1282 posts • joined Thursday 18th June 2009 13:17 GMT
Re: as engadget, they are missing something
"but lets not ignore the ignorance of engadget or any US site regarding anything non Apple or Google."
Indeed - we should remember in general, it's hard to trust any reviewer when it comes to operating systems. If a site claimed that they'd done a review, that OS X was better than Windows, does it mean that that must be true? Or what about the reverse?
There's so much fanaticism in operating systems, even more so for phone OSs, that anything should be taken with a pinch of salt. On top of that, you've got the problem that most of the media seem to hate Nokia and love Apple (especially in the US, where Nokia have little presence, but it spreads worldwide too where Nokia are number 1).
Personally I find the Nokia 5800 browser just fine, but also have Opera too. If I had any phone, I'd still want to use Opera - so I'm glad I'm using a phone that lets me do that.
Whenever the Iphone misses a feature, it's "Why would I want to do that? There's another way to do it." Well, why not apply the same logic for Nokia? If you expect a "decent browser", well maybe I expect "decent multitasking, 3G, copy/paste, Flash, video recording, Java etc" - could I add all those in for free to any Iphone?
chuckc: "if Nokia wants to recover lost ground"
Recover what ground? They're number one, and sales have continually increased. No sales have been lost. The browser is fine. Is Windows doomed, because some people choose to use Firefox instead of IE, and think it better?
Five Hats: Good for you. I wouldn't consider phones from Apple. Different people like different phones.
"Specifically, your work phone will generally be a boring one: no lovely iPhone or Droid for you. Instead that badge of infamy, that infallible mark of boring corporate suitdom – the BlackBerry "
I bet you think the "PC vs Mac" ads that portrayed PCs as "boring" were good too.
I see loads of people using and having fun with Blackberrys, and I'd much rather have that than a corporate Apple phone. The claim makes no sense anyway: if Apple became the business work phone you'd be issued with, then Apple would become the "mark of boring corportae suitdom".
You can't have it both ways, and ridicule Blackberry for its association with business, but then praisr the Iphone or Ipad everytime a company considers it! By your own logic, the use of Ipads in business should mean they are now boring work devices.
I'm surprised you didn't sneak in a dig against Nokia there - your standards are slipping.
See how the fans want to thumb my comment down?
Any old phone can do Internet access/apps these days, I'm not sure why that was a controversial comment. The "You need an expensive smartphone to do that" is one of the new tech myths around.
Specials were awful
Actually, whilst people often moan about the later series, I don't think it was all that bad. I loved the episode "Beyond a joke", as well as the three-parter of series 8. Even though it wasn't consistently as good as the earlier series, I'd still rather see more of that, than nothing at all.
But it's the 2009 specials that were dire. I think I smiled once during the entire thing. Some parts I just cringed at - the mocking of the stereotypical fan, where he recites the joke about Rimmer quoting from the regulations book; except it's not funny when people do that. And I try to forget the dire Coronation Street tie in...
Ordinary people already have smartphones
Just not one with an expensive Apple logo. Since over 5 years ago, phones doing Internet, mp3s, 3G and apps (and video recording/calling/playback, btw) became cheap and bog standard. It's the Iphone that had to do catchup on many of these basic features.
It is true that some Iphone users wave it around as a status symbol, it's like the Adidas of phones; personally I prefer clothes (and phones) without a big logo on them.
I was once in the pub, and two strangers interrupted a conversation on phones I was having, to say in a snooty voice "Oh, we've got Iphones. Look at how shiny and sexy it is. We don't care about open source operating systems". I mean, what the hell?
Re: Too little, too late....
Good for you. Many companies don't get any pennies from me either - does that mean I should post on every article about them, saying "Too little, too late...."?
I like Nokia phones. And judging how they're the number one phone and smartphone company, and have been for years - despite all the free hype going to Apple whilst Nokia are almost entirely ignored in the media - I guess I'm far from alone.
Whilst the BBC Domesday project serves as a warning of what can go wrong with archiving digital data, this shouldn't mean that digital storing is always doomed to failure. The project failed not because it was digital, but because of stupid decisions - that should have been clear were stupid even at the start ("Yes let's make it only readable on one platform, clearly that will be around forever").
If someone today proposed storing data in a custom closed file format, on USB sticks, only readable on OS X, the pitfuls should be obvious.
It's like the original Domesday project being done by someone using a pencil to write on toilet paper, and then when the results are unreadable a few years later, proclaiming that paper is useless for storing information.
Competition is good
Talk about the moaners. So you think everyone should use Gmail, and it would be a Good Thing if there were no other email providers? I still use my ISPs email, is that bad too?
I'm not sure what Anton Ivanov refers to by Android tie in. Any competent phone (even my 6 year old dirt cheap feature phone that I threw away in the trash last year) can cope with any email provider.
From the point of view of POP/IMAP, they're all pretty much the same. I have to laugh when someone tries to promote Gmail based on its web interface - the bottom line is, you're still using a webmail just like Hotmail and Yahoo before it. Give me a dedicated client of my choice (separate from my choice of email provider) any day.
Christopher P. Martin: "will be mostly the domain of extreme shouty fanbois (sic) who go on about why it is better than everything else in the world eva."
Er, the only fanatics here are people moaning about how they hate a free product no one's forcing them to use (it's the same everytime we get an Opera story), and saying how Gmail is the best thing in the world ever.
"Much like the browser, I expect it will also be generally ignored and end up with a very small market share. In fact, since mid-2009 people have been ditching Opera, and the share is now flat-lining at around 2% from a high of around 3½%. Feet voting in action."
So by your logic, if market share is what counts, Internet Explorer is the best browser.
It really does infuriate you that much that someone has a different browser to you installed on their system? I'd switched to Opera from IE before Firefox even existed - long before it became trendy to do so. It's tiresome to hear the fanatics yelling about how people should switch to Firefox, when we'd started using a decent browser years earlier.
Reading a contract?
