* Posts by Mark .

1859 posts • joined 18 Jun 2009

iPhone 5 poised to trounce Android, devastate BlackBerry?

Mark .

Re: small sample

Yes that's exactly the point he was making - the survey was biased and not reflective of worldwide share, whether geographically, or otherwise.

And if you're trying to say this at least means that Iphone 5 will do well in the US - well, 52% is still too high, as Android leads in the US alone.

2
0
Mark .

Re: small sample

Yes - and just to add to this, the problem isn't so much with sample size, but whether it's random. 400 would be more than enough if it was truly a worldwide random sample, with no bias on those responding. But we know it wasn't - the fact that it was only a handful of cities.

Consider how Iphone users always say how they've just bought an Iphone, and tell you they've got one every single day. It stands to reason that you're going to get far more people claiming they're next phone will be an Iphone - the majority of people who go on to buy from more popular companies like Samsung and Nokia care less about advertising the fact.

I also find it funny that this matters anyway - if market share is important to us consumers, then why aren't the media slagging off Apple all these years, for never having been number one, and instead praising the number one platforms Symbian and now Android? No - as always, the media twists things so a statistic is only important if it makes Apple looks best.

0
0
Mark .

Re: Scale drawings of screens

Ah, your one anecdotal opinion trumps tens of millions of people buying 4.5"+ Android phones - more than anything from Apple - and the market research that Samsung would surely have done. Personally I have no trouble with my Galaxy Nexus, and the S3 looks fine too (a larger LCD, but the phone itself is barely any bigger).

Not that this is an argument against Android, since there are smaller Android phones too, including in the 4-4.3" range.

"if I want to watch movies or play games on the go I'll get myself a tablet."

I have a tablet. It's my 4.6" Galaxy Nexus, that's also my phone.

And if all you want is a phone to use as a phone, then pick up a dirt cheap low end Android or S40 device, or even a really cheap dumb phone. Why pay for the most expensive phone on the market, just for a tiny 3.5" screen that you are only using as a phone.

2
1
Mark .

Re: If this is bad news for RIM then what about MicroNokia?

Someone had better also make those phone calls to the entirety of the media who claimed that Apple would rule the world in no time flat. I'm still waiting. Hell, wake me up when Iphone finally overtakes the now-deprecated Symbian in installed userbase.

(Really though - the fact that this ignores the number two phone maker - second to Samsung, not Apple - just makes this "survey" even more dubious. I suspect it's yet another case of "let's publicise the one stat that makes Apple look best".)

1
0

Behold: First look at Office 2013, with screenshots

Mark .

Re: UI freaking monster

*snort* I have respect for people supporting open alternatives like Linux, but I've got to laugh when it turns out you're using a *Mac*. Sorry, you're not different - you're still supporting a big company, a closed source OS that is no more "proper", and a company that is pushing a dumbed down OS that's far more a UI disaster than anything shown here.

If you're running Linux only on that Macbook, fair enough - but then I wonder why you felt the need to advertise what PC you'd be using. Oh, and I have Print under the File menu in Office under Windows (not that I'm sure why that makes sense, anyway).

0
0

More Steve Jobs iPad mini attacks from beyond the grave

Mark .

Re: Reality distortion

Well I probably spend a few hours a day on my laptop all the time. It's perfect for browsing and book reading, and it's also great for music, video and photo editing.

I can't see a 10" tablet being nearly as useful for any of the above. Text is going to be too small, the UI is going to be fiddly, and the size is a bad compromise between pocket and briefcase.

Unless it's tied to specific content, a 10" tablet would be a me-too product - which is exactly what anyone apart from Jobs was trying to avoid.

I don't doubt it would sell, and there might even be a pick-up for Windows laptop sales as a result.

But it's not a particularly elegant or clever thing to be putting out.

(Seriously, if your point is to say that a 10" device is more useful than a 7" device, then those arguments apply far more so to 10" or larger laptops, that have better input options, and run proper OSs rather than those designed for a phone, and have a far bigger and better range of apps. But just as there'll be a niche of people who prefer 10" tablets anyway, there'll be people fine with a 7" one - and I suspect we'll generally see a pattern where it's the more portable devices that become more popular, as we're already seeing with the immense success of Android smartphones (and Nokia before that). Sure, there might not seem a great gap between pocket and briefcase to fill, but the briefcase is already occupied with far more functional laptops. When it comes to handheld tablet devices, 7" is far better than 10", because it can fit into a gap that 10" tablets/laptops can't.)

0
0
Mark .

I agree with most your comment, but:

"That was definitely the case 5 years ago when Apple clearly had the best hardware/software combination in phones"

Really? The first Iphone lacked 3G support (hardware); couldn't do apps or even copy/paste (software). There was no "clear" about it - best is a matter of opinion here, and based on sales, most people have the opinion that the best was elsewhere.

0
1
Mark .

"Contrast with Android"

Not true, there are plenty of Android apps that have larger screen versions.

