"Why the Verizon iPhone is already too late "

In article <290820101917280330%[email protected]>, nospam
<[email protected]> wrote:

> > Linux also has a small amount of desktop traction, but in larger
> > businesses.
>
> except it's usually for the desktop, but for their servers.

i meant to write except it's *not* usually for the desktop, but for
their servers.

---

› See More: "Why the Verizon iPhone is already too late "

nospam wrote on [Sun, 29 Aug 2010 19:15:45 -0400]:
> In article <[email protected]>, Justin
> <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>> >> Steve Ballmer of Microsoft estimates Linux's share of desktop users
>> >> to be higher than the web stats suggest. In a speech to investors in
>> >> February 2009, Ballmer presented a slide based on Microsoft's
>> >> research: it shows Linux's share of business and home PCs about the
>> >> same as Apple's. ...
>> >
>> > anyone can present a slide about anything. that doesn't mean it's true.
>> > there's no way in hell that linux has the same share as mac os x on
>> > business and certainly not home computers.
>>
>> I see zero OSX in business, some Linux. In desktop.
>
> you need to look around a bit more.
>
> graphic artists want photoshop, which does not exist on linux. video
> production wants final cut pro, which also does not exist on linux.

Photoshop works just fine on Windows though...

Most businesses do very little video production, if any. The video production
I do see is on a Windows machine as well.

nospam wrote on [Sun, 29 Aug 2010 19:13:51 -0400]:
> In article <[email protected]>, John Navas
> <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>> No one is buying Windows because it has all that ancient code under the
>> hood -- they buy it because of (a) hardware bundling and (b) rich
>> variety of apps. But I digress.
>
> (c) it's what they have been using and aren't interested in changing
> even if something else might better fit their needs.

It what they have been using, and what their techie friend or relative
can support them using.

In article <[email protected]>, Justin
<[email protected]> wrote:

> >> I see zero OSX in business, some Linux. In desktop.
> >
> > you need to look around a bit more.
> >
> > graphic artists want photoshop, which does not exist on linux. video
> > production wants final cut pro, which also does not exist on linux.
>
> Photoshop works just fine on Windows though...

which isn't linux. the issue is ballmer's claim that linux is as common
as os x, which is ludicrous.

> Most businesses do very little video production, if any. The video production
> I do see is on a Windows machine as well.

some businesses do quite a bit of video production. other businesses
don't. it all depends what the business *is*.

nospam wrote on [Sun, 29 Aug 2010 19:38:31 -0400]:
> In article <[email protected]>, Justin
> <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>> >> I see zero OSX in business, some Linux. In desktop.
>> >
>> > you need to look around a bit more.
>> >
>> > graphic artists want photoshop, which does not exist on linux. video
>> > production wants final cut pro, which also does not exist on linux.
>>
>> Photoshop works just fine on Windows though...
>
> which isn't linux. the issue is ballmer's claim that linux is as common
> as os x, which is ludicrous.

And since Photoshop is available on Windows, it reduces the number of OS X
desktops.

>> Most businesses do very little video production, if any. The video production
>> I do see is on a Windows machine as well.
>
> some businesses do quite a bit of video production. other businesses
> don't. it all depends what the business *is*.

Most don't do much

On 8/29/2010 4:23 PM, Justin wrote:
> nospam wrote on [Sun, 29 Aug 2010 19:15:45 -0400]:
>> In article<[email protected]>, Justin
>> <[email protected]> wrote:
>>
>>>>> Steve Ballmer of Microsoft estimates Linux's share of desktop users
>>>>> to be higher than the web stats suggest. In a speech to investors in
>>>>> February 2009, Ballmer presented a slide based on Microsoft's
>>>>> research: it shows Linux's share of business and home PCs about the
>>>>> same as Apple's. ...
>>>>
>>>> anyone can present a slide about anything. that doesn't mean it's true.
>>>> there's no way in hell that linux has the same share as mac os x on
>>>> business and certainly not home computers.
>>>
>>> I see zero OSX in business, some Linux. In desktop.
>>
>> you need to look around a bit more.
>>
>> graphic artists want photoshop, which does not exist on linux. video
>> production wants final cut pro, which also does not exist on linux.
>
> Photoshop works just fine on Windows though...
>
> Most businesses do very little video production, if any. The video production
> I do see is on a Windows machine as well.

