Multi-phone Android platform seen overtaking iPhone by 2012 - Page 3

Originally Posted by Rot'nApple

Who is the "they" in your sentence ending 'they perish'? Is it Apple? How many times have columnists written Apple's obituary?

Or, is it the other tech companies that may have some talent but are extremely lacking on the visionary front?

Would Windows have Aero if Apple didn't have Aqua?

Would Windows have Gadgets if Apple didn't have Widgets?

Would MS have the Zune if Apple didn't have the iPod?

Would HTC "touchscreen" have created the firestorm if Apple didn't have the iPhone?

Would all the other phone manufacturers and cell carriers have an App Store if Apple didn't have the App Store?

Would Palm's PRE find some other way to sync if Apple didn't have the ITMS?


I'm not saying Apple is the end all be all for computers, operating systems, music players with download stores and iPhones with app stores, etc. but they, in some areas, certainly had the visionary foresight that proved to be very rewarding, to which everybody and their cousin jumped on the Apple bandwagon!

If those early calls for Apple to sell the company and give the shareholders their money back and the obituaries of Apple's premature death were true, what would the computer and electronics world look like today?! Would it still be like it is? Would it be stagnant? Would it have improved somewhat but not as elegant and to the degree of usability as it is today? Would mp3 manufacturers be inventing Dell's Jukebox killers? Would the Zune be prominent and instead of the lexicon "Podcasts" would we be calling them "Zunecasts" or "Squirtcasts"? So many questions... where is Clarence when you need him?

Start at 4:51... http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=h39Ap...eature=related

Originally Posted by dasein

Apple, while it has essentially one phone, has a platform that extends to other devices (computer, possible tablet). It's also important to remember they all share a common kernel and the iPhone is essentially a computer with a phone as an option.

Android will overtake Apple's iPhone in terms of market share by 2012

Originally Posted by tt92618

This is one of those rare occasions where I actually agree with TeckStud. I think people who are roundly dismissing Android are making a serious mistake, and I hope there aren't many of them sitting around inside 1 infinite loop.

There are many parallels between what is going on now in the smartphone space and what went on between Apple and M$ in the early years. Then Apple tied itself to one hardware manufacturer (itself) and they could never produce enough hardware to meet demand. Now the constraint is in provision of services their devices need to be useful / functional; the dependence upon AT&T cannot have any effect other than to limit market penetration, for obvious reasons. Recent experiences in markets where Apple is prohibited from exclusivity in contracts proves this point; in those markets Apple has surged when the artificial constraint of exclusivity has been removed.

Originally Posted by tt92618

A second factor operating in the Android market is hardware innovation / cycles. No matter how hard Apple works to produce new and exciting hardware, Apple will never be able to keep up with 30 other companies all trying to bring product to market at the same time. It is almost inevitable that the iPhone will become stale in the minds of some consumers. In a market crowded with many devices of varying form factors, all of which provide a user experience that is close to Apple's, the value proposition that drives iPhone becomes less distinct. Thus far Apple has enjoyed having a very polished and integrated user experience that has surpassed everyone else by leaps and bounds. However, when the gap is narrowed, it is clear what happens; consumers become more influenced by other factors. This occurred after the introduction of Windows XP, which was 'close enough' to Mac OS that many consumers could not tell the difference. In that environment, they became influenced by other factors, factors like : 'gee, it costs more to buy that mac than a pc', and 'I can buy a pc at my local box store but I have to go to that weird mac dealer across town to get a mac', and 'there are 85 bajillion software apps for this PC here in this store, and only 10 for those macs.' In the absence of something compelling to convince the user to buy the mac, the purchase choice is obvious. If apple is not careful, the same logic will begin to emerge for iPhone.

Originally Posted by tt92618

These factors all played a huge role in the M$ market victory over Apple. Don't cry foul - M$ did win in the market, which is why Apple has 10% and M$ has 90%. Apple is content to be the niche player now, but that is because Apple has reinvented itself to be that company. Apple was not always the market niche; it was the market leader, and it lost that lead to M$, and that is what we are talking about here. Apple presently enjoys a lead in software and in user experience. If Android manages to narrow the gap appreciably in user experience (and it is arguably true that it already has), then consumer logic will begin to be driven by other factors, some of which I mentioned above. As the resulting Android share grows, so will the Android software base. What will happen when Android is on 30 devices sold through every major carrier, and when the Android marketplace has 8 or 9 thousand apps? At that point, the iPhone value proposition will be dramatically less clear than it is now to the average consumer, and they will wonder 'why should I switch to AT&T when I can get three of these Android phones from my present carrier at the same price point?".

