real, you know. On the other hand, the design of rectangles and rounded corners *was* real - whether it's in a film, or not. That's the difference. A working transporter would be an actual new invention - rectangles and rounded corners aren't.
Re: Hey, this is progress
So we have "Paying to use someone's software that cost millions to develop" versus "Paying to be allowed to make a device that's rectangular with rounded corners". Sorry, not seeing the equivalence.
Re: Lost profits?
"they'd have to prove everyone who bought a Samsung device would have gone out and bought the Apple equivalent instead (had the Samsung device not existed)."
Indeed, though it's even more than that - the claim isn't that Samsung devices aren't allowed to exist, but that they aren't allowed to have rectangular screens and rounded corners(!) So they have to prove that if Samsung had made it look different (e.g., non-rounded corners), that all those buyers would have gone and bought Apple devices. Essentially the claim is that all Samsung buyers were actually wanting to buy Ipads and Iphones, but were "confused" and accidently bought a Samsung device - yes, this claim is nuts.
Not that my Galaxy Nexus looks anything like a tiny Iphone. Aside from the obvious size issue, it doesn't have the tacky big logo on the back.
You're right - so I hope you believe that Apple should be paying customers like Archos, who were first to "invent" tablets with rectangular screens.
And if the rumours about the mythical Ipad Mini are true, I hope Apple are ready to pay whichever company was first to make a tablet of that size (and size is important - if not, then an Ipad was no different to the tablets more commonly known as smartphones, "invented" years before Apple by companies like Nokia and Samsung).
And if the mythical Iphone 5 ever finally arrives, and goes for a 4" screen, then again it looks like they'll have to be paying money to someone like Samsung, because it wasn't Apple who first "invented" a 4" phone.
Re: Not bad...
Any Android phone automatically syncs with Google's servers.
Admittedly I was surprised that my Google Nexus had no PC software whatsoever, having previously enjoyed the useful software that came with my earlier Nokia 5800. But still, I can see the reasoning - your average user is better off just syncing with Google as it works automatically and easily, and anyone competent enough to worry about connecting their phone to their PC is competent enough to either drag and drop, or use whatever 3rd party software they like. It supports the open standard of MTP, so any media software supporting that should surely work fine? (And if Itunes doesn't support the open standard that is MTP, I'd say that's Itunes that is at fault. There is other software that will do the job.)
Re: "a lot of activations divided across a lot of different manufactures"
Indeed - never in the most heated Windows vs Linux/Mac/Amiga/whatever debates in the 90s did I hear a Windows fan go "But look how much money Bill Gates makes!"
The way the media now treat technology companies like sports, as if we care about which one is doing better, is odd. It's only Apple fans that have recently tried that tactic. The rest of us, even those of us who get fanatical about technology, care about the end products, and how things look and compare for the consumer. If Nokia make phones at lower profits than Apple, that's good for consumers - yet recently the media spun that story as negative press for Nokia and positive for Apple. If Android or Windows runs on loads of devices, that's good for consumers - we don't care that Apple's model makes more money for them. The only people who should care are Apple shareholders - and if those are journalists, that's a conflict of interest anyway.
Re: Not bad...
Except there are plenty of high end Android phones (e.g., the S3), and plenty of cheaper Iphones (anything pre-4S - I've seen even the 3GS still on sale).
People buy Android (or Symbian, WP, BlackBerry etc) for many reasons - because they want that phone, because they believe it's better. That such platforms deliver the product that consumers want, at a lower cost than Apple, is an extra benefit on top of that.
Re: Tortoise vs Hare
1. You're comparing Apple's entire phone sales, to one single Samsung Android model.
2. I don't know, why don't we use actual facts rather than guessing?
3. As I explain in my other post, comparing sales of single models is a poor way to judge anything, and biased towards Apple. Not sure why being "cheap" is a problem - firstly, Apple's older phones also sell more cheaply. Secondly, if Samsung are able to deliver what customers want, at a lower cost than competitors, then that's something they should be praised for. Thirdly, even if you did compare only the expensive phones, it's not clear to me that Apple would outsell Samsung (since Samsung have other expensive phones, whilst Apple do not). Not sure why you dismiss the Bada smartphone OS either - that Samsung offer phones on a range of platforms demonstrates the diversity they have in their products. Bada alone sells at least as much as what IPhone did for its early years, yet the media barely mention Bada, whilst IPhone got nothing but hype from the start.
