or Connect
New Posts  All Forums:

Posts by Sensi

The usual fallacious garbage, an university will do fundamental research but will rarely be the one implementing their findings into products to make money, yet there you are basically bashing the innovator in favor of the parasite making money over the invention and refusing to pay a license over it : brilliant. They sued Intel over the same patent 7 years ago, and obviously they will go after the people making money over their inventions/patents if they refuse to pay a...
The chart you quoted is saying 61.17M not 61.7M.
Sure but that doesn't change the fact that Symbian (i.e. Nokia) was globally dominant back then and Windows Mobile nowhere to be so as a distant second, as is iOS relatively to Android nowadays.
You are cherry-picking there, and I would rather blame the discrepancy on Microsoft under performing with Windows Phone for many reasons (distribution, initial OEM price, then not unified dev with metro/modern UI apps, etc).That prediction is pretty accurate on another hand, only half a point off.
Well you haven't traveled much that's a given, as Symbian was all over Europe and Asia... Back then (Gartner: World-wide smartphone sales (% of smartphones / % of all phones)):2007:Symbian: 63.5% / 6.7%Windows Mobile: 12.0% / 1.3%RIM: 9.6% / 1.0%iOS: 2.7% / 0.3%http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mobile_operating_system#Market_share
When Android is over 90% market share and iOS under 10% i guess that "iOS, Android" will still "dominate" for half of our fictional press trying to amalgamate the two as if there was any kind of credible competition left regarding the OSes market share, or any kind of "shared" dominance... The "combined stake" will then also be 96% and they will be able to reuse the same headlines and be as much "accurate" as misleading. I just love that story telling...
Nope, I remember Symbian, Windows Mobile/Windows CE was nowhere "dominant" in anyway.
"Formerly dominant players Microsoft (...)" Err? Trying to make sense of this nonsense...
My guess is that a scientific discovery isn't an "idea" to begin with, disruptive or not.
I am still trying to figure out why several people wanted to put the discovery of the antibiotic properties of penicillin on a list of allegedly disruptive ideas. Now to get back on topic, this list is absolutely meaningless and nonsensical.
New Posts  All Forums: