1859 posts • joined 18 Jun 2009
Re: Could we build a mausoleum to house him?
Indeed. Fair enough that Apple lovers want to remember their idol, but I got a bit sick of them saying that everyone else should care about it too - when I knew damn well that they didn't care about any CEOs or inventors of the companies and products that I like, or that millions of people use and love every day. I doubt they could even name the CEOs of companies like Samsung, let alone know if they died. (Plus it also annoyed me that people turned it into an excuse to slag off other company's products - "Jobs made things much better than everyone else did" - ready to play the "disrespectful" card if you disagreed. There are people behind those other companies too, though.)
Earlier this year also saw the sad death of Jack Tramiel, who founded Commodore which gave us the C64, and manufactured and sold the Amiga (well, of course we might blame the bad handling - but the flipside is that with no Commodore, the Amiga might now have been picked up by anyone). These products did far more imo to popularise and bring computing to the masses, than some expensive business computers owned by a privileged few.
This got some coverage in the media, but not one of the people telling me I should care about Jobs mentioned the death of Tramiel - I doubt they were even aware of it.
Re: I remember 10 or so years ago
Well who died and made you derpmaster general?
Your points seem to be in agreement to me - that MS OSs are criticised when they come out. Yes, part of it is that MS fixes and improves things, but then, no reason to think this won't happen with Windows 8 too.
If people were simply saying "I'm steering clear of Windows 8 until they fix up the issues with a service pack, then it'll be great - that's how it is with every other MS release", then fine - but they're not. Instead it's talking as if Windows 8 is fundamentally flawed. People aren't saying that XP was crap until they fixed it - it's hailed as the best MS OS ever.
There's also talk of Windows 8 being a complete flop because of it. Do the flaws that you yourself say were in XP stop that from being an amazing success? And if you say "No because they improved it", why should we think they won't improve Windows 8 after release?
We may well see in 10 years' time, people saying "Windows 16 is a bunch of rubbish, stick with the wonderful Windows 8" - yes, it may well be that this is an improved Windows 8 after a service pack, but nonetheless, that's a completely different story to the claims that Windows 8 will flop, and everyone will move to Apple itoys or Linux, or stick with XP.
"forget that opinion of XP changed overnight"
I don't agree at all - e.g., many of the criticisms I remember about XP were things like the look and feel of the UI, which exist to this day.
How is Windows 8 completely broken, OOI?
"For the record, I still love Windows 2000. I refuse to touch XP unless it's SP2 or later, Vista an go [censored] itself, and Windows 7 only became usable on older hardware after SP1."
You're missing the point. This isn't about one person's opinion. Sure, that's your opinion. My opinion is that I preferred Windows 2000 to XP, and now I prefer Windows 7 to either. Everyone has different views. I'm just drawing attention to the groupthink of sites like here, where new MS OS are always slagged off, and I'm laughing how XP is now hailed as the best MS OS ever. Like you, I stuck with 2000 during that time. If it was 2000 that was being upheld as the best, then that would be consistent.
"But hey, don't let me stand in the way of your blinkered view of history"
I'm not the one claiming that XP was seen as wonderful all along, like some people here. You may have some opinion that changed overnight with SP2, but that doesn't speak for everyone.
Re: Win8 without Metro would be awesome
So the key issue is not the UI in general (as you can just still use the windowed UI anyway, as you note), but the Start screen.
I don't get it - why doesn't the Start screen work well with keyboard/mouse? On Windows 7, I hit the Windows key and type the name of the app. On Windows 8, I hit the Windows key and type the name of the app. (On Windows XP, I hit the Windows key, type the name of the app, then remember and get annoyed, and then have to faff about with the menus.) I'm generally curious here - I see a lot of criticisms about the start screen, but I don't see anyone explaining what the problem is?
False, Windows XP had a different start menu (though you could revert to the classic one). Windows Vista/7 also have a new start menu (but now you can't revert to the 2000/9x one). Windows 8 also has a new one - and it's the start screen which is really the main difference that is forced upon people (the full screen interface being optional, with the "windowed" mode still being fully available).
