reply to discussion |
Results 1 to 15 of 166
- 08-27-2010, 05:01 PM #1SMSGuest
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/38635041...ence-wireless/
"Apple has let a reasonable iPhone copy become the No. 1 selling smart
phone platform in America. It let this happen, by simultaneously
creating a burning desire for an app-driven touch-screen smart phone,
and then denying it to two-thirds of the American populace."
› See More: "Why the Verizon iPhone is already too late "
- 08-27-2010, 06:02 PM #2John NavasGuest
Re: "Why the Verizon iPhone is already too late "
On Fri, 27 Aug 2010 16:01:19 -0700, in
<[email protected]>, SMS
<[email protected]> wrote:
>http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/38635041...ence-wireless/
>
>"Apple has let a reasonable iPhone copy become the No. 1 selling smart
>phone platform in America. It let this happen, by simultaneously
>creating a burning desire for an app-driven touch-screen smart phone,
>and then denying it to two-thirds of the American populace."
That's a pretty funny article on several counts, since Android isn't a
copy of iPhone, since apps have been around for a long time (on a number
of smartphone platforms), since touch screen essentially goes back to
Palm, since smartphone goes back to Nokia and Sony Ericsson, since a
Verizon iPhone might well have been a net downer for Apple, since Droid
isn't the only measure of Android success, since the real issue holding
back Apple mentioned in the article is closed system versus open system,
and since Apple almost certainly wouldn't have been able to stop Android
with iPhone on Verizon -- one need only look overseas.
"New reports show that Google's Android is eating the iPhone's lunch."
Summarizes the situation pretty well.
--
John
If the iPhone and iPad are really so impressive,
then why do iFans keep making excuses for them?
- 08-27-2010, 06:26 PM #3nospamGuest
Re: "Why the Verizon iPhone is already too late "
In article <[email protected]>, John Navas
<[email protected]> wrote:
> >http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/38635041...ence-wireless/
> >
> >"Apple has let a reasonable iPhone copy become the No. 1 selling smart
> >phone platform in America. It let this happen, by simultaneously
> >creating a burning desire for an app-driven touch-screen smart phone,
> >and then denying it to two-thirds of the American populace."
>
> That's a pretty funny article on several counts, since Android isn't a
> copy of iPhone,
yes it is, in many, many ways.
> since apps have been around for a long time (on a number
> of smartphone platforms),
not of the same class they haven't.
> since touch screen essentially goes back to
> Palm,
resistive screens that required a stylus. blech. the iphone and android
are huge advancements over that.
> since smartphone goes back to Nokia and Sony Ericsson, since a
> Verizon iPhone might well have been a net downer for Apple,
eh?
> since Droid
> isn't the only measure of Android success,
it's a major one. the droid family are the best selling android phones.
> since the real issue holding
> back Apple mentioned in the article is closed system versus open system,
nope. manufacturing capacity and being stuck on one carrier has a
bigger role. apple would be selling significantly more, if they could
only keep up.
> and since Apple almost certainly wouldn't have been able to stop Android
> with iPhone on Verizon -- one need only look overseas.
>
> "New reports show that Google's Android is eating the iPhone's lunch."
> Summarizes the situation pretty well.
that depends on which report.
<http://www.whatdotheyknow.com/reques...12/attach/html
/3/RFI20101043%20final%20response.pdf.html>
For complete weeks*since 23 June, the average weekly number of
Android device users accessing*programmes*from the BBC iPlayer was
1,106, peaking at 1,896*in the week commencing 26 July*2010.*
In July 2010 there was an*average of 230,016 Apple*mobile devices
users accessing programmes via*the BBC iPlayer each week, peaking
at*248,700 in the week commencing 26 July 2010.*
just under 2000 users on android, versus just under 250,000 for iphone.
android also accessed 6400 programs versus 5 million for iphones.
that's *two* orders of magnitude higher for iphone.
android may be eating lunch but it sure isn't the iphone's lunch it's
eating.
