1789 posts • joined 18 Jun 2009
Re: Smart or Featurephone
But what is the difference between a feature and smart phone? I'd say there isn't one - it's just marketing. Even "dumb phone" is meaningless these days, in an age when even a £20 phone can come with Internet, apps and a QWERTY keyboard.
I don't see why HTML5 or Java makes something a "feature" phone - Android uses Java and its own VM, after all. A certain phone couldn't even run applications at all, making it more a dumb phone, but was marketed as a smartphone...
Re: 256 MB RAM? Luxury!
Actually MS has been moving away from the "fisher price" style of Windows XP (or OS X, come to that) - Windows 7 seems nicer imo, though still flashy. Meanwhile, Windows 8 has done away with the fancy partially-transparent windows altogether, and goes for a much more simpler and functional look for the windows and GUI.
Re: Competition is a wonderful thing
It's common to see the assumption thrown about here that Intel on mobile is uncompetitive, slow, expensive etc. But honest question - why are we seeing Android tablets now based on Intel, including flagships like the Samsung Galaxy Tab 3?
Unlike a Windows (or Linux or OS X) device, there's no reason to do so from a compatibility point of view, on the contrary, it's a slight downside as some Android applications won't run on Intel.
Because it's entry level (and the microSD slot still allows a maximum storage of 80GB even on the base 16GB model, higher than any iphone). If you want 32GB built in, go and buy that version.
I don't know how cheap Samsung get the materials for. But so - it's proven that Apple have the highest profit margins, which by definition means the component cost is lower compared to the sale price. Yet oddly, Apple fans spin that as a positive for Apple too! Which is it - do you want more expensive components, or the company taking higher profit margins?
S4 sales are massive - the only negative aspect is that some "experts" claimed they'd be even higher.
And more "smart" people use Samsung
Indeed, the same problem also applies to the one about education. The article reports:
Degree: Samsung 50%, Apple 60%
No degree: Samsung 50%, Apple 40%
Except in absolute numbers, there are more people with a degree buying Samsung. The flaw is that the percentages are done by company, when they should be done by education status. At 2x Samsung sales (and that's just their Android phones), it works out to:
Degree: Samsung 62.5% Apple 37.5%
No degree: Samsung 71.4% Apple 28.6%
So actually among educated people, Samsung is still massively preferred - it's just that these misleading stats penalise Samsung because they do even better selling to non-educated people.
Terrible reporting. And why should we waste time trying to report these convoluted stats anyway? We can just look at the hard facts of sales data, and see that Android continues to dominate, and Samsung has further extended their massive lead over Apple.
Another problem is only looking at Samsung and Apple. Let's consider if in a year, 50% of customers move from A to B, 50% from B to C, and 50% from C to A, the market is stable - but if we look at just A and B, it looks like B is much better than A!
"as apposed to Android which can install anything it likes."
Not true at all, by default things are limited to Google Play.
And never mind the theory, how does practice compare? All claimed instances of Android malware have been on sites other than Google Play, so there is no evidence that IOS's method is more secure. But we do have plenty of examples of how Apple have used the power to block all kinds of applications that people might find useful.
Nokia Store has checks too - and as much as I loved Symbian, I have to say that as a user and developer, I much prefer the straightforward method of Android and Google Play, compared to the laborious and restrictive checks of someone else telling you what you can release for the platform.
Re: @Simon Barker
"But even rabid Apple haters have to admit that the first iPhone was superior to any smartphone that came before it"
No, it wasn't. Nothing to do with hate or not, just a fact - to claim otherwise is opinion. The first iphone wasn't a smartphone anyway - it wasn't even a feature phone, due to inability to run apps. Whatever things the iphone did better, there are plenty more features that other phones did better. The idea that a phone that can't even do apps, has no 3G, and a shitty resolution, was good, let alone better than anything else, is laughable. Judging by the sales, I'm not the only one who thought that about the 2007 iphone - individual Nokia phones and smartphones massively outsold it.
TV interfaces are mainly limited either by slower CPUs (which is something that will improve gradually with time), or the limitations of using a remote control. It's already possible to use smartphones/tablets to improve the experience with existing TVs. Chromecast makes this even easier.