Well, there's having a rough idea of what you're signing. And then there's reading through 20 pages of small print, fully understanding what all the legal terms mean - and then keeping updated when they dubiously "update" the terms and conditions without your consent.
Whilst it's sad if people happily enter a contract without looking at it at all, how many of us actually read every last word?
"These days, I've seen shop assistants reach for their calculator to add a few simple numbers (both less than 20)"
I've seen Cambridge maths professors reaching for a calculator ... Using a calculator (which everyone has with them these days, even if just on a phone) isn't so bad as long as you know how to do the calculation. I fear the bigger problem here is that many people wouldn't know how to do it even with a calculator - that they wouldn't understand what percentage difference means.
Re: Orson Welles
"War of the Worlds 1938 broadcast. Lessons learned? Should be interesting to watch the reaction to these tweets. I imagine headless chickens on a grand scale"
Actually, if the UK Twitter Joke Trial is anything to go by: people on Twitter and so on will be more than capable of distinguishing fantasy/jokes from actual alerts, and it'll be the police and judges that can't tell the difference.
Ipad not an e-reader
Yuck, so now pilots have to be staring an LCDs? If you're going to replace paper, replace it with something at least as good.
And are they going to have to wait while the Ipad needs charging after every trip? What happens when it runs out of battery?
E-readers (which the Ipad is *not*) with e-ink technology would be the candidate to look at. Even there though, replacing paper in these situations is dubious. I don't think replacing paper makes sense until we get a technological equivalent to paper - e.g., the "electronic paper" that is being developed.
The sad thing is that even when we have electronic paper, that looks just like paper, can be rolled up, doesn't need power to update, can display colour and video - Apple will release an expensive tablet based on outdated LCD technology with an Apple logo, and still win all the hype, because "Ooh I can't play games on the electronic paper model and it isn't as reflective!"
"I guess the Kindle vs. iPad argument depends on whether or not colour and/or graphics are involved."
There should be no more a Kindle vs. Ipad argument than say, Kindle vs. Netbook, or Kindle vs. any other non-e-reader device.
The actual argument should be between Kindle vs. Sony E-reader; or E-reader vs. Paper.
F111F: If it's about the maps, Nokia have been providing offline mapping software (i.e., no network connection needed) to ordinary people since before we even started getting rumours about Apple's vaporware tablet. I don't see why it's news that Apple can now do it years later.
Apple were never top in smartphones
"The cool kids of yesteryear ran Linux. Today, they boot Macs. And tomorrow their children will use the even simpler-to-use iPads and iPhones."
Well *they* may think they're cool. The rest of us don't care. Though yes, it is a depressing point to see people who once advocated the merits and openness of Linux, now waving their locked down Ipads around.
(And as others have said, since when was Linux deemed cool? Don't get me wrong, I like Linux, but I can't say being a Linux geek was ever the sort of thing you'd ever think of as fashionable or trendy.)
"Even Google's Android, which has displaced Apple at the top of the smart phone heap "
Er what? Apple were never top. It was Nokia - who are still the number one company, by the way (since Android is made up of many manufacturers). In many quarters, RIM have outsold Apple too. Even if you're just looking at the US market, RIM were the leader before Android, not Apple.
Re: Just one question.....
Well by that logic, why bother with any PC?
Yes this might not be anything more than a PC in a different kind of case, but that also means it's no worse than any other kind of PC in an unusual case. Do you moan about Apple too, for stuffing PCs into their "Macintosh" cases? Or all the "shuttle" and custom PC variants out there too?
Well by that logic, the Mac is dead, and Apple should stop putting PCs into their boxes.
I can see your point if you'd like to see newly manufactured Commodore 64s, identical to the original. But I don't see how the fact that we haven't got that, is an argument *against* someone else doing this. Maybe some people would love to get their hands on some original Macintoshes, but that's not a reason to moan against Apple's line of PC hardware today.
Let's spin it around
"Apple spend far more on M&A than Microsoft and Nokia, but what have they go to show for it? Far fewer sales than Microsoft Windows, and Nokia sells ten times as many phones as Apple."
Doesn't look so good now.
This is the other flaw - it's not like Apple are a small company. They're huge. They're one of these "tech giants" in terms of money and employees. If they spend less on R&D, they spend more elsewhere. They are just yet another big company - whether they're more successful or not is just a matter of opinion of which statistic you decide to pick.
"have virtually nothing to show for it."; Apple are decreasing too
Er what? Nothing to show except for being number one in the market (Microsoft for operating systems; Nokia for phones and smartphones).
Looking at market share is misleading when the market is increasing - Nokia are not only number one, but continue to increase their sales. But if you want to, here's a fact:
Apple's market share is decreasing!
That's right, in tablets, despite all this R&D they spend. Why don't you moan about that? Yet instead, all we hear about Apple and tablets is "Oh, they're number one, and sales are increasing". You can't have it both ways.
Yawn, another troll article.
" at least one of which could probably have come up with a better idea than dumping R&D money down the Symbian rat hole and then capitulating to a Microsoft Windows Phone 7 strategy"
A rat hole? They've sold hundreds of millions of Symbian phones - far more than Iphones. How is that any different from Apple switching from Mac OS to OS X, or PPC to x86? Were they "rat holes" too? It's only a waste if the product isn't shipped - a better example would be Apple and their flailing about with Copeland and Rhapsody, before settling on OS X.
"One Mouse Button Is Better"
What I don't understand is - for years, we had claims that two mouse buttons were too complicated, and the combination of mouse button with option key press was better. But now, we're expected to believe that learning all kinds of complex multitouch gestures is better? Which is it?
If you think that explaining which mouse button to a newbie user is hard, how are you going to explain complex gestures? Especially say, over a phone or in a written article? No. Whilst some simple multitouch features are useful (the scroll and zoom gestures to replace mouse wheels), a well designed UI doesn't need anything more complex.
I was using workspaces on the Amiga years before Apple thought of them. Didn't need any multitouch for that.
What about Apple?