Also the general UI of Windows has had changes throughout the iterations. Nothing major, but the same is true between the windowed UIs of Windows 7 versus 8.
Well yes, but then that just makes the survey not useful anyway. It's not clear to me that such people are more likely to like a new MS OS - given the criticism against any new OS from MS around IT/geek places, if anything it's the reverse.
"It replaces a relatively compact menu arranged in hierarchical way"
Didn't that version of the Start Menu go out with Windows XP?
The only way to view all programs in Windows Vista onwards is to see a long scrolly list. So I don't see why the Windows 8 screen is worse - I'd argue it's better, as you now see programs listed by their icon and name, whereas in Windows 7 they're just folders of only the name, and sometimes instead company names.
Recent applications is still there in Windows 8, I thought?
And most of the time it's quickest to just launch something by typing the name, which still works in Windows 8.
I've used Windows 8, and I honestly don't see the problem of using the start screen with mouse and keyboard.
"could span several yards"
Yes good, if I'm looking through all my software, I'd rather it use the entire space of my monitor, than having to scroll through some pokey little list that occupies just a fraction of the available space, like in Windows 7.
"On top of that most of the metro "apps" are so dumbed down that there is very little reason that anyone on a desktop would wish to use them."
Oh come on, have you ever made much use of the built in Windows apps? How many people here use Windows Mail as their email client? That's the point, they don't expect more experienced people to use them - the built in apps have always been dumbed down, as anyone who knows more can and will go and download their preferred program.
It's a good thing that Windows 8 doesn't insist that then.
Re: Good luck with WP8 phones if Win 8 tanks
When the iphone was first released, I remember Apple fans bragging it was running OS X(!) I don't recall Apple ever being criticised that their phone couldn't run OS X software.
Re: Not surprised
It's worth noting that most the upcoming "tablets" are hybrids, so it suggests that they think the best situation is to have a keyboard for real computing, but use a touch-optimised new interface when you need the portability. Which I think is the right choice. I don't want to do windowed/"desktop" applications on a touchscreen, and I don't want to do small windowed/"desktop" applications if I'm walking around with a tablet.
"And if you're not planning on running traditional desktop apps, then why would you even consider a Windows tablet?"
Some obvious things I can think of off the top of my head: Even though the UI needs to be redone, porting is far easier. Also easier integration, e.g., Windows networking (useful both for business and home).
Also the question seems odd - even if I couldn't run desktop apps, since you can't do that on any other tablet OSs, it's not a negative. I would still at least consider the available options when buying something.
I remember 10 or so years ago
On geek/IT forums like The Register, Slashdot and so on, Windows XP was slagged off all over the place, instead users preferring Windows 2000. There were good arguments too - Windows 2000 had all the good things about XP, and the benefits of XP were more consumer oriented things that geeks would rather turn off anyway.
So I now find it laughable that on these same places, history has been rewritten to hold up XP as being the best MS OS ever!
The criticisms of Windows 8 seem to be far more like with XP, rather than say Vista - namely it's not that it's bad, just that users here don't see anything particularly special, and they'll happily stick with the current latest version, at least for now. (Though as the article notes, there are improvements to the OS that are nothing to do with touchscreens. Personally I'd be happy to finally get the damn pause button when copying files!)
Re: That's gotta hurt
"People like one MS better than another - therefore Apple are best"
We heard this Apple fanatic logic with Vista, and it didn't make sense then, even with Vista being awful. It certainly doesn't work for Windows 8. At least move to something like Linux, where you do get choice, rather than dumping one big company for another with less choice.
People prefer what they know
Let's face it - geeks liked Windows 2000 and moaned about XP, but years later, XP is hailed as some kind of best MS OS ever...
And whilst we might all agree that Vista was bad, it's worth noting that Vista did introduce a lot of the ideas that are now liked in Windows 7 - it was just badly implemented, or the hardware at the time wasn't up to it.