The Android strategy is not that different from the M$ strategy in the 80's and 90's, and Apple's position with iPhone is not that different from their position with MacOS then. I really hope someone at Apple is looking at these parallels and thinking about how they can break out of the pattern this time and avoid the results.

Originally Posted by charlituna

dev
that version has never been even hinted at by Apple. it exists only in the fantasies of geeks like yourself. Do yourself a favor. Go tell the guy in the mirror that there is no Nano Phone, never was, never will be. And then maybe both of you can get over your disappointment.

Originally Posted by Tulkas

But, they are the same model line

Originally Posted by gbyrne

Gartner = FUD spreader. 'nuff said.

GB

Originally Posted by anonymouse

Model line, family, your argument degenerates into a semantic quibble. They offer iPhones with 3 distinct capabilities. I think they qualify as distinct models. If you prefer to apply a different word, fine. It's still iPhones with 3 distinct capabilities.

Originally Posted by paxman

I agree that having only one model is not a great idea in the long run. The iPhone is still a novelty but this will wear off and people will want different models, even if only cosmetically. I really think Apple can own this market if they want to, however. I hope they will bring out different models such as a nano phone, but most of all different form factors. Another thing they could do (not sure how possible) is allow for more software visual customization in the form of skins. As Android matures and other phone makers bring out funky looking phones the allure of the iPhone will wane. There are other elements such as iTunes, iPhoto etc, but for most people those things aren't enough. People are fickle, they want variety and choice as far as phones go. Computers, not so much, perhaps.
Re the AT&T badwill - in more and more countries the iPhone is carried by multiple carriers. I am sure Apple is dying for Verizon to carry the phone and it will happen as soon as Verizon can prove they have viable coverage. In Canada, where Rogers was the only GSM carrier when I got my iPhone a year or so ago, two other carriers have suddenly popped up and announced that they too will carry the iPhone. I am amazed at how quickly they have got new network technology up and running.

Originally Posted by shadow

... There is a reason: they (Apple) are building a platform. Abandoning a platform is not as easy as changing the phone.

Originally Posted by anonymouse

... Gartner, as usual, tosses logic out the window to make exactly the point that they decided on before they began their "analysis", which in this case, as historically, consists of constructing seemingly plausible arguments to support a biased prediction.

Originally Posted by GQB

Right. I'm so tired of that stale old car look of 4 tires, gas pedal to the right of the brake and steering wheel instead of joystick. I want a new car every 6 months with everything shuffled simply to keep the 'short attention span theatre' folks entertained.

Originally Posted by Quadra 610

http://www.macdailynews.com/index.ph...faction_again/

Not bad for stale.

Originally Posted by Tulkas

Edit: Also, what distinct capabilities do you claim the large capacity creates...besides, i don't know, more capacity?

Originally Posted by Robodude

People actually have to buy the phone before they can be satisfied

Originally Posted by anonymouse

This was already discussed. Your question however is equivalent to asking, "What distinct capabilities does 3G create, besides, I don't know, 3G?"

Originally Posted by Tulkas

No. Adding a 3G antenna makes it a 3G model. The capability this adds is the ability to use the 3G network...i.e. a new functionality...new capability.

Adding capacity gives you capacity.

Originally Posted by anonymouse

I think you've jumped the shark.

Originally Posted by charlituna

y
I have had a cosmetically different phone 6 times in the last 2 years. It's called buying a different case.

Originally Posted by Quadra 610

I'm not sure what you mean by this.

Originally Posted by GQB

Right. I'm so tired of that stale old car look of 4 tires, gas pedal to the right of the brake and steering wheel instead of joystick. I want a new car every 6 months with everything shuffled simply to keep the 'short attention span theatre' folks entertained.

Originally Posted by Tulkas

I think you've gotten in over your head, again, by making thoughtless arguments, again. Persistence in admirable, but no so much when you are clearly shown to be wrong. Again.

Originally Posted by anonymouse

Well, if the 16GB 3GS (x) is the same as the 32GB 3GS (y), and y is $100 more than x, why are so many people buying y if it is the same as x?