What's left for Apple to do? I love how Apple fans now play the game of asserting that Apple have something better up their sleeve, even when we have no idea what it is. Perhaps we should wait for the new AmigaTV?
Re: Given a choice
And those people were right - the earlier iphones did sell crap, with other manufacturers continuing to sell far more. It's only after many years that Apple have managed to build their sales up, by which point they're no longer a "company that has never sold one before" (and even now, they've never gone beyond 3rd place).
The idea that Apple had massive overnight success in the phone market in 2007 is a myth.
64GB phone (e.g., S4) plus 64GB microSD - 128GB phones are already available today. And probably far cheaper than who knows how much Apple will charge for the 128GB option. I imagine 128GB microSD will be available soon too.
"Since Apple is in charge of both hardware and OS design,"
A common claim for their phones and computers, but it doesn't make sense. The hardware is manufactured by companies like Intel and Samsung. True, they have a hand in it, but Samsung also have a hand in their OS design (since Android is Open Source, and they build their own OS around it). Apple may have more control over their OS, but Samsung have more control over their hardware, which they make themselves.
Re: re: Evil
No, it's consumers who "die" and lose out by it.
If company A does something wrong, I'm not sure that makes it okay for company B to do it. If the former was criticised, the latter should be too. In both cases, consumers lose out.
"Unlike Microsoft, who can arguably be called evil (there is evidence), and who constantly produce c**p and have been doing so for decades (I know because I had/have to suffer their abominations), Google seem to make best/better products and services than are out there"
I'm not sure the debate about how much you like their products or not (which is very much opinion, personally I like and use products from both companies) has anything to do with how "evil" they supposedly are.
It's an interesting point - why don't Google just support WP themselves? It can't be because of wanting to keep things to Android, as now they're happily giving away all sorts of features to the minority of IOS users. It can't be market share either, as they also happily support Mac users (Mac market share on PC platforms is not that much higher than WP market share on phones).
One wonders if they fear WP more in the long term, because they know that IOS will only run on Apple phones (which will also never run Android), but WP is much closer competition to Android, in that it's an OS provided for other hardware manufacturers.
I'm fed up with the "who's evil" debate (personally, both are fine by me, better than a company that sues for rounded rectangles) - restricting choice for consumers is a bad thing, no matter what company does it. I love that I can run One Note on my Android phone - why shouldn't WP users get Youtube.
Re: This can't be true??
You may be joking, but given that the Sony phone that's doing better also runs Android, it's not really an issue anyway for Android fans (I'm sure plenty of Android fans are also a bit annoyed that the media focus on Samsung).
Interesting to see 1.3 million phones for the Xperia A, in just one country. By iphone fan standards, one million in 76 days worldwide was a runaway success, yet this higher success in just one country barely gets a mention... I also remember how it was mainstream news when the iphone was the best selling model in only one country, for one month, just after a new model - yet for every country and every month apart from this, I've never seen a news item.
Re: anyone know the breakdown
"Only two international manufacturers profit from smartphones. Apple and Samsung. Apple make quite a lot more by way of profit."
Who cares? Never in the most heated Windows vs Mac or Linux debate did someone go "but look how much money Bill makes!" Profit means money taken from consumers that doesn't go into the product. As a consumer, that's not a good thing. Same as a developer. The only reason to care is if you're a shareholder, in which case that's astroturfing.
"Apple recently returned to being the largest company in the world when measured by market cap."
Who cares? Another contrived statistic - what was the "largest" company before that, by that statistic? No one knows, because no one cares, except when the media pick up the press release and spread it as "news".
"Once seasonal adjustments are taken into account, Apple have sold more handsets year-on-year every year since 2007."
WP has gone up too - selling more in a rapidly growing market isn't that significant.
"Their market share has gone down because of the the rapidity of the growth of Android, not because their (seasonally adjusted) sales have decreased."
True, though note this is the same thing that was true of Symbian for years after 2007, but all we heard from the media was about how Nokia were doomed because of falling share, and how Apple were number one even though they weren't. It's annoying to see this fallacy - though fair's fair that it now bites Apple.
"Apple iPhones and iPads have higher overall satisfaction ratings than the handsets by any Android phone/tablet manufacturer"
You're actually making the argument that it's better, because the fans say it is? The RDF is well known - the fact that users of one platform blindly evangelise it, and others do not, doesn't make one better. Why aren't people flocking from Android to ios devices then, instead of the reverse?