Well, it's obviously not news that other companies criticise competing products. But how is that any different to Apple? Indeed, their advertising campaigns are usually centred around moaning about flaws in Windows or "PCs".
As for making predictions - let's not remember that Apple became more popular by dropping their OS, then switching to x86. It seems those who stated flaws in Macs and 68k/PPC were quite right; Apple survived not by selling Macs, but by becoming a PC seller.
"Iphones and ipads are the same lock in strategy but covered up by being revolutionary and first to market. Coupled with perfect use of free news media to boost hype and desireability."
They're not at all first to market - the Iphones nowhere near. But yes, they do have the overwhelming free advertising and hype from the media, which comes even before the products are officially announced, let alone released.
"If most people had the choice, they'd buy a Mac."
No, they wouldn't. Not to mention that ignoring price doesn't make sense. You're basically saying "If the things that people didn't like about Macs were fixed, people would buy Macs." Yes thank you for pointing out the obvious - the same would apply to any make of PC.
"There was a report done a year or so ago (since when Apple's share has only grown) that stated that Apple took 90% of money on all computers over $1000. So, it would appear that when people do have the choice, they buy Mac."
No, it doesn't prove that at all. Just because some people spend more on them, doesn't mean we all would like them better. All it shows is Apple are expensive.
(Not to mention the condtradiction that people say Apple aren't expensive - which is it?)
"He's probably bitching that it doesn't come with a stylus, either."
I much prefer the option of a stylus on my phone. A shame they've all gone to rubbish capacitive.
Re: rival equivalent
Indeed, I read these and then download the Nokia equivalent. At least they review Iphone stuff though - a shame they miss out the leading smartphone platform. (And where's Blackberry too? It's at least as big as the Iphone.)
"Even *if* the political spectrum really is a Left-Right one-dimensional line, then it's a line bent into a circle where the ultra-extreme Left and ultra-extreme Right join into an indistinguishable evil smudge on the fabric of humanity."
Well that's the exact point being made here - to be meaningful, you need at least 2 dimensions. They consider left/right only in the pure economic sense of the word. In your example, both Stalin and Hitler ran authoritarian societies, so were not at opposite ends.
I was amused at this news - criticising expensive projects, but then it turns out he wants them to all use Apple (not to mention criticising Free Software) (and even if we ignore the premium of Apple; simply changing all the hardware would cost loads). Also with the complaints about "sexing" up IT - yet the thing that fans say about Apple products is they're good because of how "sexy" and "shiny" they are...
At the end of the day, Apple are just yet another PC company these days. As good as any other. But I'd be wary if someone suggests everyone should use products from one company, just because that's what he has at home. Stay open minded, and pick the best tool for the job.
Andy E: "Personally I have a MacBook Pro that is used for Office, web browsing and e-mail. It's over 5 years old and will probably last at least another couple of years before the 2GB of memory can't cope with the demands of the software. A usable lifetime of 7 years is not bad for a laptop. ... Laptop PC's that I have had have only lasted about three years. The processors have been underpowered for the later releases of Windows and memory expansion has been limited."
Not true at all. Surely you could get other 2GB laptop PCs in the same timeframe that Apple were selling their 2GB laptop PCs? Even bottom of the range PC laptops had 1GB back in 2006. And Windows 7 works fine on my 1GB netbook; 2GB would be ample.
In fact, given that 1GB is fine for me on Windows, whilst you're considering that even 2GB won't be enough in a couple of years, I think that's telling.
"mobile software developer program"
I love how Apple manage to avoid saying "Amazon's app store" - so I guess Apple think the generic term should be "mobile software developer program", despite the fact that no one in their right mind would use such a term? It doesn't even make sense - I'm not buying from a program, and "developer" implies it's only for developers, not customers.
I also note how the media have happily been referring to the store as an "app store" (e.g., http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-12119509 ), because that's what it is.
"Unlike Google's marketplace, which lets developers list any application after paying a fee"
Really? Nokia's app store is only 1 euro - how much do Google charge?
Lewis Mettier, the Fake: "Apple simply got there first, just as they created the smartphone market"
Er, no they didn't.
"Was the smartphone market anywhere near what it became after the iPhone?"
I'm not sure what you mean. The phone market has been growing continuously, so obviously it is larger now than it was years ago, but that is no more down to the original Iphone, than any other phone. A simple glance at market figures shows that other companies (e.g., Nokia) have consistently outselled Apple, even in the ill-defined "smartphone" category, so the increase in market _can't_ be primarily due to Apple, because other companies have been selling even more.
"The Apple Lisa was first commercially sold personal computer to have a GUI."
Even if that was true (it isn't), the Iphone wasn't anywhere near the first commercially sold smartphone. If you're trying to claim that it should be labelled "first" because of some unknown quality, I might as well say AmigaOS was "first" with a GUI, because the Amiga was much more affordable than anything from Apple.
It's the Apple definition of "first" - "first", if we ignore all that came before. Next you'll be telling me they had the first computer without floppy drive, or first 64 bit personal computer.
"Like in the recent announcement of 8000% growth in data traffic at AT&T since the launch of the iPhone"
So Iphone users sit on Facebook all day, and the Iphone apps guzzle data in the background. I'm not sure why that's a good thing. My Nokia is more intelligent with its network usage - e.g., allowing maps to be downloaded and stored on the phone.
"1-Click or Windows are also a common English terms."
I don't think Windows should be trademarked either - and they lost the initial case against Lindows. If someone took them to court, they might well lose.
Sean Baggaley 1: "If you file a patent or a trademark, the onus is on YOU to police it."
The point is that they shouldn't be trying to trademark it at all.
"So why not "Amazon App Market"?"
Why not "Apple App Store"? People aren't copying Apple - they're using the generic term for the thing being described. If that's not "app store", then come on, tell me what the correct term is?