Mostly contracted out. My nephew has a good business doing freelance
video production. Mostly done on with Final Cut Pro on a Mac.

There's a lot of Linux being used in Silicon Valley for code development
while it's rare to see any Macs in tech companies. Still it's hard to
believe that there are more Linux desktops than OS-X desktops, and the
statistics show this not to be the case.

"http://www.webmasterpro.de/portal/webanalyse-systeme.html"

SMS <[email protected]> wrote in news:4c7b167d$0$1646
[email protected]:

> There's a lot of Linux being used in Silicon Valley for code
development
> while it's rare to see any Macs in tech companies. Still it's hard to
> believe that there are more Linux desktops than OS-X desktops, and the
> statistics show this not to be the case.
>
> "http://www.webmasterpro.de/portal/webanalyse-systeme.html"
>
>

Someone gave a buddy of mine a virtual supercomputer PC with multicore
processor and 8GB of really fast RAM that had been confiscated by the
cops from some gamer. They cleaned the OS off it for copyright
violations and dumped the rest for the landfill.

My buddy wanted to know what OS to put on it and balked at buying a whole
MS OS on a junk computer, no matter how great it is. I suggested we try
Ubuntu Linux for free before he spent any more money on it.

This has proven to be a mistake. I've created an Ubuntu MONSTER! He's
ready to clean off all his PCs of BillyDOS and put all of them on Ubuntu,
now! What have I done?!.....

The damned thing even has 15,000 RPM hard drives running off a
blisteringly fast RAID controller. They wind up when you turn them
on....(c;]

My attempts to get him to give it to me have been ignored....dammit.

I shoulda suggested he pay retail for Win7.....nuts.

On Sun, 29 Aug 2010 20:36:56 -0600, in
<[email protected]>, Todd Allcock
<[email protected]> wrote:

>At 29 Aug 2010 10:46:00 -0700 John Navas wrote:

>> The point is that mobile gaming (what you call handheld) is what
>> Microsoft needs for mobile devices, not "game consoles", which are
>> largely irrelevant unless and until it can shrink Xbox down to 1-2
>> practical chips, which ain't gonna happen any time soon.
>
>That's where Windows phone 7 comes in. MS is bragging that many (low
>spec) Xbox titles can be ported by adding "three lines of code." WP7
>will be the "XBox portable." XBox Live will sync from console to handheld,
>bringing your points, avatars, etc. over from one to the other.

Perhaps against iPhone, but I don't think that kind of "low spec" will
cut it if Sony Ericsson does come out with PSP in an Android phone.

--
John

"Assumption is the mother of all screw ups."
[Wethern’s Law of Suspended Judgement]

On Sun, 29 Aug 2010 19:24:15 -0700, in
<[email protected]>, SMS
<[email protected]> wrote:

>On 8/29/2010 4:23 PM, Justin wrote:

>> Most businesses do very little video production, if any. The video production
>> I do see is on a Windows machine as well.
>
>Mostly contracted out. My nephew has a good business doing freelance
>video production. Mostly done on with Final Cut Pro on a Mac.

Usual meaningless anecdote, even if real.

>There's a lot of Linux being used in Silicon Valley for code development

True. But also for other things, especially thin clients.

>while it's rare to see any Macs in tech companies. Still it's hard to
>believe that there are more Linux desktops than OS-X desktops, and the
>statistics show this not to be the case.
>
>"http://www.webmasterpro.de/portal/webanalyse-systeme.html"

At least a real URL. See? You can do it if you try. But as I've
already shown, there are as many different numbers as there are folks
gathering them, and you have to take those with a huge grain of salt.

--
John

"Assumption is the mother of all screw ups."
[Wethern’s Law of Suspended Judgement]

On Sun, 29 Aug 2010 20:31:43 -0600, in
<[email protected]>, Todd Allcock
<[email protected]> wrote:

>At 29 Aug 2010 10:42:11 -0700 John Navas wrote:

>> No one is buying Windows because it has all that ancient code under the
>> hood -- they buy it because of (a) hardware bundling and (b) rich
>> variety of apps. But I digress.
>
>Agreed. My point was (most) people buy Android for what Android gives
>them- not because it's Linux-based.