To add to that, a forum more likely to be frequented by geeks are probably less likely to care about more consumer oriented features. It also seems to be the case that people like us are more sceptical about new updates. And does not liking the MS Store mean people actively think it's horrendous, or just that they don't have any interest in it?
As for the Surface - what about all the other Windows 8 tablets and hybrids? If 35% would buy a Surface even before we consider the other Windows 8 tablets, that's pretty good going!
I also don't see why the phone survey is bad news - it's already clear that Android is way in the lead anyway, but if Windows 8 can take second place over Apple, that's surely a win.
Re: Apple has peaked
I don't think anyone's saying that style isn't important - but it is a problem if a phone only has style, but no substance. Of course you might disagree that it doesn't have "substance" - but that's the disagreement. No one says that style isn't important.
Other phones have style too. And in my book, style doesn't come in the form of an obvious tacky logo. Same reason I don't go for Adidas clothes either, though no doubt some people think it makes them look call. I mean really, if technology was like clothes, would you go around with a light up Apple logo on your back? (Though then again, I'm sure that some people would...)
Re: Apple has peaked
Given that people have reasons to buy phones at different times, it seems rather risky to base a model assuming that everyone wants to upgrade at the same point once every two years...
(It doesn't help that they can't even stick to that - it's been 2.5 years since the iphone 4... Also unfortunately, the iphone 5 is really the 4SS - still an incremental upgrade.)
Why would they be forced to licence their OS to third parties?
Re: Deal breaker
"I say Apple leads there now, and so do the stats."
Reference? You may be right, I'm just curious to see the breakdown in sales.
"Android may have an overall bigger market share, but that's spread across lots of phones from lots of vendors"
Being spread over lots of phones is irrelevant. As for manufacturers, Samsung alone sell more Android phones that Apple's entire phone sales. By about a factor of 2, in Q2 2012.
As for profit:
"which is the prime indication of market power"
No it isn't. Yes, Apple do well in profit, but I don't care about that. The only people who should care are Apple shareholders. I'm not an Apple shareholder, so this isn't the prime indication for anything I care about.
I don't know what an elephant is.
I do agree there is a difference. Apple are out to make profit selling overpriced phones to a niche. Google want a platform on as many devices as possible. I agree entirely. (Plus I don't think it's just about information - they also get a 30% cut through Google Play, and it seems they do want to build on this to create a general sales portal for every smartphone - even if that wasn't their original intention, it's one that will create money for them.)
Your Oracle analogy isn't valid, as Sun hardware is a minority. Here, Android is by far the dominant platform. Not catering for the minority of Apple users is no more relevant than not catering for Symbian, Blackberry, J2ME or anyone else (iphone being number 2 is very recent, only as of this year - and that's in quartery sales, not installed userbase - and they're way behind Android, making them a niche like anyone else).
Re: Deal breaker
"Or it could simply be that Symbian is dead as an operating system"
It's mostly phased out, though there's still a massive userbase. If it was just Symbian maybe, but dropping out all other platforms suggest something more.
"why use J2ME when maps runs just fine in pretty much any smartphone with a web browser?"
Right so years ago I could run it on any dirt cheap Java smartphone, now it only runs on more expensive smartphones that run the right kind of OS (not pretty much any). Although fair enough, if the website works better with mobile web browers these days, there's less need for specific "apps".
"and have apps for the 2 biggest platforms (which Google had pre-iOS6, and will have again whenever they get their app done)."
They only had it for Apple because they paid for it, and there's no evidence they plan to cater for the minority of Apple users (and sorry, it's misleading put Apple on the same level as Android - Android is way ahead, and if they only want to cater for the biggest, they might as well just support Android and nothing else).
Plus if it works with the web browser, why does Apple need a special app? Android does because you get more features - the sat nav. But why does Apple need an app for something every other platform can do in the web browser?
I don't see evidence that these days, Google are so concerned about getting their maps on every phone - and with Android so dominant, they don't really need to, I guess.