Missed the boat? They're already number one in mobile Internet/app handheld devices
Nokia had non-phone tablets years ago (N800), it's just that more recently they've gone back to focusing on smartphone tablets. By this logic, it would be like Apple "missed the boat" because their tablet came later than Nokia's. And indeed, we could say the same for smartphones, which Apple entered the market far later.
But that's silly - tablets from years ago are no competition for tablets today. Similarly, it makes no sense that Nokia have missed the boat simply because they don't have a non-phone tablet out today but might release one in future.
But it's not just the "missed the boat" comment on an otherwise good article that makes no sense - it's the "yet again". Which other markets have they missed the boat on? Agreed they've had some lack of success (e.g., the attempts to move into handheld console devices), but so have many other companies. This doesn't stop them being the most successful phone and smartphone company, for years.
I love the spin between the two companies:
In smartphones, Nokia were in the market years before Apple, and were and are the number one company, with increasing sales. Do we hear "Apple missed the boat"? No, all we hear is doom and gloom about the falling market share.
In non-phone tablets, Apple's market share is falling, and predicted to fall further. Do we hear doom and gloom about that? No, for Apple all we hear is about them being number one and with increasing sales, and how other companies have "missed the boat".
You can't have it both ways.
Re: Which is probably why you are not a developer
"What about that nail-biting wait after making anything - if the customer doesn't approve of it."
Most people have more than one potential customer. The whole problem here is placing your dependency not on other companies (which is fair enough), but solely on one company, Apple.
Peter H. Coffin: You get an even huger market with Nokia and Android (each), together with mature and stable SDK, luxurious developer support, and delivery and payment mechanisms part of the package.
ratfox: By this logic, no one would write anything for Windows. Anyhow, debugging isn't a problem - with Nokia, I can remote test my app for free on any Nokia device. Apple have something like this too, right?
"since it has very few competitors."
For what? When it comes to mobile devices that can access the Internet and run apps, there are loads, including those that sell more. Everything from phones to other handheld devices to netbooks can do this - and were long before the Ipad came about.
What exactly is it that few can compete with?
"iPad's lengthy headstart"
Headstart for what? We've had phones for years, netbooks since 2007. Handheld devices like even Apple's own Ipod Touch, and devices from Nokia and Archos were also around earlier.
"The Motorola Xoom is just about the only product in the iPad's category that is actually on sale for comparison"
Aha, now we have it. It's the trick of shrinking the market down to look at only devices almost exactly identical. You might as well say that Apple have 100% market share of Ipads! But let's spin it around: Nothing can rival the Motorola Xoom, and the Ipad is just about the only product in the Xoom's category that is actually on sale for comparison. The flaw in this argument is that you don't have to have a device _exactly_ the same, to do the things people are interested in.
It's like creating a whole new arbitrary category for built-in-one computers that have a fruit logo on them, and then saying that Apple are the market leader.
(Also ironic the implied derision of devices not on sale - when it's the Ipad that's been receiving hype long before its release.)
But even if we do look at the ill-defined "tablet" market, and wrongly exclude smaller tablets like smartphones, Apple are still losing market share. Predictions show that they will massively lose market share further in future. They're a sinking ship, right? That's what people say about Nokia losing market share (despite being number one and with increasing sales), after all.
I don't understand this made-up netbooks versus "tablets" war. They're both the same kind of thing. We don't divide the phone market into whether they have a physical keyboard or not (or indeed, whether they have a touchscreen). You might as well separate devices into whether they have a webcam or not.
Trying to make it into some kind of war makes no sense either - there's nothing stopping companies producing both netbooks and "tablets", so it's not like one winning means other companies losing.
If they're releasing a dirt cheap netbook, I suspect they're setting their sights on other netbooks just as much as "tablets" (possibly more so, since "tablets" are often more expensive). Oh, and you can already get Android netbooks.
"This time round, thanks to smartphones, ordinary buyers aren't so fazed by non-Microsoft operating systems."
That doesn't make sense either - smartphones (and phones in general) were around, and popular, back then, and years earlier too.
It's not clear to me why Linux on netbooks lost out. But I don't think it's a software issue, as netbooks were sold, like "tablets", as simply "Internet and app" devices, not full PCs. Explanations include:
* People confused by Linux. It's not clear to me why this should be the case (Ubuntu is pretty good these days), but possibly there were still problems. Cut-down operating systems like Android have less complexity to them.
* Some of us do want Windows you know - and we still do. These people didn't want Linux netbooks, but they still don't want them, and won't get a phone-OS based "tablet" or netbook either.
* Marketing muscle from Microsoft - along with media hype. Linux has no company pushing for it. Android and IOS have Google and Apple respectively - along with the disproportionate amount of hype that they get in the media, which Linux never got.
@Leona A: The netbook is the small cheap computer. How is it not? No, it's not as powerful as a full blown desktop, but that's an unreasonable expectation. Plus ultra-portable laptops are these days small and cheap too, but very powerful, so why don't they count either?
Unless you mean really cheap, as in sub-£100. But I'm not sure that people have ever claimed this was coming? (And if you're going to look at historical prices, e.g., the price of some of the cheap 8-bits, do remember to take inflation into account.)
Hasn't it been released already?
I mean, surely, what with the endless stories, I thought it had already been released?
It's hard to tell actual news from vaporware when Apple stories are concerned.
Tablets and netbooks should be considered the same market
And this is exactly why separating "tablets" and "netbooks" into different markets makes no sense (other than to make Apple look better than they are).
It was obvious that we'd get devices like this - they run Android and have a touchscreen, but also have a physical keyboard, and can be positioned with the screen angled like a netbook.
With Windows 8, I suspect we'll also see more touchscreen netbooks (I believe some do already exist). I also *hope* we'll have some netbooks that finally give a higher resolution (more than 600 depth) - possibly with a physically taller screen, but even at the same size, a higher resolution would be good.
And just to add more to the netbook/tablet confusion, you can already get Android netbooks.
Nor is it clear why ARM versus Intel makes a difference. Android runs on x86; and there's no reason why you couldn't have an Intel Atom tablet.