Fair enough.

>> The problem for Microsoft is that moving "slowly" is not a winning
>> strategy in mobile computing. It's falling farther and farther behind,
>> not catching up.
>
>They're playing a long game.

There is no long game unless and until it starts closing the gap on the
leaders instead of falling farther behind.

>If WP7 isn't quite iOS/Android caliber out
>of the gate, it'll get there.

Sure, to where iOS/Android are now, not when SloMo7 finally gets there.

>It's got a better update strategy than
>Android, so there will be less fragmentation, and more universal updates.

I don't see that as important to the great majority of users, who think
an OS upgrade is something akin to a kidney transplant.

> Android users are still mostly divided between 1.6, 2.1, and 2.2, and
>plenty of new devices are still sold with 1.6.

And the great majority of Android users don't even know, much less care.

>Froyo is here, and new Android models sporting 2.1 are still brought to
>market!

Sure, because it doesn't matter to most users.

>> As I'm sure you know, I could pick several other areas in which
>> Microsoft has fallen flat, not just Bob, MSX, MSN Smart Watch, MSN TV,
>> Zune/PlaysForSure, tablet PCs, "ultra mobile" PCs, but notably also in
>> mobile devices like Kin.
>
>Most of those categories failed completely though- it's not like Google
>walked away with the smartwatch category, or Mac OS "Bill" trouced Bob-
>they just failed to take root at all.

Small comfort.

>Mobile phones and Zune have been lackluster,

Zune is a major flop. If that's the measure of success, then SloMo7 is
doomed.

>but that's what MS is hoping
>to turn around with WP7. (Good luck!) Apple is owning tablets at the
>moment, but once a decent Android tablet and the Windows 7 tablets show up,
>that market will get interesting.

Agreed.

>> Except Microsoft has no position in the mobile segment, and thus no easy
>> way to leverage a gaming handset like Sony Ericsson.
>
>Um, WP7? It has XBox Live integration, and via cloud sync, select games
>can be paused on the console, picked up where left off on the phone, and
>picked back up again on the console. (Turn-based games, anyway- WP7
>won't have the power for XBox-caliber first-person shooters, but the
>strategy there is to create mobile "mini-games" in the same franchise-
>for example, a mobile Halo game will be offered at launch.)
>
>Gaming might be the strongest feature of WP7, (though it's a feature that
>means absolutely nothing to me, much like "integrated social networking!")

Are you serious? SloMo7 as a serious competitor to PSP? Really?

>> I only see room for 2 or 3 major players -- everyone else will get
>> killed, and the carnage is already well underway -- just ask Jorma
>> Ollila and Olli-Pekka Kallasvuo.
>
>Nokia is the Microsoft of the cellphone industry. They've been "phoning
>it in" for so long that they don't remember how to innovate. I picked up
>a Symbian phone about a month ago, the Nokia Nuron, to put in my travel
>bag to use as a T-Mo 3G modem when I'm stuck at a hotel without free
>WiFi, and I was reminded a lot of WinMo- Symbian, like WinMo has pretty
>much stood still since my last Symbian phone from 2002. Other than
>touchscreen support, it was the same old awkward UI, same piss-poor email
>client, same buggy SyncML implementation. How is this crappy OS still
>the darling of Europe with a 40% worldwide smartphone market share?
>
>Hopefully Meego and the new Symbian are able to get Nokia back on track.
>Nokia has the same in-fighting problems as MS. The Nokia N8x0 tablets
>were great little devices, but Nokia resisted sticking a phone in them
>for far too long. They could've slapped a phone into the N810 and had an
>iPhone competitor months after the iPhone launch, but spun their wheels,
>shoving the N95and N97 at us instead. By the time the N900 finally
>showed up, no one cared.

Sounds to me pretty much like Microsoft and WinMo all around, including
the difficulty of turning things around. Parallels with Nokia should
give Microsoft serious pause.

>> Those OEMs seem to be giving lackluster support to WinMo7 as compared to
>> Android, just enough to stay in the game for now, another problem for
>> WinMo7, which needs enthusiastic pushing of the envelope. Instead, the
>> hottest engineering is being poured into Android.
>
>That's to be expected, unfortunately. MS is calling the shots WRT
>hardware- they're mandating the number of buttons as well as placement,
>the size and res of the touchscreen, mandating the sync ports, minimum
>memory size, etc. There's very little room for OEMs to innovate.