"iPhones retain their value better than all Android devices"
So does an Amiga. Who cares, I can afford to buy the best, without worrying about what I sell it for - isn't that what we're told when people point out the prices of iphones?
Higher second hand sale prices is usually an indicator of lack of supply of newer products that people want. Same reason why it was easier to get better sale prices of old Macs or Amigas, when an older PC would be worthless. It's not that no one wanted PCs, it's that the rate of progress of PCs had moved way ahead.
"Revenues from Android remains lower for app developers"
I'd like to see a survey that includes ad revenue, and also looks at other stores too, both Android, and other platforms. But anyhow, from a user point of view, this is good - more apps at lower prices, or for free. Being able to make money from trivial apps is usually a sign of an immature platform.
"Cost of development for Android, for those wishing to address the "full and larger market" is much higher than for iOS"
SDK is free, and I can develop on my existing computer, and $25 one-off fee to publish to Google Play. For IOS, it's mandatory $99/year, and you need to purchase an Apple computer.
Even if developers restricted themselves to Touchwiz Samsung phones, they'd still have higher market share.
"More teenagers in the US express the desire to buy iPhones than Android phones, even though more are now purchasing Android phones because they can't afford iPhones."
But, they can sell them second hand, right? Which is it - is Android cheaper, or more expensive?
This kind of argument makes no sense anyway - sure, if I could get a £500 thing for £200, I'd want it, but that doesn't mean that the £500 is made by a better company. If the company had to drop prices, they'd also have to make sacrifices in the hardware too. The price is just as much a factor as anything else, like RAM or screen resolution. If Samsung can deliver the product people want at the price they can pay, that's a success for them.
Anyhow, this really is a contrived statistic - not just one country, but only teenagers? What about other countries, or adults in the US? Are you telling me that everyone would buy iphones, it's just that even in the richest country, adults can't afford it? Worldwide, I'm sure that even at the high end, Android is the winner. But stats like these just reward Apple for being expensive.
"There is more malware on Android and the Google Play store and zip on iOS"
"Significantly more Android users plan to switch to using iOS than iOS users want to switch to using Android"
Wake me up when it happens.
"There is a logical conclusion to this and that is after the initial flash growth due to Android in-filling the feature phone market by hitting feature phone price points"
Android is a smartphone; the locked down ios phones are feature phones.
"Yes the latest data shows Android is starting to lose ground to iOS in what is now the most mature market - the US."
Most mature market? The US has always been Android's weakest market, and ios's strongest, and the phone market has always been very different to the rest of the world. But even in the US, Android grows (though with seasonal fluctuations). The US market typically lagged behind the rest of the world - which is why the US media were impressed in 2007 by a phone that didn't even do apps or 3G (something standard years earlier on low end feature phones).
Re: anyone know the breakdown
A Galaxy Mini may not be the high end of Android phones, but it easily beats the iphone 4/4S still on sale, so I don't see the difference, nor is it true that Apple are trying to keep things simple, or at the high end.
Not to mention that the S4 Mini actually has 50% more RAM, and I think the same resolution as the latest iphone 5...
Re: anyone know the breakdown
Apple do compete not just at the high end - because their sales area made up of older phones too, selling at lower prices.
Also note that whilst these figures include 100% of Apple's, they only included about half of Samsung's, because they're only counting the higher end "smart" phones (mainly Android) anyway. If we're including the low end, then there's a whole load more phones (which are still capable of Internet, apps, etc) that Samsung sell, putting them even further ahead.
Re: VLP == Vain Losers Poserphone
If you're going to criticise the size of such a device, at least go back to 2010 and criticise the 10" ipad. (And no, being a "phone" makes no difference - smartphones and "tablets" are the same kind of thing. At 6", this is middle-size in a range that goes from 4" to 10" or beyond.)
Re: Just because previous fingerprint sensors didn't catch on
To be honest, if they're at the state that a fingerprint sensor is a headline feature, that says it all. (Android phones added face-unlock, but this was just one of a long list of features, and I don't believe was ever a flagship or marketed feature of the Android smartphones.)
But then, after basic features like apps, multitasking or speech recognition being flagship features of earlier iphones, it wouldn't surprise me that this is the main new addition of the 5S/6/5GS/whatever.