You're right that Apple users for often get special attention with special Ipad and Iphone versions, where as Android users don't, but that's not a criticism of Android, it's a criticism of the way that the media and companies unfairly cater for Apple users, despite being a smaller platform.

If, e.g., Sky have an Iphone and Ipad app, but only have an "Android" app, that's not because Apple or Jobs are great, or Google are bad. It's because Sky are unfairly catering for Apple users over Android users (though I suppose Android users should be thankful to get support at all, when most platforms get none - Apple are always unfairly catered for first, despite never having been the largest platform in handheld devices).

0
0
Mark .

Well, some people might not do the same thing on a 10" tablet as they do on a 4" phone/tablet.

But then, what was Jobs saying? "You need a 10" tablet to do things that you can do on a 10" tablet"? Well, thanks for that marvellous insight! The point is that smaller tablets are still useful, whether it's 9", 7" or 4-5".

1
1

Early verdict on Intel Ultrabook™ push: FAIL

Mark .

Re: Why pay 900 quid...

I don't know what an "iPhone clone" is, but phones and smartphones were showing a clear continual trend of improving long before Apple. Sure, Apple introduced some things - but so did many other companies. The Iphone wouldn't even exist if it wasn't for those other companies. And the rise of Android tablets would clearly still have happened without Apple - it's Google to thank for that, for providing an OS for everyone. Indeed, without Apple, maybe I'd be able to get software support for my phone and tablet, rather than all the sites that only cater for the minority of Apple users. Suggesting that without Apple, mp3 players wouldn't have evolved is madness - the improvement in the necessary technology (e.g., storage space in Flash) was not done by Apple.

Tell you what - I'll thank Apple, when I hear an Apple user thank Samsung, Nokia, Google, Microsoft, ARM, NVIDIA etc. But you know what? I never ever have.

It's claiming that one random make of car revolutionised everything, just because you can find one thing that was better about it, even though there were loads of other ways it was worse. And then talking about it all the time, on and on, years later. Some of us are fed up of hearing about it all the time - start giving credit to the many other multinationals who have also made a bigger contribution than most.

0
1
Mark .

Re: Why pay 900 quid...

The Ipad is a very big smartphone, so they hardly get credit for making something smaller. We've yet to see a small tablet that is a full blow PC - like it or not, the Surface will be that (whether people want that is another matter).

The Iphone wasn't smaller, indeed in 2007 it was larger than many phones. Nor did it sell more - the earlier sales were low, and it took years to get up to the level of other platforms. Symbian dominanted to 2011, since then it's been Android. By company, Nokia and now Samsung lead - so clearly it wasn't Apple who were first to get "smart" phones to sell. (The first Iphone wasn't even a smartphone, as it didn't run apps.)

My Sansa is far smaller than an Ipod, and my Samsung netbook smaller than an Apple Air. I don't recall them getting tonnes of hype and fuss.

2
0
Mark .

Re: I wonder

Yes, that's why 90% of the market are out buying Apple OS X PCs, with only 10% buying Windows PCs. Oh wait.

(I like Linux and Windows... I have respect for someone supporting open source, but sorry, if you're saying we should switch from Windows to OS X, you're still supporting a big company.)

1
1
Mark .

Re: Netbook

I agree about netbook resolutions - the weird thing is that the ASUS Transformer Prime does have a higher resolution, 1280x800. But that runs Android, which I'm not interested in. It seems odd to me that they think that Android has a higher need than Windows for higher resolutions - I would have said the reverse. It almost makes me wonder if there's something about Windows 7 Starter licensing that restricts what kind of devices it can be sold with...

I only hope that the higher minimum resolution of Windows 8 might force an improvement. Though part of me worries that the obsession and hype of tablets - and the spec of netbooks remaining mostly stagnant - will make netbooks disappear.

1
1
Mark .

Re: Microsoft Surface

Well hang on, if you want a portable, the smaller screen is a good point, surely. Indeed, one reason I don't like the high end ultra-portables is because my Samsung netbook is actually smaller. For some reason it seems impossible to get any non-Atom based PC with less than 11", and the MS Surface looks to be the first one to do that.

Admittedly, you may have a point that it's a bad sign if most consumers aren't interested in high end ultra-portables, but then they also have the lower end ARM version. And the point of the Surface isn't to sell the most - it's like the Google Android phones, they're just there to set a high end standard. If it happens that most Windows 8 sales are from cheaper lower spec machines, MS still gain from that.

I just wish manufacturers would improve the low end of the market more - if we can have phones with HD resolutions and 2GB RAM, why are the 10" netbooks still stuck at 1024x600 with 1GB I wonder...

0
0
Mark .

Re: wow

The Zune thing is a myth - sure, it didn't get to be number one, but that doesn't make it a complete flop. Unless you count the Iphone as a flop too, for being beaten by Symbian and now Android (or Nokia and now Samsung, by company). It's the same old story - MS get 10% in a market and it's a faiure, Apple get 10% in a market, and it's a runaway amazing success...