Ignores netbooks, smartphones
As I just posted in the article about the Android tablet-with-keyboard, separating tablets from netbooks makes no sense. How do Apple's numbers look if we look at the true picture of portable computing devices?
And it's also not clear why we don't include smartphones, which are handheld touchscreen computers. Nokia beat them hands down, and they're also outnumbered by the various Android manufacturers.
If you're going to pick an arbitrary market, why not just go one further and say "Apple are the number one seller of Ipads"?
"Smart phones only became viable mp3 players well after Apple introduced the first smart phone that was actually usable."
Funny, I was playing mp3s on a bog standard cheap _feature_ phone - which I used, btw - long before Apple came along. And a device that couldn't even multitask or copy/paste doesn't count as a smartphone, let alone a useable one.
And I don't give me that stuff about the Ipod being usable. You can only use if through the appalling Itunes. When I wanted to play videos from another Ipod, I found the filenames all scrambled. With a player like the Sandisk Sansa, you just plug it in, and it Just Works.
I also get a UI, unlike the more expensive Ipod Shuffle.
Apple's Market Share Falling! Doom and gloom!
For years, Nokia's smartphone market share has fallen, yet they've still (a) remained number one, and (b) had an overall increase in sales (the increase despite falling market share is due to the market overall growing in size).
Yet instead of glorious articles about how they're number one, or selling hundreds of millions, instead we just get doom and gloom, often quite offensively so, about how they're therefore a failure etc.
Here we have Apple being number one, sales increasing, yet market share is falling. Sound familiar?
Yet instead, this gets portrayed in a positive fashion. Sorry, you can't have it both ways, so I'm doing it: "Look how bad Apple are doing, their market share is falling, other companies are therefore better, Apple need to stop making bad decisions otherwise they'll end up 'failing'."
"they even describe dumping nearly 50% of their user base as a selling point."
XP users can still use IE 8.
And Vista came out in, what, early 2007? I'm not sure that a requirement of a 4 year old OS is that shocking.
This makes no sense; if anything, phones and laptops are a more likely cause
1. Where is the evidence that the Ipad is responsible? Have netbook numbers in total fallen? Also note that correlation is not causation. If it is due to other products (and not simply market saturation), I would suspect that the continued improvement in power of smartphones from Nokia and other companies is a far bigger factor. Phones sell way more than the Ipad or any tablet. Speaking from personal experience: although I do now have a netbook, I bought it much later than I would have normally, due to my Nokia phone being good enough for most times when I'm travelling. There's also the point that most people have a need for a phone (hence buying a netbook is an additional cost). With tablets, it's a choice of a tablet or netbook - why would the device with less features at a higher cost win?
ElReg!comments!Pierre makes a good point also about competition from ultra-portable laptops. What was so special about the first netbooks in 2007 was not just their size, but their low cost. At that time, you had to pay a premium to get a small laptop. Now you can get small low cost laptops much more powerful than netbooks (typically 11", versus 10" or less for netbooks - personally I went for the smaller netbook, but I can see that many people would find an 11" a better choice). Have laptop numbers fallen?
2. And why is being third place bad? When Apple reach third place in a market, we get a fanfare of articles about how wonderful they are.
3. Note how these companies are selling millions per quarter. But half a million of a brand new release of a product that's received loads of coverage in the media is impressive?
I agree with the comments. It's sad that even articles that have nothing to do with Apple, still have to have an obligtary mention. It's like product placement.
Giles Jones: I can take notes on a netbook. What's the point in spending more on a tablet, simply to turn it back into being like a netbook? And recording audio is much slower to skim through to find a particular part. Not to mention being useless for when the lecturer writes down material.
tommy060289: "The truth is, net books are crap, slow and underpowered"
And how powerful is the Ipad? When people say netbooks are underpowered and slow, they're being compared to full laptop PCs. I wasn't aware tablets were any better - worse, in fact.
"On the other hand, I have a decent laptop for serious work and I take my iPad round with me at university as it is much easier to carry round then any laptop"
Oh I see - so your wonderful Ipad isn't up to the job, and you need a laptop for any serious work. So why not have a netbook and a laptop?
Sure, there are some people who will a niche for things smaller than a netbook - but then the Android tablets are better here, as they are smaller (not to mention phones).
What if you're out and need something with more power, and all you have is your Ipad?
How much free advertising? Wasted man years?
"almost all of them within 24 hours of the 'even more magical' gadget going on sale on Friday."
24 hours? I don't think so. There's been wall-to-wall media coverage and free advertising for months. Presumably they were taking pre-orders too. The 24 hour period was simply when they shipped.
And they do this everytime - "run out", so we get yet more non-stories giving them coverage.
Of course, now that the Ipad 2 is here, I guess the Register will be running stories of how many thousands of wasted man years went into Ipad 1 right (as with the Nokia story - apparently Symbian is all a waste, because in future there'll be newer Windows phones...) ?
"in fact, 49% were PC users "
That stat makes no sense - "Macs" are PCs these days. If you mean that 49% weren't Apple PC users, that still means that 51% were, suggesting most of the sales are coming from those who are already Apple users. This also ignores the 49% who may also be Ipod users. Perhaps there's nothing wrong with that, but I'm unclear what point the stat is trying to make (other than being yet-another-Apple-story).
I mean, how many Android phone users, once owned a Sony console? How many Windows netbook users have a Nokia phone? Are these all newsworthy stories too?
"If Android was as popular as iOS"
It's more popular.
The problem with this recent news is that we get two types of people:
* Those who like Nokia and Symbian, but are now sad that Symbian is to be replaced with Windows, and fear undue influence of Microsoft on a company that has been doing fine.
* Those who hate Nokia, and use this as another opportunity to bash them.
The result is, it looks like a whole load of people criticising Nokia, but it's important to note that these two camps are arguing from entirely opposite viewpoints. (I seem to fall into a small category of liking Nokia and Symbian, but being openmided to see what Windows brings them.)