Forcing OEMs to fight with one hand tied behind their backs makes
success all the more unlikely.

>That's
>also why it isn't siurprizing to see articles like "Brand X will release
>15 Android phones vs. three WP7 phones in 2011." With so little wiggle
>room in WP7 specs, there's little reason to release a dozen nearly
>identical WP7s. An OEM will probably release a big screen (4') model, a
>smaller 3.something inch, and a slim model with no slider keyboard.
>Other than choice of colors and memory sizes, there isn't much left to do.
>
>MS is trying for a iPhone-like sameness to WP7- that's the most dangerous
>part of their strategy, IMO- OEMs want and need to differentiate, and MS'
>idea of WP7 differentiation is stuff like slider keyboard or no keyboard,
>or rounded corners vs. squared!

All by itself it could well be a fatal flaw.

>> Except time is not on its side. By the time the Microsoft bullet
>> finally gets there, the target will have long since moved on. Microsoft
>> needs speed, not staying power.
>
>The target isn't really moving in mobile right now.

Strongly disagree -- Android software development is moving at a very
rapid pace, hardware as well, and I'm sure Apple isn't sitting still
either. You seem to assume not much will change in the next year while
Microsoft tries to get its act together, whereas I think just the
opposite.

>Take the iPhone-
>it's slimmer, faster, and has a more storage memory than previous models,
>but has essentially the same UI as iPhone 1.0, and the same hardware
>feature set as any other high-end phone- it finally leapfrogged the
>screen res of high-end Android and WinMos (just barely.) And if I hear
>the term "retina display" again, I'll wretch. My two year-old Sony X1
>has a 312 ppi display- just a dozen ppi or so short of the iPhone 4's
>"revolutionary" display. (But that's Apple for you- they finally catch
>up with the rest of the industry and proclaim it a technological
>revolution!)

That's the price Apple pays for the arbitrary annual release cycle, but
even a cursory look at patent and tech conference activity shows that
much new stuff is being worked on. It's dangerous to project from the
known. It's how companies get blindsided over and over.

>People seem to want a decent display, media playback, good email,
>messaging and web browsing, the latest fart apps, Facebook, a few games,
>and an easy, slick UI. iOS offers that, Android offers that, and WP7
>will offer that. Where's the target going to move between now and
>Christmas?

SloMo7 needs more like 9-12 months after introduction to establish a
foothold, and if what little thunder it has is stolen by Android in 3-6
months, as I expect, then whatever momentum it has may well be lost.

>> Tells me Microsoft has yet to convince anyone that WinMo7 is a hot
>> ticket.
>
>It tells me Microsoft still wields a big enough stick that they can get
>OEMs behind them with little more than a promise, even after WinMo's
>slide into irrelevance, and the Kin implosion.

I don't think half-baked efforts are going to cut it.

But of course only time will tell. It will be interesting.
Microsoft might (1) fly, or (2) crash and burn, or (3) just might muddle
along in a barely tenable position, as it has up to now.
My money is on (3) leading eventually to (2). But I could be wrong(tm).

--
John

"Assumption is the mother of all screw ups."
[Wethern’s Law of Suspended Judgement]

On Mon, 30 Aug 2010 01:00:34 -0600, in
<[email protected]>, Todd Allcock
<[email protected]> wrote:

>At 29 Aug 2010 09:08:16 -0700 John Navas wrote:

>> Market share is priceless. The challenge is to retain as much of the
>> user base as possible by designing an OS that's fully modern while still
>> backward compatible, a challenge, but doable in my estimation. WinMo7
>> might even be a good starting point.
>
>As you said before, time is not on MS' side. The problem was MS ignored
>iOS and Android for far too long. MS didn't decide to get serious about
>competing until late last year, and decided then and there to get a new
>OS built and released to OEMs so phones could be in stores by this fall.
>
>WP7 might have had backwards compatibilty, (and maybe even cut-and-paste!)
> if MS started work on it back in 2007 or even 2008, but that's the price
>you pay for spinning your wheels. A lot of stuff was red-lined (or back-
>burnered.)