Re: Maybe to you...
Well that's the people overrating it!
Or even so, by numbers, it's still overrated and overhyped - more coverage should be given to still Nokia, and especially Samsung.
A multinational company gets "something right"? Is that your goalpost-moving argument? Well amazing, give them a medal!
Re: And another nail is added to Nokia's coffin
It's competition, but hardly a nail. More of a nail for Apple, who have no ability to compete at the lower end (other than selling old out of date products), if that's where the market moves in future.
Your logic is also plain confusing - Nokia are doing well in one area, so therefore this is a nail in the coffin? Surely the argument would be if they were doing badly in that area. I mean, Samsung are doing well at the high end, so by your logic, it's a nail in their coffin if someone else releases a high end phone?
I don't really understand your distinction between feature and smart - does this mean an iphone is a feature phone, because of the limitations? Maybe it is - I think that's a far argument - though unfortunately most the media are using a different definitions, making the distinction between the terms fairly meaningless.
(Unless you mean apps, but then that's not a distinction, as "feature" phones have had 3rd party apps from 2004 or earlier.)
The iphone 2007 couldn't run 3rd party apps at all (and hence wasn't a smart/feature phone, but a dumb phone). This can, so is a smart phone (as someone else says, the difference between feature and smart is just marketing) - that the language is HTML5 isn't really relevant, as long as the user can install applications similar to other smart phones.
Re: Specs make the iPad Mini look REALLY crap.
"Arcade shooters all use 3:4"
Since when? Different games use different resolutions, and Android games will be more optimised for wider aspect ratios.
Being a portable video player is surely when of a few things a tablet does well. Whilst having higher depth can be useful for productivity, it's not like a keyboard-less device will do that well anyway.
And there are 4:3 Android tablets, anyway, as well as lots of other ratios - that's the good thing about Android, you have the choice, unlike Apple. Even if you went for a costly low-spec ipad mini because it had the aspect ratio you liked, what if the next version isn't 4:3 (Apple has changed the aspect ratio of their devices, e.g., iphones)? You'd be stuffed, and have to switch platform when you want to buy a new device. With Android, you can keep buying whichever aspect ratio you want.
Re: Specs make the iPad Mini look REALLY crap.
Ah yes, it's the appeal to popularity fallacy. I don't know about you, but when I buy, I care what I want, not want a bunch of Apple fans want.
I guess we're agreed that Android phones (and Symbian before that) are much better than iphones, and Windows PCs are much better than Macs, by your logic? Oh, and Android tablets are now outselling ios ones - the ipad mini just has the advantage that there's just one device of that size, whilst there are hundreds of Android tablets.
Re: Specs make the iPad Mini look REALLY crap.
If you don't care about specs, and are happy with low resolution, 512MB RAM etc, that's fine - but you can get that with a budget £100 Android tablet. But why not get the Nexus 7 - you get something better, and you save around £60 (or £100 for the 2012 version). But, the moment Apple bring out something that beats other devices on some contrived spec, you'll be first in line claiming how it's the most important thing ever (e.g., "PPI! PPI!" for 2010).
Sluggishnesh? I don't have any problems on my 18 month old Galaxy Nexus - but even that has better specs that than much larger and newer ipad mini.
First off, of course generalisations are bad - yes, some people will always buy some product as an informed decision. However, you do get people arguing it must be better, because it's made by them. The people who buy it because it's what their friends have, I would argue also still count as buying it "because of the badge".
It's also a reasonable view of many media articles, that hype up an Apple product even before its release, and then for years afterwards conclude it as the champion, with no clear reason why. It may be now the iphone 5 not the 2007 iphone, but this hype still traces all the way back to 2007.
The stereotype isn't helped by it being the only company with really prominent logos, in some cases light up.
Perhaps Samsung are aquiring a similar aspect of this too, but I don't think that's an argument against it. And I've yet to have strangers interrupt my conversation to tell me I should get an S4; you don't hear people go "Get a Samsung" in response to every technical problem someone has; you don't hear then referring to every product they only by its brandname.
Indeed, I find it interesting when people simultaneously praise the "build quality" while telling us how good the "free" (that they paid for) insurance is for replacing it every time it breaks.