For you comment in general, surely a company that never has failures, is one that never succeeds? Success often involves taking risks, and no one succeeds every time.

2
2
Mark .

Ultraportables around long before Apple

You're claiming that they copied Apple, because the side of laptops both look the same? You should get a job at the Apple Patent Department!

Expensive high-end ultra-portables were around long before Apple came along. Indeed, ultra-portables being more expensive was actually the norm - the change that happened more recently has been the drop in price, first with mainstream laptops, then with ASUS revolutionising the market in 2007 with cheap ultra-portables.

I suspect the big problem "Ultrabooks", or ultra-portable PCs in general (including Apple's) face is that consumers are used to low end laptops, and most people don't see the point in spending loads more. But then, I'm not sure that is a problem - they're a premium high end product, and it's usual for sales to be less than lower end cheaper products.

Saying that Apple sell more ultra-portables is just yet another hand-picked statistic to make Apple look better. Firstly as you say yourself, the stat is for all their laptops, and you just guess that it's mostly ultra-portables. But who cares if other PC companies are selling less in one particular segment, if overall they're still selling more than Apple? Indeed, perhaps most people simply don't like the high end ultra-portable form factor and pice point (personally I see it the worst of both worlds - my Samsung netbook is far more portable, and for high end use, my Clevo is far more powerful, and doesn't need to be as portable), just as most people also don't buy Macs. You might as well praise Apple for being number one in "phones that have 3.5" screens".

Also since Apple PCs also use Intel, I'm not sure how it's a fail for Intel anyway. They make money, whichever company it is selling PCs.

0
2

Christians get God-optimized 'Edifi' Android fondleslab

Mark .

Price?

"Google has somewhat crippled their marketing plan by announcing the Nexus 7 tablet, which is more highly specced than anything else at the same price point"

Except this is $149, wasn't the 8GB Nexus 7 $199?

The main downpoint of this (aside from the crippled censored browser) seems to be still running Android 2.3, but price-wise, I don't think it's unreasonable that it has lower spec, when it's so much cheaper. And if it has microSD as someone pointed out, then if you want 16GB the price difference will be even greater (since the cost of an 8GB microSD card, or even 16GB or 32GB, is hardly anything).

0
0

Google pushing Jelly Bean updates to Android devices

Mark .

For starters, most phones don't run vanilla Android, so at least we should be going by the dates of when things like HTC Sense or Samsung TouchWiz are released. I don't see how it's possible for manufacturers to do that separately, and it's also nothing that Apple do. And if you consider it bloatware, then buy a Google device that gives you the vanilla Android.

The staggered rollout is then that there are thousands of Android devices, compared with a mere handful of Apple phones, so it's not unreasonable to take longer.

I do agree though, it's annoying if there's extra delay added by the networks. I have a Galaxy Nexus, but I only received the latest 4.0.4 sometime after it was commonly available. I guess I'll see what happens with 4.1.

0
0
Mark .

Re: Promised ICS

Most Android phones don't run vanilla Android. If you bought a phone that runs say Samsung's TouchWiz, then it's the releases of new versions of TouchWiz that should concern you - the release dates of the basic Android versions for those phones are no more relevant than say, MS announcing a pre-release of Windows 8: a taste of what's to come, but not the finished product for your phone.

If you want a phone that runs vanilla Android, then yes, you should have bought one that does, like the Galaxy Nexus.

Perhaps there is an argument that it's a shame that more Android phones or even all phones don't run vanilla Android; on the other hand, even as a Galaxy Nexus owner I have to say that Samsung do add some nice stuff. One of the many good things about Android is that you get choice, right?

I don't think the delayed rollouts are a problem anyway - it would only be an issue if it meant Android lagged behind other platforms in features, but this doesn't seem to be the case, on the contrary, it's way ahead in many areas. Meanwhile, Apple might get IOS updates out quickly, but when features like copy/paste, multitasking and even the ability to run apps were delivered years after the competition received them, I don't think the quick update counts for much.

0
1

UK judge hands Samsung win for being 'not as cool' as iPad

Mark .

Re: So

So you're saying for Apple, innovation is using a rectangular screen? But not when other companies do that?

1
0
Mark .

Re: The elephant in the room

Even on popularity, it's worth noting that the absurd amount of hype _preceded_ the Ipad even being announced, let alone released, so was not directly due to anything that Apple did. Once they'd got so much vast free advertising, they clearly had advantage over all the previous tablets (e.g., media players common in 2009, or the first Android tablets actually released from Archos before Apple), not to mention the advantage of being the only ones available in shops, and most of the media producing "apps" for Apple, but for no one else.

If it was the case that consumers looked at a row of tablets on a shelf, and picked Apple, then that would be fine - but it's sad that popularity was never decided like that. There's yet to be a fair fight in tablets - once other tablets are covered by the media and available in shops, then we'll see how the market turns out. Long term, I hope that Android gets the coverage and support it deserves.