Except half-a-loaf late ("day late and a dollar short") isn't a winning
strategy, especially against tough competition. If you're going to be
late regardless, it's usually better to go for the whole loaf. As it
is, Microsoft is probably missing the vital Christmas selling season
this year, so it might as well have targeted a launch on top of "iPhone
5" next year with a more compelling offering.

>> All Microsoft wanted was the platform, not Sidekick, so the result isn't
>> terribly surprising, especially since Microsoft isn't terribly good at
>> acquisitions.
>
>I think MS saw a value in the "smartphone for kids" idea.

Kids wanted iPhones to match what their friends have. That game was
over. Kids don't buy on features, they buy on coolness and acceptance.

>> I think it more a matter of waking up to the fact that Kim was a poor
>> idea and dangerous diversion likely to fail.
>
>Again it's more sabotage by in-fighting.

In-fighting didn't help, but I think the basic problem was a fundamental
misreading of the market. Microsoft wasn't alone there by any means,
for whatever comfort that is.

>Kin predates WP7, and was
>designed to be a soicial-networking/messaging savant phone for teens. It
>failed partly because it was too crippled (a la Sidekick)- no third party
>apps, no IM client, and partly because Verizon didn't market it like they
>originally planned- Kin was supposed to have a T-Mo Sidekick-type rate
>plan, with all data and messaging included in one price, to entice
>parents into adding these to their family plans. When Verizon decided to
>price Kin data and messaging the same as any other smartphone, Kin was
>doomed- there were much better Verizon Blackberry, Android, and WinMo
>devices to blow your $30/month on.

Kids wanted iPhones to match what their friends have, not BlackBerry,
not Kin, not Motoblur, not Sony Ericsson, etc -- think huge herd, and
once it starts to stampede in a given direction, there's usually no
turning or splitting it, witness Facebook and Twitter.

>> What Microsoft should be
>> doing is what Sony Ericsson is reportedly doing for Android 3.0, merging
>> its gaming platform into its mobile communication platform, But the
>> serious problem for Microsoft is that it's failed to develop and
>> establish a mobile gaming platform.
>
>They're doing it with WP7- that is the mobile gaming platform. How much
>of it also gets rolled into Zune for non-phone users, I don't know. WP7
>will beat Sony's gaming phone to market, though

Sony Ericsson has the time Microsoft doesn't given the strength of PSP.
I think you seriously underestimate the power of the brand and the
platform. If Microsoft had established a handheld Xbox then it might
have a decent chance, but it didn't, and now it's probably too late.
Low-end Xbox games aren't going to cut it against popular PSP titles on
a Sony Ericsson Android 3.0 handset.

>> The push to abandon backward compatibility tends to come from lazy
>> engineers, not insurmountable obstacles.
>
>Not really- you just have to prioritize. MS has jettisoned hardware
>cursor control keys from WP7 in favor of the iPhoney look. Virtually all
>WinMo apps expect them. HTC released a couple of WM6.5 phones without
>cursor keys this year, the TouchPro 2, and HD2, and they're very limited
>in what WinMo apps they run well. A lot of devs updated their apps to
>run without a hardware DPad, but these phones broke comptibility with a
>boatload of apps, and they're running the right OS! There's no way,
>without major kludging (on-screen touch virtual DPad?) WP7 devices could
>play nice with legacy apps.

With all due respect, I think that's a failure of imagination, that
there are good ways it could have been done, but I don't want to get off
on a long tangent, so I'm not going to go into details.

>> You see the glass as (more than) half empty. I see the glass as (more
>> than) half full -- I'm quite impressed with how much backward
>> compatibility is built into Windows XP (Vista and 7).
>
>So am I. My point was that sometimes you have to draw the line and say
>we'll shoot for backwards compatibilty, but if it conflicts with a new
>feature, the new feature wins.

My point is that's usually not a good idea, that the reasons are more
excuses than real justifications.

>XP used that design strategy, and
>maintained quite a bit of backwards compatibilty, but not nearly as much
>as, say, Win95 did.

Good as it was in backward compatibility, XP could of course have been
even better.