Re: Apple eh?
Oh yes, it did annoy me that the minority of Mac users looked down at more advanced platforms as being merely "games machines".
The joke is that now, Apple fanatics think their itoys are cool because they can post to Facebook and play games, and write off Windows PCs as being "boring business machines"!
Re: Deal breaker
"My sense is that Android is never going to trump IOS as the luxury segment's phone of choice because this is Apple's core business and not Google's."
Who says IOS leads here now? A large number of Android sales are coming from the high end phones like the S3 an Note. I would be interesting to see what sales are in say, the market of phones over £200. (Although looking at "luxury phones" is a flawed stat anyway - it just rewards Apple for being expensive.)
Also, if maps were more important, I'm wondering why they seem to have pulled the maps versions for other platforms - years ago I could run the app even on a low end "feature" phone, but the J2ME no longer seems to be available on their site. Similarly I can't find the Symbian version any more. It seems they're making some decisions to keep some things Android only now.
Re: Apple has peaked
Swype improves my typing speed significantly.
And I get style too.
Now your turn - what "substance" does it have, that no other platform does?
Re: Apple has peaked
Whilst the missed estimates don't mean much, it is true they are declining. Apple's sales started small, and gradually rose to a peak around end of 2011 with the iphone 4S. Nokia had been number one for years, but they had now ditched the amazingly successful Symbian to the still small WP, which meant for the ill-defined "smartphone" category, Apple and Samsung were now neck and neck for number one. The media were hysterical over Apple's possible success (never mind that they never praised Nokia for being in that position for years...) And whilst Android was ahead of iphone, at ~50% share, with the demise of Symbian there was a chance that iphone could at least become a platfom with amost 50% share.
Except, that was just a bump right after the new iphone release - in 2012, their sales have dropped dramatically (a drop 10 million in the last quarter alone). Samsung sales have rocketed, such that their Android phones alone now outsell Apple 2 to 1. Android's share nears 70%, with iphone falling to ~16%, and even WP is now increasing. There was always the possibility that iphone 5 might give them a huge boost again, but it doesn't seem it will change the long term pattern.
And yes, 5 million in 3 days right after a major new generation isn't anything special. Samsung (and Nokia, previously) do a million or more a day all year round.
I agree with the OP - it seems that their peak has passed. And that was a peak that was never number one in the phone market.
Re: Hey Tim
Indeed. But then Apple would no longer be able to run stories of "X% of users on latest IOS within days, Android users have to wait!"
The reality may be that Android users are better off waiting until the OS is tried and tested by the manufacturer for their specific device, rather than being rushed out all at once just to get some marketing spin. Unfortunately the reality doesn't seem to make as good marketing.
But if that's your attitude, why spend money on the most expensive phone in the first place? You could say that of all the functions in phones. Stick with your paper, chart, map and atlas.
Or alternatively, get a phone that doesn't run out of battery so quick like an iphone...
Re: Vendor lockin
Open may be not the norm, but it's worth noting the advantages of such platforms when we have them.
Not sure what nonsense you're on about having to redesign UIs for every device - on Android, you write apps sensibly, so it scales to any resolution. It's on IOS that people seem to have locked themselves into a single resolution, which has now backfired as these days, IOS runs of loads of different resolutions (3 iphone resolutions, and god knows what for ipads).
The problem with itunes is not DRM (which the OP didn't mention - nice straw man), but when itunes scrambles the files. It doesn't have to do this when used on a sensible OS like Windows, but it does seem to be the default for managing software on ipods - so perhaps the OP is referring to a similar thing for iphones.
"Someday, the more rabid fanatics and extremists in this industry might at least have the decency to give him a little credit for that."
*Splutter* Jobs receives nothing but praise and credit, for all kinds of things he did or didn't do (and no, it wasn't Jobs who got rid of DRM). It's particularly funny that you say this, when you aren't even willing to give credit to open platforms.
Tell you what, I'll give thanks to Apple, the day I hear Apple fans give thanks to all the other companies that have helped or influenced Apple products. But you know what? I never ever do.
Re: BBC reporting that Android Apps will run on AMD Win8 devices
Typical BBC spin - the idea that Windows 8 doesn't have much software, and comparing simply by what's in the MS store, is ludicrous. It's true for ARM, but not x86 - and since the article is about AMD, it's not clear we're talking about the ARM version.
Seriously - Windows, the dominant platform for software by far, but we have the BBC writing fruitcake nonsense like "Microsoft is working hard to convince developers to make apps for Windows 8"? This was probably written by a journalist who thinks "App" is short for Apple, and doesn't realise it means application, i.e., software...
I have to laugh - years ago I criticised "app store counts" by pointing out it would be ludicrous to say that Windows didn't have much software simply because there isn't any in an "MS Store". I never realised we would end up with people actually making such a stupid claim.
Anyhow, interesting article anyway - the bit about Android on Windows that is. This would be beneficial to both Windows and Android imo.
Re: Battery life
http://www.engadget.com/2012/06/03/acer-iconia-w700-w510-windows-8/ describes x86 Windows 8 tablets, quoting "more than 8 hours" for a tablet, and 18 hours plugged into a keyboard dock (similar idea to the Asus Transformer). Suggests they are aiming for the same level of battery life.
http://www.trustedreviews.com/news/windows-8-tablets-using-clover-trail-chips-have-a-10-hour-battery-and-three-week-standby-time-says-intel quotes 10 hour battery life for Clover Trail.
Would also be interesting to see performance comparisons of ARM vs Atom, similarly for the GPUs - even today, it would be interesting to see what things are like for tablets vs netbooks.
There is no "RT x86" Windows - x86 Windows is the full Windows 8, so you'll be able to run things from anywhere, just like a normal Windows PC.
What isn't clear to me is what the plan is for x86 software that is built using their new "Windows Runtime" API - whether that must be distributed via Windows, or if that's only for the full-screen "Metro" applications, or not required at all. Anyone got a ref?
"Not that it would make much difference if Nokia had bought into Bing, given Nokia’s falling market share"
Yawn, and once again let's pick a flawed stat. Apple has falling market share, why not report that?
Nokia are still the number two phone company, second to Samsung, not Apple, which isn't bad going. That's a fact.
Any why only count the US market for WP share?
As for Bing, well there's a point. Bing has never been bad, it's just been ridiculed because it's not Google. If Apple maps hadn't been a complete shambles, would it have received the same ridicule, simply because it wasn't Google? I doubt it - another double standard. Though personally I think Nokia maps has the edge over them all.
You're conflating two things - the idea of having somewhere to download software, and the term "app".
For the former, Apple were the first to do it as an OS vendor, but they weren't the first, including in mobile - places to download apps were commonplace. This was more a business move, as they get to take a 30% cut, and that's the reason MS are now trying to do it.
The reason they didn't before it because if MS proposed a plan that let them get 30% cut of all software, they'd have been widely criticised (especially with all the antitrust suits they had). But no, because it's Apple, they get praised for the same thing - which now means MS can get away with it.
As for the latter, no, the term "app" was commonplace (and the fact you have to argue with an ad hominem shows you have no valid argument). And if "app" is more common now, that's not because of Apple, it's because of the media using the term a lot, and because of ordinary people using it. Not once have I had an Apple employee say to me "app", but countless times I hear it in the media, and from other people. Language is not defined by an organisation, it is defined by what people in general say.
Mythical Apple firsts are common, but it's ludicrous when it gets to the point of saying that Apple now invented or popularised aspects of people's language!
So no, Apple didn't popularise it, it was ordinary people and the media using a term that is easier to say than "program". And no, Apple can't be credited with thinking of it first either.
Two largest players?
Must have been talking about Samsung and Nokia then.
(Before anyone says, the distinction between "smart" and "feature" phones is a marketing one, and they all have ARM processors anyway).
Re: Hmmm revenues?
Who cares? Also note that the article says "top apps", which tells us little about how things are for the average developer.
As a user, a platform is better if there's more stuff available for free. That's a good thing about Windows, tonnes of free software - much better than 15 years ago when even simple stuff was crippled shareware. It's what happens when a market matures and becomes mainstream - more software available for free.
And as a developer, why limit yourself to just those two? Stats also show Nokia Store doing better than Google Play, or in some cases better than Apple too. Indeed my own experience is that I get a staggering *one hundred times* as many downloads on Nokia Store than on Google Play. In fact, I even get more downloads for Windows on my website than for Google Play. I think it's a combination of there being still a massive userbase (Symbian number one platform until 2011, and still outselling Apple after that), but less competition in terms of numbers of applications.
Re: ...but how many of those downloads got erased seconds after trying the app?
One thing I don't like on Android is the large amount of ad-ware. Fair enough if people want to make money, but at least be honest about it - most of these don't mention it (though you can sometimes tell, if an app requires network connection, when there's no reason it should). (And it's not just a dislike of ads - already a problem if you have limited screen size on a mobile device - there's also issues such as wasting battery life.)
This includes really trivial applications like for a torch. Thing is, I'd happily write a free and ad-free app myself to do the job. But the sad thing is, no one would know about it - the already established apps would be at the top of the search results, and since they don't admit to having ads, no one would be aware of the advantage of my ad-free version.
It doesn't help that there's very limited search tools - only a choice of "paid" or "free". Thankfully with Android you're not limited to Google's site - so sites like F Droid are useful, for open source Android software.
Android may have more applications than Symbian which I used previously, though in practice it was easier finding something ad-free for Symbian. My point isn't to criticise Android - it's just another example of how raw application numbers is not a useful metric.
Re: Spitting distance is right!
My prediction is that once Android app numbers have overtaken Iphone, the media will stop making a noise about this as if it was the Most Important Thing Ever.
Or alternatively, they'll switch to something else - such as including numbers of songs and films, and The Reg has now done.
Application download site numbers are pointless - on non-Iphone platforms, you're not restricted to the one site anyway (does Windows have no software, because there isn't an "app store"?), plus who cares about raw numbers, it doesn't tell you about the quality. Most "apps" seem to be pointless website wrappers, and why does it matter if there are 20 apps to do the same thing, instead of 19? I've also got to laugh that for years Apple users were saying it doesn't matter that Windows had more software - even though the issue there was that Mac OS did lack particular applications, and no one simply went on about raw numbers.
Numbers of songs, films etc is even more pointless. If I want to download a song, I can do it from loads of sites - it doesn't affect my choice of platform. I wouldn't want to download onto my phone via a mobile network anyway - I'd much rather download to my computer, and then have it available for all my devices.
"only 4.7 per cent of Android apps were downloaded by tablet users"
Remember that's %age of Android, not %age of tablet users, and Android has a far higher share than Iphone.
"It's a combination of Nokia's Maemo, Intel's Moblin, and the two companies' joint MeeGo project, none of which enjoyed any market success."
Well, it's reasonable to say they never became major mainstream platforms. Though I note that the Nokia Meego N9 sold one million in approximately 76 days. For context, the original iphone sold one million in 76 days, a figure that was hailed by the media as being an overwhelming success, and it was then used as a benchmark for "market success"...
(Although I guess it would have been better if the media had said the original iphone didn't enjoy "any market success" either.)
Re: Need Apps
"Apple got in first."
Apple were first? I don't think so.
And Apple are a counterargument to your market share claim. Apple have always been catered first by many companies writing software, even though they've never been the number one platform. Indeed years ago, when their share was even smaller, it seems they were even more likely to be catered for, further disproving the link between application support and market share.
"Microsoft will fill third place."
What is this "third place" stuff, as if the market can only support two or three platforms? The market has long had more than three platforms. The current situation of Android first, Apple way behind, and MS behind them is relatively recent - until 2011, Symbian and Android were the two leading major platforms, and there was also Apple, Blackberry, WP. And don't forget Bada either.
Indeed for years, Apple were third, fourth or even fifth place, and only became second when Nokia ditched Symbian. I don't recall people saying there was no room for Apple, or that it would fail to gain traction.
Re: Seriously though...
Apple are the market leader in phones? You should check the stats - they never have been.
Re: Apple still have the lead on apps
"developing for Apple iOS first seems to be the order of the day"
The problem with your argument is that Apple seems to be catered for first even for applications that aren't sold for money. Indeed if anything, this is more common among applications given away for free, consider the website wrappers "apps", and the applications give to access a company's service.
So it's nothing to do with monetizing (which seems a poor argument anyway, FUD similar to "But Linux users don't pay for software" nonsense). Nor is it to do with market share.
The URL tells me all I need to know - if they only pick two platforms, it's a flawed article.
"Just bear that in mind when deriding Apples Maps application."
Why? Are Google Maps and Apple Maps paid applications?
"Apple were basically forced into this by Google which refused to allow them to use the same features that Google themselves were allowed to on Android devices. Basically, Google wanted Apple to pay for a more limited version of what Google has."
Heaven forbid that Google not want to give away their product for free to the competition!
Next time I see someone saying they like the software that comes with OS X, I'll tell them it's Apples fault for not making it available for free for MS to ship with Windows...
"by Google deciding what they could and couldn't have on their own phones."
Um no, it's entirely up to Apple. But other companies aren't obliged to write software for Apple. Or perhaps you can point me to the version of Apple maps that is (a) available for Android, WP, Symbian and Blackberry, and (b) may be distributed by phone manufacturers free of charge? (Not that anyone would want it...)
Re: "obsessed with Apple's marketing events and Apple's branding".
Though I suspect most people don't think in terms of buying "Android", they're buying a "Samsung".
Re: It is a popularity contest
Glad it's not just me that noticed this. It really is astonishing when you start noticing it - pretty much every American TV show that shows computers or phones will have Apple logos in it. Some shows seem to have a logo present in every other scene.
I know it's just product placement, but this kind of advertising seems like it would be more effective on a subconscious level than direct advertising.
And it is quite jarring and off putting to have to watch this in so many shows.
Re: It is a popularity contest
"Apple are one of the few companies to have cracked the cross-gender thing. MacBooks of all kinds appeal to boyz and grrlz equally."
I think that's true of technology products in general. I mean, a laptop is a laptop, whether it's a Dell, Samsung, Apple or whatever else. Thankfully unlike many products, we don't have "men's laptops" and "women's laptops".
(Though I sometimes wonder that things would be like that - Apple included - if laptops were around since one hundred years ago.)
"This was his to lose, he didn't have to do much to keep Apple on top of the game."
Note that Apple were never on top in the phone market, either by company (it was Nokia now Samsung) or platform (it was Symbian now Android). Android was way ahead of Apple before this new guy took over. I agree things do seem to be getting worse though, in the last year.
Re: Just Pissed
"Open to suggestions to bring home the message to Apple."
Buy something other than Apple. Nokia WP have great mapping solutions - but also I don't see that Google are at fault anyway, so Android is an option too. There's no obligation for them to have to write applications for Apple, especially when they're in competition. Should we complain that Apple haven't released Apple maps for Android (or anything else) (assuming it was any good)?
(And Apple get more than their fair share of software support anyway)...
"Storm in a teacup. You want Google Maps - go to maps.google.co.uk and put it on your home page (10 seconds)."
OOI, why don't people do this for every other web page? Instead it seems that every website and company is advertising an "app" just for Iphones, and I never understood why they (and only that platform) needed this.
I agree, you might as well use the webpage. In neither case will you get features like offline maps or free satnav, that Android and Nokia have had for months or years.
Can't they just run the Java one?
Can't it just run the Java one?
My 2005 bog standard feature phone ran Google Maps. Today even some dirt cheap Nokia S40 would run it. It was the full thing, only lacking in sat nav (which the Iphone version never had anyway).