(Also, I'd say that tablets have been popularised for years, far more so than Ipads, we just called them smartphones or PDAs. It's only the 10" form factor that only came a lot more recently. The media have recently redefined "tablet" to only mean a large device, to make Apple look like they were first, but this is not a correct usage of the term.)

0
0
Mark .

Re: "Tablets are so bloody minimal in essence anyway."

No, but I saw media players around 2009 before Apple (which were tablets - i.e., handheld devices for media, Internet and software - they just weren't called that until Android devices popularised the term), and they looked the same.

0
0
Mark .

Re: In the 80's

And the same thing in the media - most of the mainstream tech media is now "Apple is cool, anyone else sucks" playground arguments, there're few places to go to actually get objective unbiased coverage on new products.

0
0
Mark .

"These are basic elements of the constuction of the device - necessary for it to exist. It also applies to the monitor I have in front of me."

Indeed. I did once have the misfortunte to witness someone say of a large flatscreen TV, "It looks like a giant Ipad!" Yes, something that is basically a screen looks like something else that is basically a screen. It hurt my head to hear someone saying that a screen looks like an Ipad, rather than an Ipad looking like a screen...

No doubt if the Apple TV rumours ever turn out to be true, people will be falling over themselves to say how Samsung, LG etc copied Apple, even though they were making TVs for years before.

4
0

Google plants rainbow flag in anti-gay countries

Mark .

Re: All very well...

Google is a multinational. How is it "foreign" when the affected employees live and work in those countries?

(Yes there are some more general worries about large companies lobbying in politics, but I'm not sure this is the topic to be criticising - there are plenty of examples where this does go wrong. And I don't think it's an issue of being "foreign", because they are not.)

2
0
Mark .

And you miss the point that Google too are entitled to their opinion - Google is a multinational, and this is being done by and for Google employees who live and work in those countries.

3
0

Apple's UK smartphone lead shrinks

Mark .

Re: Obvious is obvious

I love the way people make excuses.

But the point is this. If Apple only have success one period every year, whilst other companies like Samsung have solid success all the year round, because they constantly innovate with new devices, I think it's clear who the winner is.

And I don't think the S3 demand is going to tail off quickly - the S2 was the number one device in the UK for 11 months (see my ref in my other comment to this thread), and they consistently outsell Apple even when their flagship device was months older than Apple's.

0
1
Mark .

Samsung have long been number one!

The Samsung S2 has the top spot for about a year, and it just lost out to Apple in the month before the S3 release; the S3 has now already reclaimed this (e.g., http://www.telegraph.co.uk/technology/mobile-phones/9306491/Samsung-Galaxy-S3-displaces-iPhone-as-UKs-most-popular-phone.html ).

Comparing single models is highly misleading anyway, as Apple only have one phone per generation, while everyone else has loads, so it penalises manufacturers for offering more choice (not to mention that Apple does have different Iphone versions, which all get called the same - yet minor differences in Samsung phones might award it a different model number). The only relevant statistic for comparing companies is company sales, where Samsung beat Apple hands down.

Not to mention that "smartphone" is ill-defined - why is the original Iphone a smartphone, when it couldn't run apps, yet many of Nokia and Samsung's phones aren't smartphones? Whether something is a "smartphone" is simply down to how the companies market them. Comparing smartphones means you're comparing 100% of Apple sales to only a fraction of Samsung and Nokia.

For mobile devices, Samsung are number one, and Nokia number two. It's sad to see the way the media scrape the barrel to try to make Apple still relevant. And if we compare by platform, it's even worse - Android dominates, even Symbian still has a larger installed userbase than Iphone, and Iphone has never been number one.

It's interesting though that even on the flawed statistic of comparing individual models, the Iphone is beaten by just *one single model* of Android phone. Let's look at the years of reporting on Apple:

"Apple are number one!" (Ignoring Nokia and Symbian)

"Apple outsell Android!" (Ignoring Nokia and Symbian)

"Er well, maybe Apple don't outsell Anrdoid [or Symbian], but they're the number one 'smartphone' company" [conveniently ignoring Nokia, not to mention using the flawed definition of "smartphone"]

"Oh okay, Samsung also outsell Apple even on just 'smartphones', but the Iphone 4S outsells just one of many Android/Samsung devices!"

What are we going to see next? Perhaps the media will have compare the Iphone 5 to a lesser popular Android phone (I've already seen "Galaxy Note 2 to compete with Iphone 5" headlines...)

0
1

Samsung: World LOVES our chips 'n' mobes – expect a record quarter

Mark .

"Samsung's Galaxy smartphones have clawed their way to the top of the market in recent times, overtaking even Apple's Jesus-mobe."

And Nokia - who were number one and now number two, let's not forget.

"even"? The Jphone has never been the number one platform, I don't know why the media carry on this charade that it ever was.