Re: Tortoise vs Hare
The 35M includes all Apple's phones, not just the 4S. Samsung sell IIRC around 40-50M "smart" phones a quarter, and for a more useful stat, far more phones overall (nearing 100M?) a quarter. Nokia are also ahead of Apple, though behind Samsung now.
Re: If Samsung sold more Androids than Apple did iPhones
Indeed. There's some referenced sales figures at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Smartphone#Historical_sales_figures - interesting to see how Android has left everything else, IOS included, behind in the dust. Also interesting to see how Symbian dominated before that, not Apple. Sad that the picture we've got from mainstream media reporting of the last 5 years has been so biased, and not at all representative of the actual true picture.
And still I see all these adverts for websites/services going only "Get this on your IPhone" - barely 20% of the market, outsold over 2 to 1 by Android, and with probably still a smaller installed userbase than Symbian.
Flawed stats that still try to make Apple look better
"Not quite keeping up with the iPhone 4S" is a completely biased comparison - Apple only have one phone per generation, where Samsung have loads.
The only useful stats are either comparing by platform (Android is way ahead of IPhone), or by company (where Apple are third behind Samsung and Nokia). Comparing by individual phone models is a useless stat, as it means that it's biased towards a company that has fewer models. *Worse*, it depends on how the models are labelled. Samsung and Nokia typically give different model names for small variations, whilst Apple don't. Why should a model have a different name just because it has a faster CPU, but not if it has more storage space, for example?
Any metric that can be changed simply by conducting a relabelling exercise is useless. If one ice cream company sells 100 cones, whilst another one sells 90 cones without flake, and 90 cones with flake, only a spin artist would suggest that the former is doing better!
I also note that this article doesn't say the IPhone 4S is selling better, it merely handpicks the statistic of selling X in so many days, which Apple always do better on (because the fanatics rush out and buy it immediately).
It's interesting to look at the history of Apple media coverage:
1. IPhone is number one (conveniently forget about Symbian, number one until 2011).
2. IPhone is outselling Android (conveniently forget about Symbian).
3. Okay, Android is outselling IPhone, but Apple are still the number one company (conveniently forget about Nokia)!
4. Okay, Samsung is way outselling Apple - but IPhone 4S is still selling more than Samsung Galaxy S3!!!
What will happen when the S3 is outselling the 4S (which is already happening in some markets, e.g., the top model in the UK for a year has been the S2 and now the S3)? My guess is the media will then switch to "Iphone 5 outsells Galaxy Note 2" - already the media are making the comparisons, since these two phones are expected to be released around similar times.
"making it the most popular smartphone series in the world"
Talking about a "series" is even more meaningless than models. Why do all of Apple's phones count as a single "series", but not all of Samsung's Android phones? The fact is that Samsung have been selling more smartphones than Apple (and that's before we get to the point that "smartphone" is ill-defined - why is the original Iphone, which couldn't even do apps, a smartphone, whilst many phones get labelled "feature" phones? This just means that 100% of Apple phones get compared to only a minority of Samsung's and Nokia's). It's kind of sad that stories about the immense success of Android and Samsung have to be blighted by this attempt to hand-pick stats to go on about Apple all the time, and make them look better (and I'm not just talking about this story - The Reg are one of the better places for fairly covering all the technology companies, the problem is more with the rest of the mainstream media).
Re: Obviously quite a bit
I must have missed that decade of non-rectangular tablets. What a shame, a world of triangular and oval screens would be quite interesting, even if completely pointless and unusable for a computer.
"but Apple have shown that this form factor along with many many other elements combined make a viable consumer product - so the copycat manufacturers without the time or skill to do advanced industrial design, move into the market and copy."
Yes, clearly it takes great skill to think to make a tablet (which has on it not much more than a screen) the same shape as a computer screen. Obviously no one would have thought that a rectangle would be the best way to make a viable consumer product. I mean: TV - rectangle; monitor - rectangle; phone - rectangle. I can see why most people would be confused as to what form a tablet screen should take. I'm glad we have Apple to help us out.