Then we have people like Stevie above, who reel out their story about how their 5+ year old Nokia phone was a nightmare, as if that has any relevance today, or is fair to compare against much newer phones. (My old Motorola phone had an awful UI.)
Ilgaz: A good thing too they ignored him, since Ovi is doing just fine. Why on earth would they listen to someone who clearly has an agenda against their products?
(I don't like the Iphones, but if I wrote an article claiming "Iphone 5 is doomed", I wouldn't expect Apple to go "Oh look, someone says it's doomed - good point, let's scrap the product".)
"Guy told me there isn't a single UI for Qt on Symbian/Maemo and gave the list of mess on the article."
As a Qt developer, your "guy" is talking rubbish. There is one Qt UI. I'm not even sure what he could possibly be talking about.
"As he gave the list, I really lost 80% of hope in future of Symbian."
So you're fully supporting of Nokia moving to Windows, right? You can't have it both ways.
Steve Evans: My 5800 is the lower model of the N97, but it has no trouble with GPS lock.
"If you did one of the pocket Hitler mods would pull the post and tell you off."
I think this is more a trouble of "forum mods are idiots", than a problem with Nokia. The same is true of any product/forum.
"Android based HTC Desire Z, and do you know what, it's fan-bloody-tastic!"
A much newer phone is better than your several year-old phone? Well, amazing.
My Nokia 5800 is better than the original Iphone; and it beats my old Motorola hands down. But that's progress.
"As you say, Nokia's navigation of their randomly changing road map would make for a good depressing film, but I doubt anyone would believe it!"
Hardly - Apple would be a far better example of a randomly changing road map.
Dazzz: So Symbian has "quirks", while you acknowledge that Android has "bugs", but this is a reason to move to the latter, on the assumption that they'll be fixed? Why won't the quirks be fixed, also?
Giles Jones: "Nokia failed to grasp touch screens until it was too late. I seem to remember them announcing S60 touch and it still had support for a stylus, they completely blew it!"
This makes no sense. Firstly, stylus isn't a question of OS support, it's simply whether you have resistive or capacitive. Secondly, being able to use a stylus is a good thing - I like the option. But there is no requirement to use one.
And too late for what? They're still the market leader. They had touch screens for years before Apple. It was odd that they went through a phase of dropping them with the likes of the N95, but they've been back for years now. Apple were late to grasp all kinds of features, until it was too late.
Science, or supernatural? And time travel *is* possible
Time travel *is* possible - did it specifically ask about time travel into the past?
It's unclear whether the questions were asking specifically what technological inventions people thought existed, or was more broader than that. I mean, you get people thinking that time travel, teleportation and levitation is possible, through supernatural means. Still rather depressing - but then, we get a large proportion of the population thinking we can have virgin births and ressurrection from the dead...
And if we're going to mock, let's pick up the point that the link claims that stars can sing, based on that oscillations can be converted to noise. If you're going to allow that sloppy twisting of definitions, it doesn't seem unreasonable to claim I can see gravity, because I can see apples falling, or that alcohol counts as erasing memory.
What's more shocking is how many journalists think that Britons think that the TARDIS is real - the survey doesn't claim that at all.
Failed? Wasted? I don't think so.
An odd definition of "failure", if they're still market leader in phones and smartphones. It is absurd to say it's a waste - Symbian has sold millions, and made plenty of money for Nokia. The fact that they change to something new in future doesn't make it a waste! By that logic, we might as well moan about the endless man hours that Microsoft spent on XP, or Apple spent on classic MacOS!
If you mean failed in terms of writing their own OS - companies change technology all the time, and plenty use products from other companies.
Is it a failure, because Apple have to use an ARM processor instead of their own? I don't think so. And Apple ditched their own OS once themselves, resorting to building a new one on top of NEXT... Indeed, Apple themselves looked at several "dead ends" (Copeland, Rhapsody) in their search for a new OS.
Qt was also not a dead end - it will provide the SDK for the number one smartphone platform for a period of years, before the switch to Windows. Yes, it's a shame it won't be used by them for a longer period, but that doesn't make it a dead end. By that logic, PowerPC was a dead end for Apple, becaues they switched to x86.
The idea that Symbian is poor is also just point of view:
"Nokia's user experience was inconsistent, unforgiving and hostile"
Yawn, here comes the trolling. My Nokia 5800 works fine, and I'd take it over an Iphone that couldn't copy/paste or multitask, any day. And judging by market sales, most people still prefer Nokia. Maybe it was worse in the past, but then that goes for all phones too. If the best you can say about the Iphone is having flashy transitions via an expensive 3D chip that most people won't use, then that says it all - that's the kind of bloat that some people (ironically usually Apple fans) criticise Microsoft for!
It's a shame that Symbian and Qt won't be around. But let's not conflate that with the tired Nokia bashing. I mean, which is it? If you hate Symbian, you can't be sad that it won't be around anymore...
I also don't see why we get this flood of troll articles just because of a deal with Microsoft. Apple made a deal with them too, if you remember.
Seems fine to me; and Lindows *won* against MS
If the rules really do say so, then that's fair game. There's nothing worse than someone who tries to win an argument through simply pounding you with vast amounts of text... And trying to make the text smaller to fit more into a limit is a childish way round it.
And it seems a poor tactic for Apple (TM) to make a comparison to "Windows" - in the case against Lindows, Microsoft lost the initial injuction against them on the grounds that Windows was a generic term in computing. If it ever was brought to court, there's a good chance that MS would lose.
Same for the people in these comments bringing up Windows and Word - this is the equivalent to "But Officer, those other people were speeding too". Two wrongs don't make a right.
Now seriously, if Apple (TM) decided to respond to this by challenging MS's trademark of Windows, that would be fair game. But saying that Apple (TM) should be allowed to own generic phrases, because Microsoft do, is poor logic, and just results in more corporate ownership of common phrases.
If it's not an "app store" (TM), then what word do I use?