Still, great to see amazing success for Samsung (and Android). And at last, the media actually seem to be acknowledging that Apple aren't the top.

Regarding their mixed results in non-smartphone areas, that's the downside of having a big company. But I think a company like Samsung with a diverse portfolio are in a much better position - I mean, consider if they only made phones. Whilst it would make their relative growth and profits much better, it would also make them much more vulnerable if that one position became weaker (the problem that Nokia have always had - a world leader in mobile devices, but don't make much else). Would we seriously suggest that Samsung would be better off if they only made phones, just on the grounds it would make the relative stats better?

5
0

Orange San Diego Intel-based Android phone

Mark .

Re: Not 100% of apps running?

Okay, but if all someone wants is a cheap smartphone, there are still cheaper and more modern ones on pay monthly contracts.

0
0
Mark .

Re: Not 100% of apps running?

£21 a month for an ancient phone? (And it's not free, as you're paying for it in the price of the contract.)

And I'd like a source for being able to run 100% of software.

0
0
Mark .

Re: storage

You miss his point. The OP said that today's low end Android phones aren't as good as even older Iphones. He replied that this isn't the case. Indeed, the fact that you point out how poor the specs of the pre-4 Iphones were is in agreement with him, and contrary to the OP's claim - even the low end Android phones are way ahead of earlier Iphones.

(Although when comparing to older Symbian phones, I find it funny that some low end Android phones today still have ridiculously low resolutions - my now ancient Nokia 5800 had 640x360 years ago. And as an Android developer, it's a pain to continually have to cater for tiny resolutions.)

0
0
Mark .

Re: storage

The better approach I think is to have a decent size internal storage that you can do what you like with, but also to have external storage for upgradability. So 16GB is more than enough for OS and installed software, but it's things like media that take up loads of space, and they can happily sit on a cheap 32GB or 64GB card.

I believe this is how Android 4 phones typically work (except those like the Galaxy Nexus that don't have expandable storage). Of course it wouldn't be a problem if internal storage was as large and cheap as microSD cards - I don't know why this is always a problem.

0
0
Mark .

Re: storage

I don't know about earlier versions, but my Android 4 phone doesn't seem to have any restrictions on how I use the internal space.

0
0

Samsung fails to stall Galaxy Nexus sales ban

Mark .

The history revisionism is appalling. Apple were a johnny-come-lately in the phone market, with competitors like Samsung making smartphones for years before. For every example you think of that Apple did first, there are countless that they had to "copy" from the competitors that had done them before.

Same with tablets - handheld computing devices have been around for years, we just called them different names, like media players, PDAs or most obviously smartphones. I remember looking at mp3 players in 2009 - at the high end were players that also did apps, Internet and video playing. Tablets in everything but name. And even the Ipad didn't promote the name "tablet" - Apple don't work with generic terms, they promote brandnames. It's the rise of Android tablets that have meant we've started using the term "tablet" - without them, it would just be "Ipad" (even as it is, just look at the countless shops advertising "Ipads & Tablets" - to them, the Ipad isn't a tablet). And the Android tablets first appeared shortly before Apple's tablet (e.g., Archos). The only thing Apple were first on was unfairly being given absurd amounts of hype from the media (which was given even before it was announced, never mind released).

In 2010, I predicted that the media hype would mean that in time, people would claim that Apple invented or "popularised" tablets, a device that had been around for years. But I'm genuinely shocked that this revisionism happened in just 2 short years.

1
0
Mark .

Re: Will this pull the feature from existing phones?

Which patent is it?

Though whichever it is, if there is a patch, it's still interesting to know if this will affect existing phones already bought in the US.

0
0
Mark .

Will this pull the feature from existing phones?

"Imagine typing a contact's name into a box and have hits in your address book, files and email appear."

Imagine ... the bleeding obvious.

"Google and Samsung are said to be working on releasing a patch for the Nexus' software to address the infringement allegations."

Which makes sense - it would do far more harm to not have the device for sale, and everyone knows which trolls are to blame for the missing functionality.

One question: will this patch remove the functionality from Galaxy Nexuses already bought in the US? That would be particularly creepy.

5
0

HTC bags UK win in patent war with Apple

Mark .

Re: The only good thing Apple really did with the iPhone

"was to smash the carrier control over the phone software, ending the days of the feature phones. "

What do you mean by this? Feature phones still exist. And they have operating system software that isn't controlled by the carrier (e.g., Nokia's S40). A carrier might add extra stuff on top, but they still do this with smartphones today. The distinction between "feature" and "smart" phones is completely arbitrary anyway, basically a marketing issue. It was introduced around 2004 I guess so there was a way to promote the low end Internet and app phones (which really were smartphones), whilst still justifying a higher price for the high end phones by calling them "smart".

Smartphones haven't got more common than feature phones since 2004, it's just that the definition has changed, so that now increasingly lower priced phones are marketed as "smart" rather than "feature".