But the BBC were one of the worst culprits for covering every i-device with as much hype as possible, whilst completely ignoring what until 2011 was the number one smartphone platform, Symbian (including in the UK, so unlike the US media, they don't have the excuse that the iphone was somewhat new to the American market). Prime culprit being the BBC tech correspondent Rory who I recall only mentioned Nokia to criticise them.
If the BBC have a "left wing bias", then that still makes a mockery of any idea of a correlation between that, and disliking Apple products.
Re: Correct descision, even if the taint lingers
It may be the correct decision, but that outstanding one billion dollar fine can't go unnoticed - is Obama overturning that too? Real people are affected by that too: employees, consumers, and other companies.
I thought that some older Samsung products were at risk of being banned too, I don't know what happened to that(?)
Re: Word has it
If you want a simple feature phone, that's fine, though you can get those at a fraction of the price. Android is a smartphone, not a feature phone.
We've been hearing about these surveys for years, but despite this, Android continues to rocket ahead in market share, whilst iphone share flails and now this year has plummetted. The gap between even WP and iphone is now far smaller than between iphone and Android.
Wake me up when these so-called surveys actually translate in a mass shift towards Apple's feature phones, because it hasn't happened in 7 years of overwhelming media hype. That's a fail.
Re: Just get an iPhone for gods sake.
Let's argue back like an Apple user: But it doesn't matter that Android doesn't have this feature, because I never use it, therefore no one does, and in fact Android is better off by not having it, because it has another way of doing the same thing, a whole new paradigm (though I'm not going to explain what it is). I don't care about grumpy featurism, Android is therefore still better. It did everything first, and Apple users need to be thankful of that. And Android Android Android Android Android, posted from my Android phone.
(Only 3 years behond? Did you finally get copy and paste, or 3G and apps yet?)
Re: battery life
I think that's spot on - this may be nothing of interest compared to Nexuses or S4s, but I think this is much about marketing and reaching out to people not yet buying Android. Whilst Android has won everywhere else, iphone still has a sizable share in the US. Unlike Samsung, Motorola is well known as an American company, and the Nexus line doesn't yet have the same kind of brand awareness. On top of that you've got the "assembled in the US" (or whatever) advertising. Seems plain targetted at the people who don't look at specs, but want to by a brand they recognise...
Given that the big problem with phones is the two constraints of "want more screen" and "fit in pocket", I've wondered why we don't see more folding-types (although this particular model is only a small screen one). Why not have one side being a full touchscreen, and the other for physical controls (perhaps a full qwerty keyboard)? Or even a phone with touchscreens on both(similar to the DS, but ideally as seamless as possible, to give effectively a large single screen, in a still compact pocket-sized form)?
Re: RT 2
Yep, it's the usual metrics where "30 million" is "hardly any" when it's Nokia or MS, but "one million" is a runaway revolutionary success when it's Apple.
Re: The kind of person who would use Office on a mobile phone
I use OneNote on my Android phone - whilst actually creating and doing most of the work is more easily done on a laptop (and I wouldn't want to do that on a phone *or* tablet), being able to view and make simple edits on my phone is great. This isn't work stuff either, it's things like todo lists or planning for a holiday - if I think of something to add when I'm out, or need to look at something to buy. The small screen is no more of a hassle than using say a web browser or typing emails on a phone.
I can see it being useful for more straightforward documents too (Google Drive works good, but only plain text). Viewing a spreadsheet or making simple additions might be useful too - again, I don't think anyone's expected to do substantial edits on a phone.
Does the Office 365 website not work on your tablet? Honest question. This new announcement is specifically for the new apps for phones (even for Windows, it's WP not RT).
Re: Deja vu, all over again!
Not this again. Windows 8 works just fine on my non-touch laptop.
I appreciate they've changed the start menu, and as always there will be people who don't like the new version. But if that's the case, criticise the new version - it's got nothing to do with "only made for touch". Indeed, several things in the start screen now make use of the right mouse button; and accessing the start screen in the first place is done by hovering the mouse over the hotspot - don't see how either of those are done on a touchscreen, which presumably must have different input methods implemented for it (I do wonder if the critics have only used a Windows 8 on a touchscreen, and conclude it's unusable on a laptop because they've only used the touch optimised controls, without realising it works with keyboard and mouse too).