- 08-27-2010, 07:56 PM #4JustinGuest
Re: "Why the Verizon iPhone is already too late "
nospam wrote on [Fri, 27 Aug 2010 20:26:28 -0400]:
> In article <[email protected]>, John Navas
> <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>> >http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/38635041...ence-wireless/
>> >
>> >"Apple has let a reasonable iPhone copy become the No. 1 selling smart
>> >phone platform in America. It let this happen, by simultaneously
>> >creating a burning desire for an app-driven touch-screen smart phone,
>> >and then denying it to two-thirds of the American populace."
>>
>> That's a pretty funny article on several counts, since Android isn't a
>> copy of iPhone,
>
> yes it is, in many, many ways.
many, many ways.
>> since apps have been around for a long time (on a number
>> of smartphone platforms),
>
> not of the same class they haven't.
Did Palm have 638 fart apps?
> that depends on which report.
>
> <http://www.whatdotheyknow.com/reques...12/attach/html
> /3/RFI20101043%20final%20response.pdf.html>
>
> For complete weeksÂ*since 23 June, the average weekly number of
> Android device users accessingÂ*programmesÂ*from the BBC iPlayer was
> 1,106, peaking at 1,896Â*in the week commencing 26 JulyÂ*2010.Â*
>
> In July 2010 there was anÂ*average of 230,016 AppleÂ*mobile devices
> users accessing programmes viaÂ*the BBC iPlayer each week, peaking
> atÂ*248,700 in the week commencing 26 July 2010.Â*
>
> just under 2000 users on android, versus just under 250,000 for iphone.
> android also accessed 6400 programs versus 5 million for iphones.
>
> that's *two* orders of magnitude higher for iphone.
>
> android may be eating lunch but it sure isn't the iphone's lunch it's
> eating.
Talk about (no pun intended) comparing Apples and Oranges. This study
you are quoting is talking about the UK, the other one is the US.
Which one is the bigger market?
Also, how many of those iOS accesses are from a non iPhone?
- 08-28-2010, 08:58 AM #5SMSGuest
Re: "Why the Verizon iPhone is already too late "
On 8/27/2010 5:26 PM, nospam wrote:
> In article<[email protected]>, John Navas
> <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>>> http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/38635041...ence-wireless/
>>>
>>> "Apple has let a reasonable iPhone copy become the No. 1 selling smart
>>> phone platform in America. It let this happen, by simultaneously
>>> creating a burning desire for an app-driven touch-screen smart phone,
>>> and then denying it to two-thirds of the American populace."
>>
>> That's a pretty funny article on several counts, since Android isn't a
>> copy of iPhone,
>
> yes it is, in many, many ways.
There's no debate that Android was a direct response to the popularity
of the iPhone. If the iPhone had been available on other carriers
Android would never have had such enormous success.
>> since the real issue holding
>> back Apple mentioned in the article is closed system versus open system,
>
> nope. manufacturing capacity and being stuck on one carrier has a
> bigger role. apple would be selling significantly more, if they could
> only keep up.
There's no shortage of manufacturing capacity in the world. If there was
demand, Apple could sign up other contract manufacturers that they
already use for other products. It's the issue of the iPhone only being
on one U.S. carrier that has given Android such an advantage. There are
some people, and I'm one of them, that like the Android platform for
specific reasons such as the removable media, USB support, user
replaceable battery, and Flash support, but most people don't care much
about those issues. The applications base of the iPhone, and how well it
integrates with other products and services is something the Android
needs to catch up on. I.e., to deposit a check in two of my banks, I
could use an iPhone app but there is no Android app. One bank lets me
hook a scanner to the computer for this which I've done but which is
rather a hassle.
>> and since Apple almost certainly wouldn't have been able to stop Android
>> with iPhone on Verizon -- one need only look overseas.
>>
>> "New reports show that Google's Android is eating the iPhone's lunch."
>> Summarizes the situation pretty well.
>
> that depends on which report.
>
> <http://www.whatdotheyknow.com/reques...12/attach/html
> /3/RFI20101043%20final%20response.pdf.html>
>
> For complete weeks since 23 June, the average weekly number of
> Android device users accessing programmes from the BBC iPlayer was
> 1,106, peaking at 1,896 in the week commencing 26 July 2010.
>
> In July 2010 there was an average of 230,016 Apple mobile devices
> users accessing programmes via the BBC iPlayer each week, peaking
> at 248,700 in the week commencing 26 July 2010.
>
> just under 2000 users on android, versus just under 250,000 for iphone.