"The laws exist to afford protection, so the lawmakers must have considered those protections desirable. Commentards on The Register might view it differently"
Um, the law has ruled that Samsung didn't copy. But you're the one here commenting, trying to argue different...
" and stylus tap-drag to unlock has been around for ages, it's nothing new that a finger replaces the stylus; thus some form of prior art exists"
And surely in addition, any device with a touchscreen works with a finger, even if it comes with a stylus - thus the question of whether a user uses finger or stylus really is irrelevant. (Or were there devices that only detected touch from a stylus? I'm only aware of the resistive style touchscreens that respond to anything.)
Re: Like this
Perhaps companies like Archos should do similarly then, showing their 2009 era rectangular tablets (or media players, as they were more commonly called back then), alongside a 2010 identically shaped Apple Ipad, so "the consumer to form their own opinion".
Re: Should do EXACTLY as the judge said
"Think Different" is exactly what I do in response to Apple fans telling me I should use an Iphone or Ipad.
I do hope you criticised Iphone 4 for changing the resolution then. And I expect you to be first in line to criticise the Iphone "5" if it's ever released, if it has a different screen size. That's before we mention the many Ipads, all with different resolutions, and a completely different whopping 10" screen size.
And different Iphones have different CPU speeds, so they already have that so-called "fragmentation" at all.
"I'm also not saying that there aren't ways round these, there may be, but I'm not a programmer."
I am a programmer. Different resolutions or screen sizes aren't a problem. It isn't simply a case of "working round them" - rather, it isn't an issue in most cases full stop. You don't design software in "pixels" these days, you just lay out the UI that you want. And in any cases where resolution might be an issue, then you'd have the same problem with the different models of IOS devices too.
The only platform which doesn't have resolution "fragmentation" is Symbian, which standardised on 640x360 for the last 5 years, and is only used for 3.2"-4" devices, rather than tiny to large like IOS. Funny how I don't hear Apple fans praising Symbian over IOS for this - once again, made up criticisms like "fragmentation" only work if they make Apple look better.
Re: In fact
"a phone it's a mini tablet"
That makes no sense. If it's a phone, it's not a tablet by definition. Although reasonably we might refer to phones as being tablets too, that applies to all phones. I'd call 3-4" "mini"; over 5" is getting more towards mid-range.
(The idea of "tablet" meaning "big" has no basis in historical usage - any handheld device that wasn't a phone is a tablet. It's only Apple who decided to make an absurdly big tablet.)
Re: In fact
See YouTube videos, it fits in a pocket.
And so what - if men end up avoiding the Note, then Samsung have the S3 which fits absolutely fine in a pocket, so they're not losing sales. Not to mention that "people who carry handbags with them" is still a fairly big market, you know.
(Personally I find it mad that people are still so hung up on image that it harms their choice of technology. I suppose we should be glad that mobile phones weren't invented 100 years or more ago, otherwise they'd be categorised into "men's phones" and "women's phones". Imagine going into a phone shop, and having to restrict yourself to one part of the store - "Sorry, we don't have a Galaxy Note in the men's section, you'll have to have this phone instead"...)
Re: small sample
Yes that's exactly the point he was making - the survey was biased and not reflective of worldwide share, whether geographically, or otherwise.
And if you're trying to say this at least means that Iphone 5 will do well in the US - well, 52% is still too high, as Android leads in the US alone.
Re: small sample
Yes - and just to add to this, the problem isn't so much with sample size, but whether it's random. 400 would be more than enough if it was truly a worldwide random sample, with no bias on those responding. But we know it wasn't - the fact that it was only a handful of cities.
Consider how Iphone users always say how they've just bought an Iphone, and tell you they've got one every single day. It stands to reason that you're going to get far more people claiming they're next phone will be an Iphone - the majority of people who go on to buy from more popular companies like Samsung and Nokia care less about advertising the fact.
I also find it funny that this matters anyway - if market share is important to us consumers, then why aren't the media slagging off Apple all these years, for never having been number one, and instead praising the number one platforms Symbian and now Android? No - as always, the media twists things so a statistic is only important if it makes Apple looks best.
Re: Scale drawings of screens
Ah, your one anecdotal opinion trumps tens of millions of people buying 4.5"+ Android phones - more than anything from Apple - and the market research that Samsung would surely have done. Personally I have no trouble with my Galaxy Nexus, and the S3 looks fine too (a larger LCD, but the phone itself is barely any bigger).