But is there a non-web version of Office 365 for Windows 8 and RT though? I thought Office 365 was online only - so Android and ios tablets can access it, the same way Windows tablets do?
The article says "Windows Phone, iPhone and Android phones" - Windows Phone, not RT, so it seems this is something only for phones (rightly or wrongly) on all platforms. And as such, this is no different to any other website that offers an "app" for small-screen devices. If you're on a tablet, use a web-browser, just like laptops don't get the "apps" for the website either. We could ask the same of Google, why do they provide for iphone+Android+web-browser for many services?
It's true that the full blown Office isn't available for ios or Android tablets yet, but I thought they're working on them. For years MS have made their software available for OS X. I don't think this is really an Apple-style "let's make things only work with our own hardware".
Because no one did mp3s before Apple Records did(!)
I'm more concerned now though how places seem to be drying up - a few years ago there were loads of places to buy mp3s, now it seems to be for many bands "let's only offer it on itunes", in some cases trumpeting the exclusivity as if it were a good thing, or making whole albums itunes-only. Lack of choice to buy from is not a good thing, and will do far more harm than downloading or anything else (same with the trend in videos and TV to make things only viewable on an ipad - hopefully Chromecast will put an end to that). I've also seen people say they want to buy other media players, but aren't sure if the Apple non-mp3 format their music is in, because they bought it in, will work on devices other than ipods (I don't know if this is a valid concern or not, but again it's discouraging competition in the market).
Shiny plastic discs? I stream my music from Google Music to the TV speakers - having to plug in a device and play from physical media is so 20th Century.
Re: Crazy price point
It does seem costly. I wonder, where are all the Apple users saying "It doesn't matter that it's expensive, if you complain about that, you must be poor"?
Ah that's right, no one considers that to be a valid argument in the first place.
Re: This kinda reminds me of what happened with netbooks
The problem with netbooks was precisely the opposite - that we had a great idea in 2007-2008, then it basically never changed, so in 2010 onwards we still had mostly 2008 spec machines selling for the same price. I'd love to have a "bolted on" upgraded netbook with more RAM, new processors and higher resolutions...
Re: Holy Trinity of Fail
100 million is a fail? If you say so.
And if WP is a fail, so was iphone up until the last 2 or 3 years.
How do Surface sales compare to the early Android tablet sales? Even the overhyped ipad got far fewer sales in its first generation.
Re: Windows 8, Windows Phone 8 and Windows RT?
Actually I believe that Windows 8 x86 and RT are compatible, as when writing the new-style apps, they work on both. So they've done it a different way - rather than making RT the same as Windows Phone, they've got unified development between x86 and RT. Given the common criticism of tablets just being oversized phones, this doesn't seem unreasonable to me.
How much profit does the Nexus 7 make I wonder...
"Had Microsoft offered it at a subsidized price to get initial momentum, and had they managed not to cripple it quite so badly (include outlook for EMail and allow the Office suite to be used for business) it might have sold respectably."
Note we have no evidence of sales in this article, the flaming from The Reg is about their sales revenue (minus advertising revenue, because it's another anti-MS 101 method of handpicking stats to prove a point).
If they'd reduced the price, even if they had much better sales that for any other company would be regarded a success, the Reg would be bean counting and saying the reduced revenue meant it was a failure. If MS had even subsidised it, the Reg would be saying how much a failure was, because it made them a loss.
Indeed there's a thought - how much profit does Google get from the Nexus 7? Or will they get with Chromecast? See, comparing companies purely on revenue and profit makes no sense, especially for consumers. The fact that the Nexus 7 and Chromecast are low cost is a good thing, and something that is rightfully praised. Only an idiot would write an article ridiculing Google's strategy that meant their revenue was lower and they would make no profit from the device sales.
I wonder if they will replace the RT with the new Intel "Atom" tablet processors. I mean, just one year ago it seemed that ARM was the only realistic way and going with Atom would risk crippling the device despite the advantage of compatibility. But now we've got an increasing number of Intel Android devices, with Samsung even choosing it for their mainstream 10" tablet, even though from a compatibility point of view, it's slightly worse than ARM for Android.