> android also accessed 6400 programs versus 5 million for iphones.
An iPhone on Verizon would have seriously damaged Androids popularity. I
know a lot of people with Android based phones. Invariably these same
people also have an iPod Nano or iPod Touch. They'd have jumped at the
chance to get an iPhone and not have to deal with two devices (they are
NOT going to start re-encoding iTunes downloads to another format for
transfer to the Android). However they didn't want an iPhone bad enough
to use AT&T, which in the San Francisco Bay Area has serious coverage
and capacity problems.
[alt.cellular.cingular removed, Cingular no longer exists]
- 08-28-2010, 09:14 AM #6nospamGuest
Re: "Why the Verizon iPhone is already too late "
In article <[email protected]>, SMS
<[email protected]> wrote:
> >> That's a pretty funny article on several counts, since Android isn't a
> >> copy of iPhone,
> >
> > yes it is, in many, many ways.
>
> There's no debate that Android was a direct response to the popularity
> of the iPhone.
absolutely, especially when you look at what android was early on and
compare it to what it is now. the iphone had a *lot* of influence on it
and still does.
> If the iPhone had been available on other carriers
> Android would never have had such enormous success.
maybe yes, maybe no. it's impossible to know what might have happened.
> >> since the real issue holding
> >> back Apple mentioned in the article is closed system versus open system,
> >
> > nope. manufacturing capacity and being stuck on one carrier has a
> > bigger role. apple would be selling significantly more, if they could
> > only keep up.
>
> There's no shortage of manufacturing capacity in the world. If there was
> demand, Apple could sign up other contract manufacturers that they
> already use for other products.
it's not that simple. it could also be parts shortages, such as the lcd
panel that the ipad uses. the fact is that apple is supply constrained.
if they could simply sign up another manufacturer, don't you think they
would?
> It's the issue of the iPhone only being
> on one U.S. carrier that has given Android such an advantage. There are
> some people, and I'm one of them, that like the Android platform for
> specific reasons such as the removable media, USB support, user
> replaceable battery, and Flash support, but most people don't care much
> about those issues.
competition is good. the iphone does not have to be the *only* platform.
> The applications base of the iPhone, and how well it
> integrates with other products and services is something the Android
> needs to catch up on. I.e., to deposit a check in two of my banks, I
> could use an iPhone app but there is no Android app. One bank lets me
> hook a scanner to the computer for this which I've done but which is
> rather a hassle.
deposit by phone ****ing rocks. if only people would send me more
checks to deposit.
> An iPhone on Verizon would have seriously damaged Androids popularity. I
> know a lot of people with Android based phones. Invariably these same
> people also have an iPod Nano or iPod Touch. They'd have jumped at the
> chance to get an iPhone and not have to deal with two devices (they are
> NOT going to start re-encoding iTunes downloads to another format for
> transfer to the Android). However they didn't want an iPhone bad enough
> to use AT&T, which in the San Francisco Bay Area has serious coverage
> and capacity problems.
there's no question that at&t is a problem, and one that will cease to
be an issue one day. both at&t and apple have said the exclusive will
end at some point.
meanwhile apple is selling all that they can make, so even if the
iphone was available on verizon and other carriers, they wouldn't be
selling much more.
- 08-28-2010, 09:21 AM #7Secular HumanistGuest
Re: "Why the Verizon iPhone is already too late "
On 8/28/10 10:58 AM, SMS wrote:
> On 8/27/2010 5:26 PM, nospam wrote:
>> In article<[email protected]>, John Navas
>> <[email protected]> wrote:
>>
>>>> http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/38635041...ence-wireless/
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> "Apple has let a reasonable iPhone copy become the No. 1 selling smart
>>>> phone platform in America. It let this happen, by simultaneously
>>>> creating a burning desire for an app-driven touch-screen smart phone,
>>>> and then denying it to two-thirds of the American populace."
>>>
>>> That's a pretty funny article on several counts, since Android isn't a
>>> copy of iPhone,
>>
>> yes it is, in many, many ways.
>
> There's no debate that Android was a direct response to the popularity
> of the iPhone. If the iPhone had been available on other carriers
> Android would never have had such enormous success.