Not that this is an argument against Android, since there are smaller Android phones too, including in the 4-4.3" range.
"if I want to watch movies or play games on the go I'll get myself a tablet."
I have a tablet. It's my 4.6" Galaxy Nexus, that's also my phone.
And if all you want is a phone to use as a phone, then pick up a dirt cheap low end Android or S40 device, or even a really cheap dumb phone. Why pay for the most expensive phone on the market, just for a tiny 3.5" screen that you are only using as a phone.
Re: If this is bad news for RIM then what about MicroNokia?
Someone had better also make those phone calls to the entirety of the media who claimed that Apple would rule the world in no time flat. I'm still waiting. Hell, wake me up when Iphone finally overtakes the now-deprecated Symbian in installed userbase.
(Really though - the fact that this ignores the number two phone maker - second to Samsung, not Apple - just makes this "survey" even more dubious. I suspect it's yet another case of "let's publicise the one stat that makes Apple look best".)
Re: UI freaking monster
*snort* I have respect for people supporting open alternatives like Linux, but I've got to laugh when it turns out you're using a *Mac*. Sorry, you're not different - you're still supporting a big company, a closed source OS that is no more "proper", and a company that is pushing a dumbed down OS that's far more a UI disaster than anything shown here.
If you're running Linux only on that Macbook, fair enough - but then I wonder why you felt the need to advertise what PC you'd be using. Oh, and I have Print under the File menu in Office under Windows (not that I'm sure why that makes sense, anyway).
Re: Reality distortion
Well I probably spend a few hours a day on my laptop all the time. It's perfect for browsing and book reading, and it's also great for music, video and photo editing.
I can't see a 10" tablet being nearly as useful for any of the above. Text is going to be too small, the UI is going to be fiddly, and the size is a bad compromise between pocket and briefcase.
Unless it's tied to specific content, a 10" tablet would be a me-too product - which is exactly what anyone apart from Jobs was trying to avoid.
I don't doubt it would sell, and there might even be a pick-up for Windows laptop sales as a result.
But it's not a particularly elegant or clever thing to be putting out.
(Seriously, if your point is to say that a 10" device is more useful than a 7" device, then those arguments apply far more so to 10" or larger laptops, that have better input options, and run proper OSs rather than those designed for a phone, and have a far bigger and better range of apps. But just as there'll be a niche of people who prefer 10" tablets anyway, there'll be people fine with a 7" one - and I suspect we'll generally see a pattern where it's the more portable devices that become more popular, as we're already seeing with the immense success of Android smartphones (and Nokia before that). Sure, there might not seem a great gap between pocket and briefcase to fill, but the briefcase is already occupied with far more functional laptops. When it comes to handheld tablet devices, 7" is far better than 10", because it can fit into a gap that 10" tablets/laptops can't.)
I agree with most your comment, but:
"That was definitely the case 5 years ago when Apple clearly had the best hardware/software combination in phones"
Really? The first Iphone lacked 3G support (hardware); couldn't do apps or even copy/paste (software). There was no "clear" about it - best is a matter of opinion here, and based on sales, most people have the opinion that the best was elsewhere.
"Contrast with Android"
Not true, there are plenty of Android apps that have larger screen versions.
You're right that Apple users for often get special attention with special Ipad and Iphone versions, where as Android users don't, but that's not a criticism of Android, it's a criticism of the way that the media and companies unfairly cater for Apple users, despite being a smaller platform.
If, e.g., Sky have an Iphone and Ipad app, but only have an "Android" app, that's not because Apple or Jobs are great, or Google are bad. It's because Sky are unfairly catering for Apple users over Android users (though I suppose Android users should be thankful to get support at all, when most platforms get none - Apple are always unfairly catered for first, despite never having been the largest platform in handheld devices).
Well, some people might not do the same thing on a 10" tablet as they do on a 4" phone/tablet.
But then, what was Jobs saying? "You need a 10" tablet to do things that you can do on a 10" tablet"? Well, thanks for that marvellous insight! The point is that smaller tablets are still useful, whether it's 9", 7" or 4-5".
Re: Why pay 900 quid...