Meanwhile, Apple released a non-smart phone that couldn't even run apps, yet marketed it as "smart" anyway.

0
0
Mark .

Re: The Big Lie 2.0

No True Scotsman - what's a real operating system? The original Iphone couldn't run apps full stop!

Sure the competition wasn't perfect, but neither was the original Iphone. And does this mean that today's Iphone's aren't smartphones, because the screens are tiny compared to the competiton?

The original Iphone also wasn't a wild success - it was massively outsold by other smartphone platforms (Symbian especially). Only with time did sales of the platform gradually increase.

No pens? You don't have to use pens on other touchscreens. But it's an advantage if you can - like on today's Galaxy Note.

"as shown by their respective lack of success thereafter."

What, you mean Nokia outselling Apple to this day, with even Symbian alone outselling Iphone for the duration of its lifetime?

0
1

Android Jelly Bean won't get Flash Player

Mark .

Re: Don't know why people are complaining

But the comparison should be in when people get actual features. If the slower Android rollout meant Android devices were months behind IPhones in terms of features, then you might have a point. But if anything, the reverse is true - how many years did you have to wait for basic features like multitasking? Did you finally get copy and paste? The idea that any platform is in the shadow of IOS is laughable, considering how it's played catchup on so many features for years.

I hear that the killer feature of IOS 6 will be maps. Welcome to 2006!

0
0

Samsung fails to get Galaxy Tab ban in US lifted pending appeal

Mark .

Re: depends

Depends how much money. The problem is it's not just the loss from sales of that device, but all the knock on effects which I bet the calculation doesn't cover. The vast potential in future growth of phones means that any harm to Android or Samsung has long term implications; also the indirect harm caused by effect on application development (remember that this is the phone that's often seen as best for Android development - it's the only one that runs vanilla Android, and gets the new releases of Android first, which now developers in the US won't have access too).

$100 million to knock off the Google flagship device, without trial, is peanuts to a company that has billions in cash.

Remember that the Iphone sales were rather low in the first two years. Imagine if Samsung or Nokia were able to ban it in the US (the most critical market for Apple, given how the rest of the world was already ahead in smartphone technology) for 2 years, based solely on the sales of those 2 years? Yet such a drawback in the market would have taken them even more years to catch up, and they wouldn't have the better sales that they've had in the last year or so.

0
0

Samsung asks for US Galaxy Nexus ban to be lifted pending appeal

Mark .

He didn't say no one should have them, but that they're overrated. Most people? Most people don't use tablets - at least not of the 10" non-phone variety.

My 10" Samsung notebook is only slightly heavier than a 10" tablet, but with far more functionality, and still with long battery life (11 hours). Resolutions aren't necessarily lower (depends on the make) - yes it is a pet hate of mine that many netbooks seem stuck at 1024x600, but that's not some fundamental issue of tablet versus notebook. The resolution is more than good enough for Internet usage anyway - the occasions I want more are for things you couldn't do on a phone OS anyway. Even if all I'm doing is Internet, then I can use a device far more quickly with keyboard and touchpad, than with touchscreen.

I suspect with Windows 8, we'll see a lot more hybrids (like the Surface), making the distinction a bit meaningless anyway (we don't separate smartphones based on whether they have a keyboard or not).

And if all I want is a handheld device for Internet, then my Galaxy Nexus is far more portable, much better battery life, and has more functionality than a non-phone larger tablet. Smartphones *are* tablets, basically - it makes no sense to consider them separately. Only with an Apple-obsessed media could we see Apple being raved about for taking a device (smartphone), removing functionality (phone calls) and making it less portable. Meanwhile, MS take a device (full blown PC), add functionality (touchscreen/tablet mode) and make it far more portable - and they get criticised...

4
0
Mark .

Re: Apple PR done well.

"it's th euse of a single sheet of continuous glass, with a chrome surround and a single button at the bottom, with the screen centralised within easy reach of the thumb/fingers, along with a capacitive MULTI-TOUCH screen"

Earlier phones had single sheets. There's nothing special about single buttons - later phones have more buttons, some devices have no hardware buttons.

Here's the thing: no one's objecting to say that Apple were first with multitouch. If we were making a list of 100 important phone "firsts", then sure Apple being first with multitouch should be somewhere on the list.

The problem is that people don't say that. Instead they blow it out of proportion, saying things like "Apple invented touchscreen phones" or even that they invented smartphones(!) Even you here are trying to make it sound like the most important thing ever. I used the Nokia 5800 for years which didn't have multitouch, and now I have the apparently-patent-infringing Galaxy Nexus. The difference of having a touchscreen is far greater than the addition of multitouch. And capacitive has its downsides, such as inability to use a pen, no good with gloves (thanks to Samsung we now have capacitive multitouch screens that do work with pens). A well designed UI might benefit from multitouch, but doesn't require it.