>> I find technology interesting but not exciting. As a _user_ (not a
>> technologist), I care not a whit what processor is in my Android phone
>> or (for example) how Android garbage collection functions. What I do
>> care about is how well it serves my needs. I won't put up with having
>> to reboot it, or to kill apps -- the 2nd time I have to kill an app is
>> the last time it will be on my phone. The 2nd time I have to reboot my
>> phone is when I start looking for new phone.
>
>I mean "cool" as in a slick UI with some nice core apps- not the
>underlying technology.

The characteristics you list are all _hardware_ specs (screen size,
processor speed, etc). My point is that those things don't matter all
that much. Likewise nice core apps.

What matters is the total user experience, a synergy of hardware and
software. Touch screens had been around long before Apple, but in
unimaginative ways (except for Palm, but it failed to stick with it).
What set iDevices apart was the intuitive user experience.

What makes Android cool is a somewhat different but similarly intuitive
experience that's tightly integrated with cloud computing. I've got at
least 5 different ways to bring up my Contacts and Dialer, all of which
make sense. And when I buy an Android phone, all I have to do is enter
my Google Account info to get it up and running, no (ugh) iTunes.

I'm not persuaded that SloMo7 will even be in that game, much less a
leap forward. Way too much is hanging on function grouping (nice, but
hardly a game changer) and legacy compatibility (which much of the
market doesn't care about).

>> A big problem for Microsoft is that it now competes with Google on many
>> fronts, so it's not in a position to get great cloud support from the
>> get go. Windows Live Hotmail is losing the war (for 2nd place behind
>> Yahoo Mail) to Gmail (both free and Google Apps), and the "Windows Live"
>> re-branding is symptomatic of fundamental miscalculations by Microsoft.
>> Windows is the problem, not the solution.

>Again, like I said earlier, your choice of ecosystem influences your
>choice of device. I use Office, Outlook, Live/Hotmail, etc., so WinMo
>certainly, and maybe WP7, is a natural choice. You're a Google cloud
>user- GooCal, GooDocs, GMail, etc., therefore Android is the natural
>choice for you. That's why I think there's room for multiple players in
>the smartphone arena- you choose the OS that matches your "cloud."

Fair point, but I don't think the Microsoft ecosystem is driving the
market. If I'm a home user with Office, using Ouchlook or Ouchlook
Express, SloMo7 gives me nothing without serious technical help, a
killer. Microsoft was late to the cloud, and not enough of the market
migrated there to matter. I could go into all the mistakes and missed
opportunities there, but that's another tangent, and I don't have all
day to write this.

>Heck, as dumbphones continue to get smarter, and more of mobile app usage
>is thin client/cloud based, the OS will likely be _less_ important over
>time- Google Maps, GMail, Hotmail, even Exchange PIM data is all
>accessible via Java apps, a browser, or both.

Moore's Law says real smartphones will take over from dumbphones.
How many computers still run DOS?

>> I think it will be game over by then -- the world will have moved on
>> before Microsoft can get it right, leaving Microsoft still a full cycle
>> behind, a fatal problem in the long term. WinMo7 is at least a year too
>> late.
>
>Smartphones are still only 20% of the cellular market. The 80% who
>haven't bought in yet don't know who's late.

That's like saying DOS users could have gone to OS/2 instead of Windows.
Think herd, think Moore's Law, and see my comments above. The 80% will
go into phone stores, see what's hot and cool, and buy what they can
afford. Soon enough "free" (value) Android phones will be the rule
rather than the exception, likewise iPhone Mini if Apple has any sense,
and then it will be game over for anything else. Microsoft will be
squeezed into the vanishing middle, a very bad place to be. It has to
establish SloMo7 as a hot high end phone to have any real chance of
success (IMHO).

--
John

"Those who have knowledge, don't predict.
Those who predict, don't have knowledge." [Lao-Tzu]

In article <[email protected]>, Todd Allcock
<[email protected]> wrote:

> > > >I see zero OSX in business, some Linux. In desktop.
> > >
> > > OS X has a small amount of desktop traction in small professional
> > > businesses (e.g., small law firms).
> >
> > uh, no. os x is a very poor choice for law firms, and it's very rare
> > you'll find a law office that uses macs. same for accounting.
>
> Really? The first Mac I ever spent any significant time on was on my
> brother-in-law's desk at his law office in the early-90s. He was a solo
> practitioner, so the choice of computer was his and his alone.

there's a bit of a difference with a solo practitioner who can do
whatever s/he wants versus a law office (or any multi-person office)
where more than one person needs to agree to something.

however, back then, word perfect, a favourite of lawyers, did run on
the mac. not the case today. on the other hand, os x interoperates with
windows a lot better than system 7 did.