I don't know what an "iPhone clone" is, but phones and smartphones were showing a clear continual trend of improving long before Apple. Sure, Apple introduced some things - but so did many other companies. The Iphone wouldn't even exist if it wasn't for those other companies. And the rise of Android tablets would clearly still have happened without Apple - it's Google to thank for that, for providing an OS for everyone. Indeed, without Apple, maybe I'd be able to get software support for my phone and tablet, rather than all the sites that only cater for the minority of Apple users. Suggesting that without Apple, mp3 players wouldn't have evolved is madness - the improvement in the necessary technology (e.g., storage space in Flash) was not done by Apple.
Tell you what - I'll thank Apple, when I hear an Apple user thank Samsung, Nokia, Google, Microsoft, ARM, NVIDIA etc. But you know what? I never ever have.
It's claiming that one random make of car revolutionised everything, just because you can find one thing that was better about it, even though there were loads of other ways it was worse. And then talking about it all the time, on and on, years later. Some of us are fed up of hearing about it all the time - start giving credit to the many other multinationals who have also made a bigger contribution than most.
Re: Why pay 900 quid...
The Ipad is a very big smartphone, so they hardly get credit for making something smaller. We've yet to see a small tablet that is a full blow PC - like it or not, the Surface will be that (whether people want that is another matter).
The Iphone wasn't smaller, indeed in 2007 it was larger than many phones. Nor did it sell more - the earlier sales were low, and it took years to get up to the level of other platforms. Symbian dominanted to 2011, since then it's been Android. By company, Nokia and now Samsung lead - so clearly it wasn't Apple who were first to get "smart" phones to sell. (The first Iphone wasn't even a smartphone, as it didn't run apps.)
My Sansa is far smaller than an Ipod, and my Samsung netbook smaller than an Apple Air. I don't recall them getting tonnes of hype and fuss.
Re: I wonder
Yes, that's why 90% of the market are out buying Apple OS X PCs, with only 10% buying Windows PCs. Oh wait.
(I like Linux and Windows... I have respect for someone supporting open source, but sorry, if you're saying we should switch from Windows to OS X, you're still supporting a big company.)
I agree about netbook resolutions - the weird thing is that the ASUS Transformer Prime does have a higher resolution, 1280x800. But that runs Android, which I'm not interested in. It seems odd to me that they think that Android has a higher need than Windows for higher resolutions - I would have said the reverse. It almost makes me wonder if there's something about Windows 7 Starter licensing that restricts what kind of devices it can be sold with...
I only hope that the higher minimum resolution of Windows 8 might force an improvement. Though part of me worries that the obsession and hype of tablets - and the spec of netbooks remaining mostly stagnant - will make netbooks disappear.
Re: Microsoft Surface
Well hang on, if you want a portable, the smaller screen is a good point, surely. Indeed, one reason I don't like the high end ultra-portables is because my Samsung netbook is actually smaller. For some reason it seems impossible to get any non-Atom based PC with less than 11", and the MS Surface looks to be the first one to do that.
Admittedly, you may have a point that it's a bad sign if most consumers aren't interested in high end ultra-portables, but then they also have the lower end ARM version. And the point of the Surface isn't to sell the most - it's like the Google Android phones, they're just there to set a high end standard. If it happens that most Windows 8 sales are from cheaper lower spec machines, MS still gain from that.
I just wish manufacturers would improve the low end of the market more - if we can have phones with HD resolutions and 2GB RAM, why are the 10" netbooks still stuck at 1024x600 with 1GB I wonder...
The Zune thing is a myth - sure, it didn't get to be number one, but that doesn't make it a complete flop. Unless you count the Iphone as a flop too, for being beaten by Symbian and now Android (or Nokia and now Samsung, by company). It's the same old story - MS get 10% in a market and it's a faiure, Apple get 10% in a market, and it's a runaway amazing success...
For you comment in general, surely a company that never has failures, is one that never succeeds? Success often involves taking risks, and no one succeeds every time.
Ultraportables around long before Apple
You're claiming that they copied Apple, because the side of laptops both look the same? You should get a job at the Apple Patent Department!
Expensive high-end ultra-portables were around long before Apple came along. Indeed, ultra-portables being more expensive was actually the norm - the change that happened more recently has been the drop in price, first with mainstream laptops, then with ASUS revolutionising the market in 2007 with cheap ultra-portables.