The other problem is when people completely ignore all the other innovations made by other companies. If you're going to talk about multitouch, then what about: first mobile phone, first phone with applications, first phone with 3rd party software, first with GPS, first with maps, first with a camera, first with wireless, first with a web browser, first with email, first with 3G, first with video calling, first with video recording, first with picture sending, first with tethering, first with wireless hotspots, first with offline maps, first with satnav, first with a touchscreen. There are many many important things that make up the phones we use today, including Apple's - and a great many of those firsts came from other companies. (I suspect that Nokia feature prominently, yet all we hear about them from the media is hatred.)

And yes, I'm sure that Apple didn't copy LG, but similarly, the point is that companies like LG (or Nokia etc) didn't copy Apple.

13
0
Mark .
Thumb Down

What about the other patents?

One thing I'm unclear on is, why is this different from the other patents in smartphones? My understanding is that all the companies have to cross-licence, including Apple. Is it that Samsung or Google don't think these patents are valid and so aren't paying, or that Apple is refusing to licence them? Why don't Samsung or Google pull the plug on licensing patents to Apple, or is it that they don't have any relevant ones (unlike say, Nokia who do)? It's also unclear what is so special about the Nexus, since it runs the basic Android version - unless Apple are using this as a test case to legally kill off Android in the US altogether.

To the people going on about Apple's innovation - even if that's true, we could equally talk about the innovation done years before by companies like Nokia, Samsung, and LG, which Apple have benefitted from.

Typically technology and innovation is something that goes through stages, with things getting better, and more popular, with progress made by many companies. Company A might release a device in Year 1, then company B releases a better device that sells more in Year 2, then in Year 3 we have even more sales from a better device.

But the Apple fan puts a circle around company B and says "Apple were first!". Company A is ignored because it sold less and wasn't as good, whilst company C is ignored because it became after. Yet you could do this trick with any product. To the people saying "before the iPhone 1", I could just as well say that phones were rubbish before say the Samsung S2. The iPhone 1 was lacking even when released - it didn't even have apps or 3G, things standard for years on low end feature phones - and is certainly rubbish compared to a phone today. It also sold poorly, as it's only since the IPhone 4 that sales have become comparable to mainstream platforms like Symbian or now Android (yes, check out the sales figures by platform from Gartner before you disagree). Indeed, whilst for a time Apple may have been selling more touchscreen phones than anyone else (2007-2008), later on, Nokia were doing so (2009-2010), and now (2011 onwards), it's Google/Samsung. All three stages could be said to have been "popularising" the technology. And Apple weren't first, because there were earlier stages of touchscreen phones before them. In practice I suspect it's more that the technology has just become cheaper and more refined. It's certainly not that no one thought to do it!

5
0

Microsoft's master stroke: Pay store staff per WinPhone sold

Mark .

re:WP7 is still not going to sell because

"Hmm, once upon a time iOS and Anroid were in single-digits too, and Nokia ruled the world. Once upon a time MySPace ruled the social network scene."

Indeed, it seems odd to criticise WP7 on market share, when the much hyped platforms were once like that (and Apple had poor sales initially, with gradual growth; it was only Android that had massive uptake as manufacturers switched to it).

But - whilst Nokia never ruled the world - they were and *still* are the number one mobile company; and their Symbian sales alone outsells all of Apple! Which, given the Nokia support now for WP7 to replace Symbian, makes this all the more interesting.

0
1
Mark .

Any worse than Apple?

I dislike the way phones are sold on marketing rather than ability, but why is this worse than Apple - just look at the vast amount of free hype and advertising they get? In the phone stores, IPhones and even non-phone IPads seem to get prominent advertising more so than other platforms. Why is it bad when MS try to get some marketing muscle too?

At least MS are paying for their marketing - unlike all the "Get this for your IPhone" / hype about Apple's next product in the media; whilst more major platforms like Android and Nokia get ignored.

I agree entirely with the first response. This is how it works for all big companies. Moaning about MS all the time is so 1990s...

"It's the fact that 10 times in the past 30 days, I have been told by various websites they have an app available, only to discover they don't have a WP app."

Sounds like it's those websites you need to complain about. When something is only available for Windows and not OS X, it's not Apple who get the blame, is it. (And at least that's following market share, unlike all the sites who only make apps for 3rd place IPhone.)

"The ongoing relationship/takeover of Nokia would gives them pretty tight control on decent hardware"

Yes - and a big question is how well Nokia can transition the Symbian sales onto extra WP7 sales. Whilst mostly ignored, the fact of the matter is that the market today is Android and Symbian, with Apple in 3rd place. Nokia have done a good job at getting all the important apps (e.g., I can run Swype, unlike Apple users; it's just all the website-wrapper apps that seem to think it's only worth supporting Apple).

I do fear they will mess up the transition - and leaving us with only 2 platforms will give us less choice and innovation, so I don't see why so many people here seem to want that.

"Just go into any PC-World store just after Dell or HP etc have released a new flasgship model and merely suggest that you want a Mac."