Goat Jam: Completely false - they chose to change their name, because MS paid them. See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Microsoft_v._Lindows :
"The judge denied Microsoft's request for a preliminary injunction and raised "serious questions" about Microsoft's trademark. Microsoft feared that a court may define "Windows" as generic and result in the loss of its status as a trademark."
And saying they should own app store because most references apply to Apple (TM) would be ridiculous. It would mean Microsoft get to trademark "operating system", Google get to trademark "search engine" and so on.
For a moment I thought they'd open sourced it. I get free updates on my Nokia all the time, not really news.
I did tethering on my 6 year old cheap feature phone. Unless it means turning the phone into a Wifi router, but I thought that was common on high end phones these days too.
I can't remember the last time I paid for a development environment. I think it was AMOS on the Amiga 15 years ago. (And good it was too - though I still think that the official SDKs should always be free, whether it was the Amiga back then, or Windows, Linux, Symbian and Android now.)
DyXym: "In the short term it probably makes no difference since Apple is sitting on top,"
I agree with your post, but this isn't true - Apple aren't on top. They're about 5th place in phone companies, and 3rd by "smartphone" OS share. The reason it makes no difference is because of the large companies that will churn out Iphone apps no matter what, whilst ignoring the more popular platforms.
Spongibrain: MS give the Express versions away for free. And Qt for Symbian, and whatever SDK Android uses, are free (and open source).
They want to have their cake and eat it - if it's really true that looking at images makes you do what that image shows, shouldn't an interest in looking at _adults_ make you want to do things with, you know, adults?
"Apple invented the smartphone market" myth
"Like it or not they invented the market for smartphones and tablets. "
No, smartphones existed years before Apple entered it late. And other companies (Nokia, RIM) did and still do outsell Apple. So it *can't* be true they created the market - because there exist other companies that did more to create that market.
(The original Iphone wasn't a smartphone anyway - can you give me a definition that doesn't also include feature phones?)
As for tablets, they weren't the first, and they're now just one among many.
"And, not surprisingly, everyone else wants a piece of it, so Apple will fact some competition."
You've got that backwards. Companies like Nokia created the market, and not surprisingly, companies like Apple wanted a piece of it.
"behind in both the UI and the number of apps"
Citation for number of apps? Windows on my netbook has far more apps. And give me an example of a UI feature that is better in IOS? Every Apple UI I've used is awful; and that's before we consider things like lacking basic UI features like copy/paste.
To the other anonymous coward:
"All apple did was to come up with a very good UI which opened the market for smartphones to the mass-consumer instead of the tech or business users. "
Actually, even this is being too kind to Apple - when Nokia are outselling Apple two-to-one on smartphones, this can't all be to business or tech users. On the contrary - in my experience it's only been geeks where the Iphones have been primarily liked. As you say, they've never been the market leader, so it *can't* be true that they are number one for the mass-consumer market.
"Jedi" isn't the problem
I think the claims about problems with the Jedi response are overblown - for 2001, it was a good protest in itself, being a criticism with the question in itself (you can't do that if you answer No religion), as well as parodying the idea that beliefs should be respected simply if enough people believe in them.
Having said that, in 2001 there wasn't AFAIK a campaign push for "No religion". Now that there is, it's good to get everyone putting that one response.
But I still think the problem isn't a few people putting down Jedi. The problem is millions putting down that they are Christians simply because they were baptised, or identify as that culturally, even if they don't believe in it.
"In any case, the British people are quite capable of judging for themselves what box they should tick. They don't need to be told."
Sadly there's plenty of evidence that shows poll responses can depend heavily on the wording.
"If the Archbishop of Canterbury were to launch a campaign pleading for people to tick the Christian box, it would be rightly ridiculed as a sign of desperation."
Er, the Church of England still has plenty of power; has a privileged position as part of the Monarchy, and having seats in the House of Lords. Christian worship is still a legal requirement in all state schools.
If his point is to say that secular people are still in a more deperate situation than Christianity - er yes, that's the point.
Whilst in many occasions the BBC News strive for non-bias, and they are better than many news organisations, this unfortunately is not always the case.
With Section 63 ("extreme" images law), the BBC over a period of years gave coverage to Liz Longhurst for the campaign in support of the Government; getting an opposition viewpoint to be covered took a great deal of work and protest. (See http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/theeditors/2006/08/all_sides_of_the_story.html - the BBC were overwhelmed with complaints, and they did to be fair change their coverage of the story. However, since then they often flipped back to only giving a say to the Government and Longhurst.)
Radio 4 also covered the issue on Today (entirely giving a pro-Government law viewpoint), and Women's Hour (where they had a "debate" featuring two people in support...)
No different to Apple...
...over 10 years ago, I remember a certain "bribe" from MS to Apple. Apple seem to have done well out of it, and hopefully Nokia will do. That was for far less than $1 billion, IIRC. To be fair, people moaned about that deal too, as they will do now...
The news is hardly a surprise - clearly MS have a lot more to gain from this, as someone trying to break into the market, with Nokia being the number one phone and smartphone company.
And good news about Qt ( http://www.theregister.co.uk/2011/03/07/nokia_qt_bye/ ):
Firstly let's not forget what Nokia have done - most importantly, making Qt open source (before it was some odd license, that wasn't available for free use on Windows IIRC).
They've continued development, supporting desktop platforms, and also adding support for the number one smartphone platform.
But this move is also good news - with the recent Nokia/MS news, they're passing it to another company, rather than letting it drop (of course being open source, someone could always fork it as a last resort...) This potentially opens the way for other mobile ports, to Android, Blackberry - and even Windows, to keep Qt on Nokia. (Even if Nokia had stuck with Symbian/Meego and Qt, it's unlikely they would have developed Qt for other mobile platforms.)
"The Nokia brand (trademark) is worth something, but that will be dealt with by the rise of the OS brands. If I wanted a phone now, I'd look for an Android one, I wouldn't be looking for a particular manufacturer."
Ah, a survey of one anecdote!
Nokia are still the number one company. And they advertise under the name "Nokia" - they've never advertised terms like "Symbian".