>
>>> since the real issue holding
>>> back Apple mentioned in the article is closed system versus open system,
>>
>> nope. manufacturing capacity and being stuck on one carrier has a
>> bigger role. apple would be selling significantly more, if they could
>> only keep up.
>
> There's no shortage of manufacturing capacity in the world. If there was
> demand, Apple could sign up other contract manufacturers that they
> already use for other products. It's the issue of the iPhone only being
> on one U.S. carrier that has given Android such an advantage. There are
> some people, and I'm one of them, that like the Android platform for
> specific reasons such as the removable media, USB support, user
> replaceable battery, and Flash support, but most people don't care much
> about those issues. The applications base of the iPhone, and how well it
> integrates with other products and services is something the Android
> needs to catch up on. I.e., to deposit a check in two of my banks, I
> could use an iPhone app but there is no Android app. One bank lets me
> hook a scanner to the computer for this which I've done but which is
> rather a hassle.
>
>>> and since Apple almost certainly wouldn't have been able to stop Android
>>> with iPhone on Verizon -- one need only look overseas.
>>>
>>> "New reports show that Google's Android is eating the iPhone's lunch."
>>> Summarizes the situation pretty well.
>>
>> that depends on which report.
>>
>> <http://www.whatdotheyknow.com/reques...12/attach/html
>> /3/RFI20101043%20final%20response.pdf.html>
>>
>> For complete weeks since 23 June, the average weekly number of
>> Android device users accessing programmes from the BBC iPlayer was
>> 1,106, peaking at 1,896 in the week commencing 26 July 2010.
>>
>> In July 2010 there was an average of 230,016 Apple mobile devices
>> users accessing programmes via the BBC iPlayer each week, peaking
>> at 248,700 in the week commencing 26 July 2010.
>>
>> just under 2000 users on android, versus just under 250,000 for iphone.
>> android also accessed 6400 programs versus 5 million for iphones.
>
> An iPhone on Verizon would have seriously damaged Androids popularity. I
> know a lot of people with Android based phones. Invariably these same
> people also have an iPod Nano or iPod Touch. They'd have jumped at the
> chance to get an iPhone and not have to deal with two devices (they are
> NOT going to start re-encoding iTunes downloads to another format for
> transfer to the Android). However they didn't want an iPhone bad enough
> to use AT&T, which in the San Francisco Bay Area has serious coverage
> and capacity problems.
>
> [alt.cellular.cingular removed, Cingular no longer exists]
The Android phones are in a "younger" stage of development than the
iPhones and there are a number of manufacturers pushing Android
development.
Were it not for AT&T, I would have bought an iPhone when they first came
out. A few months ago, I got a verizon htc incredible. It's a good smart
phone and I've lost interest in the iPhone. I suspect many of those
waiting for a verizon iPhone have also lost interest. There's really no
need any more to narrow one's focus on an iPhone when there are so many
very worthy competitors.
- 08-28-2010, 09:35 AM #8SMSGuest
Re: "Why the Verizon iPhone is already too late "
On 8/28/2010 8:21 AM, Secular Humanist wrote:
<snip>
> Were it not for AT&T, I would have bought an iPhone when they first came
> out. A few months ago, I got a verizon htc incredible. It's a good smart
> phone and I've lost interest in the iPhone. I suspect many of those
> waiting for a verizon iPhone have also lost interest. There's really no
> need any more to narrow one's focus on an iPhone when there are so many
> very worthy competitors.
The Incredible is very impressive. And how many people with Android
phones are going to just decide to stick with an OS and user interface
that they're familiar with even when the iPhone does make it to other
carriers. Apple probably had no idea how incredibly popular the iPhone
would be, or how incredibly unprepared AT&T was to handle such
popularity, when they signed that long-term exclusivity agreement.
- 08-28-2010, 09:59 AM #9John NavasGuest
Re: "Why the Verizon iPhone is already too late "
On Sat, 28 Aug 2010 07:58:18 -0700, in
<[email protected]>, SMS
<[email protected]> wrote:
>There's no debate that Android was a direct response to the popularity
>of the iPhone. If the iPhone had been available on other carriers
>Android would never have had such enormous success.
Your usual Appeal to Authority Fallacy ("no debate", "all experts
agree", etc, etc, ad nauseam, ad infinitum).