I suspect the big problem "Ultrabooks", or ultra-portable PCs in general (including Apple's) face is that consumers are used to low end laptops, and most people don't see the point in spending loads more. But then, I'm not sure that is a problem - they're a premium high end product, and it's usual for sales to be less than lower end cheaper products.
Saying that Apple sell more ultra-portables is just yet another hand-picked statistic to make Apple look better. Firstly as you say yourself, the stat is for all their laptops, and you just guess that it's mostly ultra-portables. But who cares if other PC companies are selling less in one particular segment, if overall they're still selling more than Apple? Indeed, perhaps most people simply don't like the high end ultra-portable form factor and pice point (personally I see it the worst of both worlds - my Samsung netbook is far more portable, and for high end use, my Clevo is far more powerful, and doesn't need to be as portable), just as most people also don't buy Macs. You might as well praise Apple for being number one in "phones that have 3.5" screens".
Also since Apple PCs also use Intel, I'm not sure how it's a fail for Intel anyway. They make money, whichever company it is selling PCs.
"Google has somewhat crippled their marketing plan by announcing the Nexus 7 tablet, which is more highly specced than anything else at the same price point"
Except this is $149, wasn't the 8GB Nexus 7 $199?
The main downpoint of this (aside from the crippled censored browser) seems to be still running Android 2.3, but price-wise, I don't think it's unreasonable that it has lower spec, when it's so much cheaper. And if it has microSD as someone pointed out, then if you want 16GB the price difference will be even greater (since the cost of an 8GB microSD card, or even 16GB or 32GB, is hardly anything).
For starters, most phones don't run vanilla Android, so at least we should be going by the dates of when things like HTC Sense or Samsung TouchWiz are released. I don't see how it's possible for manufacturers to do that separately, and it's also nothing that Apple do. And if you consider it bloatware, then buy a Google device that gives you the vanilla Android.
The staggered rollout is then that there are thousands of Android devices, compared with a mere handful of Apple phones, so it's not unreasonable to take longer.
I do agree though, it's annoying if there's extra delay added by the networks. I have a Galaxy Nexus, but I only received the latest 4.0.4 sometime after it was commonly available. I guess I'll see what happens with 4.1.
Re: Promised ICS
Most Android phones don't run vanilla Android. If you bought a phone that runs say Samsung's TouchWiz, then it's the releases of new versions of TouchWiz that should concern you - the release dates of the basic Android versions for those phones are no more relevant than say, MS announcing a pre-release of Windows 8: a taste of what's to come, but not the finished product for your phone.
If you want a phone that runs vanilla Android, then yes, you should have bought one that does, like the Galaxy Nexus.
Perhaps there is an argument that it's a shame that more Android phones or even all phones don't run vanilla Android; on the other hand, even as a Galaxy Nexus owner I have to say that Samsung do add some nice stuff. One of the many good things about Android is that you get choice, right?
I don't think the delayed rollouts are a problem anyway - it would only be an issue if it meant Android lagged behind other platforms in features, but this doesn't seem to be the case, on the contrary, it's way ahead in many areas. Meanwhile, Apple might get IOS updates out quickly, but when features like copy/paste, multitasking and even the ability to run apps were delivered years after the competition received them, I don't think the quick update counts for much.
So you're saying for Apple, innovation is using a rectangular screen? But not when other companies do that?
Re: The elephant in the room
Even on popularity, it's worth noting that the absurd amount of hype _preceded_ the Ipad even being announced, let alone released, so was not directly due to anything that Apple did. Once they'd got so much vast free advertising, they clearly had advantage over all the previous tablets (e.g., media players common in 2009, or the first Android tablets actually released from Archos before Apple), not to mention the advantage of being the only ones available in shops, and most of the media producing "apps" for Apple, but for no one else.
If it was the case that consumers looked at a row of tablets on a shelf, and picked Apple, then that would be fine - but it's sad that popularity was never decided like that. There's yet to be a fair fight in tablets - once other tablets are covered by the media and available in shops, then we'll see how the market turns out. Long term, I hope that Android gets the coverage and support it deserves.
(Also, I'd say that tablets have been popularised for years, far more so than Ipads, we just called them smartphones or PDAs. It's only the 10" form factor that only came a lot more recently. The media have recently redefined "tablet" to only mean a large device, to make Apple look like they were first, but this is not a correct usage of the term.)