Atom-based Windows tablets exist, but they're not as well known about as the Surface, and more expensive (perhaps because of the higher Windows licence fee?) Bring out a Surface RT successor based on Intel with a cheap version of Windows (similar to Windows 7 starter), and it'll do a lot better. I'd gladly snap one up to replace my netbook (for which no obvious upgrade currently exists, and I can't be the only one who wants a "real" OS for a computer be in Windows or Linux, with keyboard as standard, even if it's also a tablet).
The Pro is indeed a lot better, though the Intel Core tablets/hybrids were hampered by the poorer battery life. I might get a Windows hybrid, but I'm waiting to see what Haswell based devices appear - MS really need to updade the Pro to Haswell ASAP.
Re: amounted to "just' $853m
But note it's the marketing department that should be blamed (either for poor adverts, for poor value for money in how they advertised), or perhaps whoever chose to spend that much - and not the tech itself.
As I say in another post, there must be an order of magnitude more marketing for Apple than MS. If they're getting it without spending 10 times amount, then the question is why they're getting it cheaper.
But this article doesn't say the sales numbers!
"Got that? Microsoft spent more in a single year advertising the Windows 8 and Surface launches than it took in from Surface sales that same year."
But this is comparing the advertising for two things to the sales from one thing.
Who cares about how much money companies make anyway - if a company makes loads of profit, that's not good for me, the consumer. How do they do on sales? (Windows 8 passed 100 million a while back - seems like a success to me.)
MS spend a lot of advertising? Well, I'm more bothered that I have to endure endless mentions of Apple, whether it's the product placement in virtually every TV show, or now in most adverts. Go out to do some shopping, and itunes and app store gift card vouchers face you in every store aisle. It goes on and on - take a count of how many times you see an Apple ad per day, and it vastly outdoes any other company.
"Apple sold 57 million iPads in the same period"
Not that we care about fisher price pads, but that's still way less than even just Windows 8 PCs - so much for the death of the PC.
I love Android, but how well were individual Android tablets selling before the Kindle Fire or Nexus 7? Indeed, how well are many of them selling now?
Let's not forget how "one million in 76 days" was hailed as a runaway success for a certain Apple product, despite Symbian selling vastly more. And that was preceded by 6 months of wall-to-wall hype and advertising.
It also strikes me as entirely normal that new products get lots of advertising, whilst established well selling products get less advertising, so comparing the budgets as if they should always match doesn't make much sense.
Re: Selective pricing quotes?
The point is that they're not comparable.
The Sky thing will be great for many people, but it seems to be locked to Sky content, and you have to pay the Sky subscription fee. If that counts as being like Chromecast, then why not mention a bog standard Sky or Virgin Media TV box? Hey, I can watch iplayer on my TV already, it turns my TV into a smart TV, and it's completely free! (Not including the monthly fee I pay to Virgin Media.) Can the Sky dongle give you a standard web-browser, do playing of local content, or mirror another laptop's display, or stream from any web address sent by another device?
Chromecast works with anything. For Youtube alone, the price would be worth it for many, but last time I looked, there were plenty of Internet TV services you can subscribe to. Yes, that costs too, but you've got the freedom to go to who you want, rather than being locked into Sky or Virgin Media.
I don't want exclusive content - I don't want content to be exclusive.
I don't have a games console. I don't have a smart TV in the bedroom. I do have a smart TV in the living room, though it'd still be much easier to transfer a Youtube video from my laptop to the screen, rather than have to renavigate to it through the TV (similarly for things like Google Music - it does work through the TV's browser, but it's much quicker to access it through a laptop or indeed my phone). The smart TV will remain great for playing local videos via DLNA, but it doesn't do everything that it seems Chromecast will.
So that's a mere 2 potential devices that I'll be buying then, despite having a smart TV already. I also have a PC plugged into the TV - yes, I can VNC into it and control it from the laptop, but clicking a button would still be much easier, not to mention that for most people this is not something they've got set up at all.
- Very fabric of space-time RIPPED apart in latest Hubble pic
- 10 years of Facebook Inside Facebook's engineering labs: Hardware heaven, HP hell – PICTURES
- Dell charges £16 TO INSTALL FIREFOX on PCs – Mozilla is miffed
- Google! and! Facebook! IDs! face! Yahoo! login! BAN!
- CIA snoops snooped on Senate to spy spy torture report – report