Meanwhile, the Iphone is advertised by product - how many people go looking for an "IOS phone"?
Android is a special case, as an OS that runs on many manufacturers' phones, though even there, I'm not sure how many people in the mainstream care about the OS.
"I hope Nokia enjoy there 1 billion as there market share in 5 years will prolly be somewhere around the size of the employees of microsoft plus the employees of nokia."
This is the new "Apple are going bust", which we've been hearing for years since *their* deal with MS. People have been saying it for Nokia for years too, yet they still consistently outsell everyone else.
It's opt-out, not opt-in!
The filtering system being proposed is opt-out - i.e., it would be on by default, until you opt out. That's what opt-out means.
The Government MPs in question are spinning this as "opt in". They don't mean that you'll choose to opt in to the filtering system. No, they mean it'll be on by default, but you can "opt in" to view pr0n (nevermind that the filters cover anything 18+).
It's grammatically wrong (the filtering system is what we're talking about, not pr0n). It's technically wrong (suggesting that the default is an Internet with filtering enabled). It's misleading. Let's not let them get away with this spin.
If we talked about an opt-out organ donation system, it would mean organs are donated by default. No one would call this "opt in" claiming "You're opting in to keeping your organs"...
I don't see what Apple PCs have got to do with this, it ought to be obvious that Microsoft might be concerned about a bad image of its products as a result with installed software from retailers. To be honest, I'm surprised that they put up with it at all (given all the terms they've dictated to PC sellers in the past...)
As for boot times, my Amiga booted in 5 seconds - and that was with a tiny fraction of the power that OS X needs to run. Complaining about Windows being bloated is about 15 years out of date - OS X requires high requirements these days too.
"Where can granda joe or yummy mummy sal by a PC with Linux pre-installed? Sorry? Can't quite hear you there?"
That's how it used to be for MacOS and OS X - I don't recall Apple fans having a problem recommending them, however.
"and with the Apple iPod/Phone/Pad/Stores halo effect it is driving more people in to the hands of Apple as a one-stop "it just works"(tm) "
These products don't just work any better than any other product. My Sandisk Sansa just works - I just plug and play, unlike an Ipod, which requires installing of special Apple software, and can't be used on another computer because all the filenames are scrambled. (Maybe there's a way, but I expect it to Just Work.)
"Take a quick shufty at what the (large number of) Mac users are doing"
What's so special about that? They're just another brand of PCs these days - no different to Dell or Asus. I would hope that you can do things like writing a document on a Mac.
Herbert Meyer: "New disks are cheap, OEM Win7 cost about $110."
Actually, if you have a valid licence (e.g., you've but a PC with the crapware and want to have a fresh install), you can download the ISOs (somewhere on MS's website). I did this for my netbook, as I wanted to have the installer DVD for backup.
"It is user experience that Apple have over them."
Give me an example of a better use experience? Because I have yet to see a single example. I can however cite plenty of examples of bad UI experiences (e.g., see above with the Ipod).
Re: ha ha
"IE 6 still has a greater market share than all opera version combined..."
And modern IE versions still has greater market share than Firefox. Ha ha.
Or maybe being more used doesn't mean it's necessarily better. I get tired of people whining about Opera - it's an excellent browser, but if you want to use something else, that's your choice.
Opera was also about when IE 5 or 6 was the only alternative. When I switched from IE, Firefox wasn't even available, and I switched long before it became trendy to do so.
Parental controls? I don't think so.
Surely any competently written age-restriction software would block access no matter what application was requesting them? Implementing it on a per-application basis is an obvious flaw and loophole.
I mean, so sure - Apple can mark Opera 18+, but that hardly solves the problem, as any kid can download Opera for their website, and get round the block. So as a parental control, it's utterly useless.
How on earth do the various filtering software you can get for Windows (and presumably OS X) work? Clearly applications aren't written to take account of filtering software, but they somehow manage to do the job.
Also, presumably any competent OS these days requires admin privileges to install an application, which can be withheld from the child, again meaning that age restrictions aren't needed?
Why is skinniness important?
Skinniness may be hard to be, but why is that important? It's the least important factor - I don't care that my netbook is slightly thicker for example, when it's still light and portable. (And it's also amusing to note that whenever someone points out actual flaws in Apple's products, the response is always "But why would I need to do that?" - yet completely pointless peculiarities about the producted are touted as being essential things.)
My Samsung netbook is way cheaper than an Ipad, and does more. Samsung are doing fine.
Re: Why the obsession with making things thinner?
I agree, I thought the same about the Apple Air laptops. If I want smaller, I'd rather my netbook. Being thinner is almost always completely useless, and just something to put on the blurb.
Worse it comes at the expense of functionality - the Airs only have 2 USB sockets, presumably because that's all that will fit...
So is this offering something that isn't available on other platforms?
For UK viewers, the BBC have at least written applications for multiple desktop and mobile platforms. The Iphone etc only need their own applications, because they're not capable of common standards like Flash. (Although if it's true that the Flash applications run poorly on other platforms, they should sort that out, just as they do for the Iphone.)
But I wasn't aware of a current way by which non-UK viewers can subscribe to Iplayer?
Come on now - when the BBC favoured only Windows on the desktop, there was an uproar. But at least you could say that Windows is (a) number one, and (b) covered 90% market share. Neither is true for Apple - for (a) the Iphones are way behind Nokia and Android, and (b) even if we only look at "smart" phones, the share is just 15% (less than 5% if you look at all app-capable phones). For the Ipad, it's outsold by Windows netbooks.
dotdavid: "I'd program my own app that used the iPhone streams, but you know they'd just get it removed from the Market"
Actually I believe that they've now prevented that - there used to be a desktop application that would download Iplayer videos via the Iphone API, but now it's blocked!
Eponymous Cowherd: Hmm, the Flash Iplayer application works fine on my Nokia 5800, and that's with an old ~400MHz processor. Does Android struggle with Flash?