> He liked the ease of use, and Mac OS had all the software he needed,
> including an easy-to-use time tracker to log billable hours. I used to
> sell PCs back then, so I used to give him heck about it, but he always
> joked he liked using the Mac at work so he could spend his office hours
> being an attorney, rather than an IT guy.

agreed, but tell that to an it department they have a vested
interest in keeping their jobs and in not supporting two platforms.

On Mon, 30 Aug 2010 02:01:42 -0600, in
<[email protected]>, Todd Allcock
<[email protected]> wrote:

>At 29 Aug 2010 20:40:01 -0700 John Navas wrote:

>> Perhaps against iPhone, but I don't think that kind of "low spec" will
>> cut it if Sony Ericsson does come out with PSP in an Android phone.
>
>By "low spec" I meant in comparison to the XBox console. There will be
>plenty of arcade-style games available for WP7 at launch, but _exact_
>copies of XBox arcade shooters will not be ported to WP7, preventing the
>ability to pause play on the console and pick it up on the handheld, like
>less hardware intensive games will allow.

I don't think that will cut it. I think you underestimate the
popularity and appeal of PSP games, and the difficulty of establishing a
new platform. Think N-Gage.

>Besides, the Sony product illustrates both the weakness of Android as a
>gaming platform, as well as the fragmentation of Android in general- only
>a single fork will have PSP capability.

I see that as a strength, not a weakness. Android can have a PSP
variation, a Nintendo variation, etc, let the best one(s) win.

--
John

"Assumption is the mother of all screw ups."
[Wethern’s Law of Suspended Judgement]

On Sun, 29 Aug 2010 21:47:27 -0600, in
<[email protected]>, Todd Allcock
<[email protected]> wrote:

>At 29 Aug 2010 19:17:28 -0400 nospam wrote:
>> In article <[email protected]>, John Navas
>> <[email protected]> wrote:
>>
>> > >I see zero OSX in business, some Linux. In desktop.
>> >
>> > OS X has a small amount of desktop traction in small professional
>> > businesses (e.g., small law firms).
>>
>> uh, no. os x is a very poor choice for law firms, and it's very rare
>> you'll find a law office that uses macs. same for accounting.
>
>Really? The first Mac I ever spent any significant time on was on my
>brother-in-law's desk at his law office in the early-90s. He was a solo
>practitioner, so the choice of computer was his and his alone.
>
>He liked the ease of use, and Mac OS had all the software he needed,
>including an easy-to-use time tracker to log billable hours. I used to
>sell PCs back then, so I used to give him heck about it, but he always
>joked he liked using the Mac at work so he could spend his office hours
>being an attorney, rather than an IT guy.

Pay no attention to "nospam" -- I work with many law offices, and quite
a few of the smaller ones use Macs, primarily for ease of use with
minimal expert assistance.

--
John

"Assumption is the mother of all screw ups."
[Wethern’s Law of Suspended Judgement]

In article <[email protected]>, Todd Allcock
<[email protected]> wrote:

> Are you expecting major updates to iOS or Android in the next 30-60 days?

i dunno about him but i am. ios 4.1 is expected to be announced on
wednesday and will probably ship that day, at least for the new ipod
touch.

the iphone and current ipod touch should also get 4.1 then, or within a
week at the latest. as for the ipad, there hasn't been a beta of 4.1
for it yet, so they might release the first beta with the final version
in a few weeks. they did say it would be out in 'fall' which doesn't
start until later in september.

> > > Android users are still mostly divided between 1.6, 2.1, and 2.2, and
> > >plenty of new devices are still sold with 1.6.
> >
> > And the great majority of Android users don't even know, much less care.
>
> They'll care when the app they want requires a newer OS than what's
> available for their device.

exactly and already there are a lot of apps that require ios 4.0.
fortunately for ios developers, a significant majority of users have
upgraded.