Android was a startup to do mobile devices based on Linux, not a
response to Apple, that was later acquired by Google. Learn the real
facts (history).
>An iPhone on Verizon would have seriously damaged Androids popularity.
Your usual speculation presented as fact, followed by a meaningless
(probably made-up) anecdote.
>[alt.cellular.cingular removed, Cingular no longer exists]
[childish newsgroup removal restored]
--
John
"It is better to sit in silence and appear ignorant,
than to open your mouth and remove all doubt." -Mark Twain
"A little learning is a dangerous thing." -Alexander Pope
"Being ignorant is not so much a shame,
as being unwilling to learn." -Benjamin Franklin
- 08-28-2010, 10:00 AM #10John NavasGuest
Re: "Why the Verizon iPhone is already too late "
On Sat, 28 Aug 2010 08:35:58 -0700, in
<[email protected]>, SMS
<[email protected]> wrote:
>On 8/28/2010 8:21 AM, Secular Humanist wrote:
>
><snip>
>
>> Were it not for AT&T, I would have bought an iPhone when they first came
>> out. A few months ago, I got a verizon htc incredible. It's a good smart
>> phone and I've lost interest in the iPhone. I suspect many of those
>> waiting for a verizon iPhone have also lost interest. There's really no
>> need any more to narrow one's focus on an iPhone when there are so many
>> very worthy competitors.
>
>The Incredible is very impressive. And how many people with Android
>phones are going to just decide to stick with an OS and user interface
>that they're familiar with even when the iPhone does make it to other
>carriers. Apple probably had no idea how incredibly popular the iPhone
>would be, or how incredibly unprepared AT&T was to handle such
>popularity, when they signed that long-term exclusivity agreement.
So Apple is smart, or Apple is not so smart (as you of course)?
Which is it? At least keep your silly stories straight.
--
John
"It is better to sit in silence and appear ignorant,
than to open your mouth and remove all doubt." -Mark Twain
"A little learning is a dangerous thing." -Alexander Pope
"Being ignorant is not so much a shame,
as being unwilling to learn." -Benjamin Franklin
- 08-28-2010, 10:16 AM #11nospamGuest
Re: "Why the Verizon iPhone is already too late "
In article <[email protected]>, John Navas
<[email protected]> wrote:
> >There's no debate that Android was a direct response to the popularity
> >of the iPhone. If the iPhone had been available on other carriers
> >Android would never have had such enormous success.
>
> Your usual Appeal to Authority Fallacy ("no debate", "all experts
> agree", etc, etc, ad nauseam, ad infinitum).
>
> Android was a startup to do mobile devices based on Linux, not a
> response to Apple, that was later acquired by Google. Learn the real
> facts (history).
yes android was a startup to do mobile devices based on linux, and if
you look at what it was early on and what it is now, it's very clear
that it was greatly influenced by apple. i think andy rubin even said
as much.
- 08-28-2010, 10:33 AM #12SMSGuest
Re: "Why the Verizon iPhone is already too late "
On 8/28/2010 9:16 AM, nospam wrote:
> In article<[email protected]>, John Navas
> <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>>> There's no debate that Android was a direct response to the popularity
>>> of the iPhone. If the iPhone had been available on other carriers
>>> Android would never have had such enormous success.
>>
>> Your usual Appeal to Authority Fallacy ("no debate", "all experts
>> agree", etc, etc, ad nauseam, ad infinitum).
>>
>> Android was a startup to do mobile devices based on Linux, not a
>> response to Apple, that was later acquired by Google. Learn the real
>> facts (history).
>
> yes android was a startup to do mobile devices based on linux, and if
> you look at what it was early on and what it is now, it's very clear
> that it was greatly influenced by apple. i think andy rubin even said
> as much.
Android was an outgrowth of Midori Linux which predated the iPhone by
many years. The idea of an embedded Linux product for mobile devices did
not start with the iPhone, but Android became a mass market product as
the result of the need for a low cost OS for mobile devices and other
embedded devices. Microsoft's pricing on Windows CE, Windows Mobile, and
Embedded XP has always been a big issue with device manufacturers. You'd
think that the enormous advantages of Windows Mobile in terms of
integration with the desktop/laptop Windows OSes and applications
(especially Office) would have given it an insurmountable lead but
because of how smart phones are marketed this advantage was never realized.
- 08-28-2010, 11:54 AM #13nospamGuest
Re: "Why the Verizon iPhone is already too late "
In article <[email protected]>, SMS
<[email protected]> wrote:
> Android was an outgrowth of Midori Linux which predated the iPhone by
> many years. The idea of an embedded Linux product for mobile devices did
> not start with the iPhone, but Android became a mass market product as
> the result of the need for a low cost OS for mobile devices and other
> embedded devices.
apple started on the iphone/ipad in the early to mid 2000s (steve jobs,
all things d, a few months ago). the point is that android now looks
more like an iphone than it did in its original incantation.
- 08-28-2010, 12:52 PM #14SMSGuest
Re: "Why the Verizon iPhone is already too late "
On 8/28/2010 11:31 AM, Todd Allcock wrote:
> However, WP7 does have one important thing going for it that old WinMo never
> had- MS willingness to throw money at it. For $8 a copy, MS never gave WM
> any type of ad budget- they left marketing and promotion to the OEMs, who
> had very little incentive to promote the underlying OS, since Samsung or HTC
> were far more interested in consumers buying their hardware brand in spite
> of the underlying OS, rather than buying for the OS, despite the brand of
> hardware. Expecting Samsung or HTC to bullishly promote WinMo, is about as
> crazy as a tire manufacturer like Goodyear to expect Ford to prominently
> promote their tires as a reason to buy the car.
Which is why any successful attempt by Microsoft to compete against the
iPhone with WP7 will be by following the iPhone model of selling the
hardware too, something Microsoft may not be able to do. They did it
with XBOX, but not with Zune. It doesn't require that they manufacture
it, Apple doesn't manufacture their hardware either, but they have to be
able to design and market it.
The integration of Office could be a big selling point--if they hurry.
- 08-28-2010, 03:01 PM #15John NavasGuest
Re: "Why the Verizon iPhone is already too late "
On Sat, 28 Aug 2010 09:33:29 -0700, in
<[email protected]>, SMS
<[email protected]> wrote:
>On 8/28/2010 9:16 AM, nospam wrote:
>> In article<[email protected]>, John Navas
>> <[email protected]> wrote:
>>
>>>> There's no debate that Android was a direct response to the popularity
>>>> of the iPhone. If the iPhone had been available on other carriers
>>>> Android would never have had such enormous success.
>>>
>>> Your usual Appeal to Authority Fallacy ("no debate", "all experts
>>> agree", etc, etc, ad nauseam, ad infinitum).
>>>
>>> Android was a startup to do mobile devices based on Linux, not a
>>> response to Apple, that was later acquired by Google. Learn the real
>>> facts (history).
>>
>> yes android was a startup to do mobile devices based on linux, and if
>> you look at what it was early on and what it is now, it's very clear
>> that it was greatly influenced by apple. i think andy rubin even said
>> as much.
Only after it was well along, mostly after Google acquired and
redirected it, and even then mostly in just the UI area.
>Android was an outgrowth of Midori Linux which predated the iPhone by
>many years. The idea of an embedded Linux product for mobile devices did
>not start with the iPhone, but Android became a mass market product as
>the result of the need for a low cost OS for mobile devices and other
>embedded devices.
Nice scramble. I'm guessing you did some checking and discovered you'd
made another big gaffe (quoted above).
>Microsoft's pricing on Windows CE, Windows Mobile, and
>Embedded XP has always been a big issue with device manufacturers. You'd
>think that the enormous advantages of Windows Mobile in terms of
>integration with the desktop/laptop Windows OSes and applications
>(especially Office) would have given it an insurmountable lead but
>because of how smart phones are marketed this advantage was never realized.
Irrelevant to the erroneous claim you made, an obvious attempt to divert
attention from your scramble.
If you'd take the time to check _before_ speaking you could avoid
putting your foot in your mouth so often.
--
John
"Assumption is the mother of all screw ups."
[Wethern’s Law of Suspended Judgement]
Similar Threads
- alt.cellular.verizon
- alt.cellular.attws
- alt.cellular.attws
- ATT
Aws gpu
in Chit Chat