Re: "Tablets are so bloody minimal in essence anyway."
No, but I saw media players around 2009 before Apple (which were tablets - i.e., handheld devices for media, Internet and software - they just weren't called that until Android devices popularised the term), and they looked the same.
Re: In the 80's
And the same thing in the media - most of the mainstream tech media is now "Apple is cool, anyone else sucks" playground arguments, there're few places to go to actually get objective unbiased coverage on new products.
"These are basic elements of the constuction of the device - necessary for it to exist. It also applies to the monitor I have in front of me."
Indeed. I did once have the misfortunte to witness someone say of a large flatscreen TV, "It looks like a giant Ipad!" Yes, something that is basically a screen looks like something else that is basically a screen. It hurt my head to hear someone saying that a screen looks like an Ipad, rather than an Ipad looking like a screen...
No doubt if the Apple TV rumours ever turn out to be true, people will be falling over themselves to say how Samsung, LG etc copied Apple, even though they were making TVs for years before.
Re: All very well...
Google is a multinational. How is it "foreign" when the affected employees live and work in those countries?
(Yes there are some more general worries about large companies lobbying in politics, but I'm not sure this is the topic to be criticising - there are plenty of examples where this does go wrong. And I don't think it's an issue of being "foreign", because they are not.)
Re: Obvious is obvious
I love the way people make excuses.
But the point is this. If Apple only have success one period every year, whilst other companies like Samsung have solid success all the year round, because they constantly innovate with new devices, I think it's clear who the winner is.
And I don't think the S3 demand is going to tail off quickly - the S2 was the number one device in the UK for 11 months (see my ref in my other comment to this thread), and they consistently outsell Apple even when their flagship device was months older than Apple's.
Samsung have long been number one!
The Samsung S2 has the top spot for about a year, and it just lost out to Apple in the month before the S3 release; the S3 has now already reclaimed this (e.g., http://www.telegraph.co.uk/technology/mobile-phones/9306491/Samsung-Galaxy-S3-displaces-iPhone-as-UKs-most-popular-phone.html ).
Comparing single models is highly misleading anyway, as Apple only have one phone per generation, while everyone else has loads, so it penalises manufacturers for offering more choice (not to mention that Apple does have different Iphone versions, which all get called the same - yet minor differences in Samsung phones might award it a different model number). The only relevant statistic for comparing companies is company sales, where Samsung beat Apple hands down.
Not to mention that "smartphone" is ill-defined - why is the original Iphone a smartphone, when it couldn't run apps, yet many of Nokia and Samsung's phones aren't smartphones? Whether something is a "smartphone" is simply down to how the companies market them. Comparing smartphones means you're comparing 100% of Apple sales to only a fraction of Samsung and Nokia.
For mobile devices, Samsung are number one, and Nokia number two. It's sad to see the way the media scrape the barrel to try to make Apple still relevant. And if we compare by platform, it's even worse - Android dominates, even Symbian still has a larger installed userbase than Iphone, and Iphone has never been number one.
It's interesting though that even on the flawed statistic of comparing individual models, the Iphone is beaten by just *one single model* of Android phone. Let's look at the years of reporting on Apple:
"Apple are number one!" (Ignoring Nokia and Symbian)
"Apple outsell Android!" (Ignoring Nokia and Symbian)
"Er well, maybe Apple don't outsell Anrdoid [or Symbian], but they're the number one 'smartphone' company" [conveniently ignoring Nokia, not to mention using the flawed definition of "smartphone"]
"Oh okay, Samsung also outsell Apple even on just 'smartphones', but the Iphone 4S outsells just one of many Android/Samsung devices!"
What are we going to see next? Perhaps the media will have compare the Iphone 5 to a lesser popular Android phone (I've already seen "Galaxy Note 2 to compete with Iphone 5" headlines...)
- IT bloke publishes comprehensive maps of CALL CENTRE menu HELL
- Nine-year-old Opportunity Mars rover sets NASA distance record
- Analysis Who is the mystery sixth member of LulzSec?
- Prankster 'Superhero' takes on robot traffic warden AND WINS
- Comment Congress: It's not the Glass that's scary - It's the GOOGLE