Originally Posted by Tulkas

No. Adding a 3G antenna makes it a 3G model. The capability this adds is the ability to use the 3G network...i.e. a new functionality...new capability.

Adding capacity gives you capacity.

Originally Posted by Tulkas

Same model. That option increases price. Same model. The paid option doesn't make it a different model.

Originally Posted by JupiterOne

What is it then that you are expecting? That Apple would come out with a flip-iPhone? A slide-out iPhone? An iPhone with a physical keyboard? A mini iPhone nano? What would constitute a new model for you?

Originally Posted by Tulkas

Anything significant change or addition of capability or functionality would do.

Originally Posted by anonymouse

Can you define what exactly constitutes a 'significant' change? Not by example -- that would leave us in the dark when trying to decide if some unmentioned feature counts as a new model or not -- but with a concise definition?

Originally Posted by paxman

Your analogy is a little topsy turvy there, because that is exactly what happens. The basic car remains the same but the 'look' changes. Same with the iphone, same basic functionality but a different look. You may wish we were still driving model T Fords (with souped up engines and independent suspension) but most people like change even if it is just superficial

Originally Posted by jasenj1

Exactly. Verizon is notorious for crippling their phones unless you pay them to unlock the features that are already on board. I expect the different carriers will lock down their phones with different DRM "features" to make sure only their apps run on their phones. Enabling this DRM checking will be a headache to developers who will have deal with different processes and levels of intrusiveness for all the carriers. In the end, devs - and users- will prefer Apple and its "one devil" model vs "lots of demons".

I expect the Android platform will be reasonably successful, but Apple's seamless, total-package approach, will dominate the splintered Android ecosystem.

- Jasen.

Originally Posted by Tulkas

Stupid question, but I am used to your distractions. Significant is clearly subjective.

If capacity and colour (but otherwise identical) are significant enough for you to consider new or different models, great. You are a salesperson's wet dream. Most will be more decerning. More storage is not enough to create distinct models.

Originally Posted by Tulkas

Stupid question, but I am used to your distractions. Significant is clearly subjective.

If capacity and colour (but otherwise identical) are significant enough for you to consider new or different models, great. You are a salesperson's wet dream. Most will be more decerning. More storage is not enough to create distinct models.

Originally Posted by Tulkas

I don't expect anything in this regard. One of the reasons for Apple's success since Jobs return has been in their simplified product line. They don't need dozens of different models of iPhones. One model per year with colour and capacity as options for each model are enough.

What would constitute a new model? Anything significant change or addition of capability or functionality would do. Any of the changes you mention. Or a front facing camera or a new CPU or GPU. Removing functionality for a stripped down cheaper version would also be a new model. A very significant change to the form factor, not just colour, might also be enough to call it a new model. Adding some more storage or changing the colour do not.

Originally Posted by GQB;

I think I have to stand by my admittedly hastily drawn analogy.
The iPhone has defined (at least for itself, and apparently for a lot of wannabes) a form factor of
- minimal (i.e. one) button
- no keyboard
- large screen
- touch/voice input

with everything else visible on the outside being pretty much software. There are obviously going to be endless changes under the hood.

The Android/WinMobile class of devices are differentiating themselves precisely by coming out with a large variety of phones that differ at that interface level. Specifically, keyboard, buttons, and therefore, screen size. If those elements aren't akin to the interface elements of a car (pedals, steering wheel), I don't know what is.

In any event, exactly what is Apple supposed to do to appease people who only see improvement in terms of an ever changing box?

Its a screen that you touch. You can waste time screwing around with that (and in the process, making your independent developers have to write for each), or call the box done and work on the software and internals.

I think Apple's answer is clear.

edit: ok, so the phone has 5 buttons... so shoot me. I don't see the edge of the device as the main battleground.

Originally Posted by mbarriault

Where, exactly does Symbian have this 50% smartphone market share? In all my travels I've never seen a Nokia smartphone on anything but a display shelf, but I see iPhones, WinMo phones, and Android phones everywhere, and even a few Pres. No Nokia.

Originally Posted by Wings

Dan has an excellent piece about this fantasy story here:
http://www.roughlydrafted.com/2009/1...r-in-2012-why/
He makes a whole lot of sense, explaining why Gartner's shill income is about to evaporate from WinMo and has to look elsewhere for FUD dollars.