PC World seem to act like Apple resellers these days. Last time I was in a store, there was a big illuminated Apple logo, and their website gives special mention to the IPad in the headline. Sad.

0
0

iPhone demand strong months after 4S release

Mark .

Demand still strong...

I've also got to laugh that it's headline news for Apple that they still have demand a mere few months after a whole new release. Way to go! The other phone companies do this as standard...

1
1
Mark .

HTC?

HTC are the top smartphone manufacturer in the US (Q3 2011). So either HTC will rapidly plummet, or this speculation survey should be taken with a pinch of salt. My guess is the latter. Nokia and Samsung consistently outperform Apple in the market, but we only hear about the surveys in the press that make Apple look better.

"for 'most' normal people (i.e. not techies who want to re-rom their toaster) the iPhone is the phone they want "

No, for most people, Android is number one, Symbian is number two - IPhone number three. That's a fact. It's only (some) techies who seem to think that Apple are the thing everyone should have.

Also remember that IPhones are the most expensive on the market - so firstly, comparing them to platforms which include much cheaper phones is misleading. *Of course* people will, on average, "want" the more expensive phone. Whether they actually get it is another matter, and that's what counts.

Similarly, people who have spent on average £500 on a phone are obviously going to be more satisfied than platforms where the average might be £200 or less. How do the platforms fare if we restrict it to comparisons at a given place? (Also you have the RDF effect where people will be happy with Apple no matter what, because they think it's amazing you can do basic things like make a phone call and email, and don't care if it can't do 3G or copy/paste; where as users of other platforms know that phones are capable of more than this, so are disappointed if it doesn't yet have a quad core 4GHz processor.)

"and most of the Android users are looking to switch to iOS."

So if this is really true, we should see Android plummet from it's >50% share, and IPhone rocket from 3rd place to 1st place, within the next few months. Will it happen?

"Samsung did a good job of copying the iPhone"

Samsung were in the business before Apple I believe, Apple did a good (or bad) job of copying Nokia, you might as well say.

From the article: "Nokia, incidentally, scored 23 per cent, putting it on a par with RIM. These two really have some work to do on their handsets."

No, they don't - I love my 5800 just fine. We're just not raving fanatics who think our company invented or "popularised" the smartphone. (Oh wait - Nokia did!) We've heard these doom and gloom surveys for years, yet Nokia are still number one in the mobile market.

2
7

Russian rumor: Microsoft to buy Nokia for $30bn

Mark .

Re: Yep ..... nokia are lost....

"The low end will be gobbled up by the cheap Chinese\indian makers, the high end is HTC\Apple\Sammy\LG\RIM not Nokia. and the mid range has gone."

Yeah, that would be why Nokia are still number one, both in phones as a whole, and high end "smart" phones.

Indeed, last time I looked, the share by company was Nokia, LG and Samsung, some company I've never heard of, then Apple. Or by smartphone platform, it was Symbian and Android on top, with RIM and Apple trailing behind. These are the facts - but you wouldn't believe it if you just go by what the media report.

Whether Nokia will perform as well with MS and Windows Phone - who knows. But their track record with Symbian and S40 for the last 10 years has been number one.

0
2
Mark .

Re: Used a Windows phone? (not 6.x) #

"One really wonders what kind of PR magic it needs to convert 100M heavily multitasking, charging every 4 days, restarting only at movie theater userbase to Windows Phone."

Indeed - I love Symbian. Though the sad thing is, there will be no choice to move to anything else, since Android and Iphone are also part of the "charge every day" crowd.

But blame the media, not MS: they're the ones who hyped Apple, and to a lesser extent, Android, whilst either ignoring or doommongering about Nokia and the number one platform of Symbian.

I've even heard Iphone and Android owners spin this as a good thing - "Of course I have to charge every day, it's a smartphone! Obviously your Nokia can't be a smartphone, I didn't know Nokia even made smartphones".

Indeed, blame the Nokia/Symbian trolls in this very thread:

Ian Davies: "And mashing two companies that have both had the chance to produce precisely that, but failed, is going to work how, exactly?"

Ah, being the number one company in the phone and smartphone market counts as failure? If you say so. If you like another phone better, fine, but don't misrepresent opinion as fact.

Doug 3: "If Nokia market share wasn't falling so fast,"

Nokia's market has consistently increased. That their share has fallen is simply a statistical quirk due to there being more phones that are now counted as "smartphones".

Company A sells 1 million units a year, company B sells 1 unit.

A year later, company A sells 1.1 million a year, company B sells 100.

As a result, A's share has fallen. But it would be absurd to say that B was doing better than A; not only is A still increasing sales, it is doing so at a faster rate than B!

Also consider that Apple's share in tablets is falling - but we never hear the media spin it that way. We only hear about absolute figures, when it suits Apple...

Please, the first derivative of market share is meaningless as a method of comparing different companies; look at absolute sales, or first derivative of absolute sales.

2
0

Forums

Biting the hand that feeds IT © 1998–2017