It didn't matter that Google hadn't written one especially for my make and model of phone, because it was Java, and worked on any phone. So presumably Apple users can just run this.
(Seriously though, I do remember the days when companies would support all makes of phones. Now it's just "Get this on your Iphone", despite it being a smaller platform than the likes of Android or S40 - sorry, like most people I don't have one. Even Google are at it, their web page only seems to show support for mobile software for Android and IOS. Despite this news item, it seems their only non-Android support is for Apple.)
Checked Wikipedia for the dimensions - interestingly the Note 2 has a smaller width, at 3.17" rather than 3.266". It's the height which is bigger, 5.95" instead of 5.781".
Also interesting to compare the pure diagonals: you get 6.74" for the Note 2, and 6.63" for the Note. So whilst the display is 0.26" larger, the diagonal of the device is only 0.11" larger. (A similar thing is true comparing the Galaxy Nexus to the S3 - the latter has a larger display, but the device doesn't feel that much bigger.)
I don't understand this idea that a tablet must be "big". A tablet is a handheld device that isn't a phone. Of course you can do more with a larger device, but that's also a trade-off with portability. It's true that some people might see this as the worst of both worlds, but for some, it may be a good compromise.
Some people want a 10" device, some people a 7" device. Some a 4.8" device, and some a 5-6" device, and some have more than one of these devices to get round the problem.
On that note, I wonder if that will finally put an end to the "Android takes longer to roll out updates than IOS" or "Old Android phones don't get the latest OS" FUD. Are all the pre-Iphone 5 owners now so happy to have been updated to the latest version?
It seems to be better to evaluate whether each older device is ready for the latest OS, and only release when fully tested, rather than rushing to release it for them all on the same day, just so you can make some media headlines and use it as a marketing statistic. This is especially true with thousands of Android devices, and also the point that manufacturers like Samsung and HTC run their own OS built on top of Android, rather than vanilla Android, so it would be foolish to try to implement and then test that on the same day of the basic Android release (for most Android phones, the initial Android release date is about as relevant as the Windows RTM date - you still have to factor in the time for manufacturers to test on their devices).
Re: facepalm yourself
So MS are being criticised because their ultra-portable high spec laptop and tablet hybrid will have an RRP higher than the price of a second hand bottom of the range laptop?
Yes for many people, the latter may suffice, but that's an argument against any new laptop on the market (including Apple).
Windows 7 works fine for me.
Re: OMG They are talking to el'reg?
No one is saying they should be ignored, rather the issue is disproportionate coverage. They should be treated like any other multinational consumer electronics company - there are others, and they sell at least as much as Apple.
Re: Apple users still win...
I find it interesting just how many Iphone UI workflows involve copy/pasting between a 3rd party application (another example would be replacement keyboards like Swype - since on a feature phone, you can't replace the built-in keyboard, they instead run as a 3rd party app that you type in, then copy and paste into the other application...)
But it's particularly funny when you consider for years, the Iphone couldn't even do copy/paste - and the response from fans was to say "But why would you want to do copy/paste? Iphone has new 'paradigms' that means it doesn't need copy/paste". Yet now it has copy/paste, it seems they need it all the time.
And they say it has the best UI?
"which along with its Android operating system is locked in a fierce battle for supremacy with Apple in the world of mobile technology."
Battle for supremacy? I think it's pretty clear who's won when you look at sales figures. The battle will be more who in the market will compete for 2nd or 3rd place. (Apple only became 2nd place very recently after Symbian was dropped by Nokia, but it's unclear they will remain their long term.)
- All ABOARD! Furious Facebook bus drivers join Teamsters union
- Review Samsung Galaxy Note 4: Spawn of Galaxy Alpha and a Note 3 unveiled
- Webcam hacker pervs in MASS HOME INVASION
- Comment Renewable energy 'simply WON'T WORK': Top Google engineers
- Nexus 7 fandroids tell of salty taste after sucking on Google's Lollipop