or Connect
AppleInsider › Forums › Mobile › iPhone › Apple's share of U.S. smartphone market grows to 25% - study
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Apple's share of U.S. smartphone market grows to 25% - study - Page 2

post #41 of 97
There is absolutely no way in the world VZW is paying RIM the same amount for 2 year subsidized phones and BOGO phones. The only way I can see that working is if VZW doesn't pay RIM a premium in the first place.

Quote:
Originally Posted by ifail View Post

No.

RIMs profits dont take a hit when carriers subsidize phones at their discretion. When RIM sells the phone to the carrier they are paid immediately. VZW pushes BlackBerry hard because they get the phones for roughly 230ish for a Curve 8530 and and 300ish for a 9630, so making that money up through subscription costs is nothing (only 10 of your 30 dollars go to RIM for BIS, so the carrier gets 480.00 over two years, covering the phone)
post #42 of 97
Quote:
Originally Posted by solipsism View Post

Consider that Jobs stated they want 1% of the handset market. That would mean Ballmer was making fun of the iPhone by claiming it would get 2 to 3 times as much sales, meaning 30M in the first year. It seems more likely he was saying Apple would only get 2-3% of the smartphone market, not 2-3x as much marketshare and sales than Jobs himself predicted.

So where does the reference to 1.3 billion phones fit in then?
post #43 of 97
Quote:
Originally Posted by ifail View Post

You know i was going to call you on this one bro.

The Storm is using a capacitive touchscreen (i had the 9530 from launch till last Sept when i got my Bold), but it uses Surepress technology as well.

That is what i'm referring to. SurePress makes typing slow. Can you turn it off? I didn't see a way. They need (all handset makers) to go with a better capacitance touchscreen. It was hard to say how the iPhone "experience" could be so much better than the others with large touchscreens, but it's been shown that Apple uses a better touchscreen. There are likely other aspects from the apps down to the firmware, but accuracy and speed in typing on the iPhone is great compared to other phones. This includes smartphones with tiny physical keyboards.

Quote:
Web Browser blows but Webkit should (emphasis on should) be here in the Summer, and will run on a proxy as well like it currently does.

I thought they used WebKit for their browser already. What engine are they using if it's not WebKit. A good browser is one of the most important features for users. If the iPhone had a poor browser experience I think their sales numbers would be cut in half.
Dick Applebaum on whether the iPad is a personal computer: "BTW, I am posting this from my iPad pc while sitting on the throne... personal enough for you?"
Reply
Dick Applebaum on whether the iPad is a personal computer: "BTW, I am posting this from my iPad pc while sitting on the throne... personal enough for you?"
Reply
post #44 of 97
Quote:
Originally Posted by TenoBell View Post

There is absolutely no way in the world VZW is paying RIM the same amount for 2 year subsidized phones and BOGO phones.

There is no difference between a subsidized and a BOGO lol. You just get a better subsidization price (free initially).

Im sure VZW gets a lower price than other carriers for BlackBerrys since they move so many, but to think they are getting these phones half off from RIM is absurd.
post #45 of 97
What VZW phone are you talking about that offers 3G as an option? VZW is actually going in the opposite direction requiring their most desired phones to have data plans.

Quote:
Originally Posted by extremeskater View Post

What I was saying is ATT could have a non 3g option like Verizon has, that would not only sell more iPhone but it would bring in more customers and not put more stress on their already stressed 3G network. Those users could simply have an iPhone and use WiFi.

Like with Verizon this would offer an option to families that wanted to be on a family plan that don't have a need for data.
post #46 of 97
Quote:
Originally Posted by mrochester View Post

So where does the reference to 1.3 billion phones fit in then?

That's a good point, he does reference a number for the total handsets that hadn't yet occurred, but his later statements only make sense if he's talking about smartphones. I don't see Ballmer as being focused. That means Ballmer stated Apple may get 26 million to 39 million sales in their first year? That is a lot more than the 1% of 1 billion Jobs claimed.


Quote:
Originally Posted by ifail View Post

There is no difference between a subsidized and a BOGO lol. You just get a better subsidization price (free initially).

Im sure VZW gets a lower price than other carriers for BlackBerrys since they move so many, but to think they are getting these phones half off from RIM is absurd.

Not by half, but if the lower the price by 20-30% (as an example) They get overall more sales, revenue and more total profit per quarter and Verizon gets to get more people into contracts. The problem with selling your wares for less revenue with the hope that increased sales will make up for it and then sum, is that it could backfire. RiM's profit has been up (at least the last two quarters) but that could be from other areas of business, though I suspect it's mostly from overall handset sales.
Dick Applebaum on whether the iPad is a personal computer: "BTW, I am posting this from my iPad pc while sitting on the throne... personal enough for you?"
Reply
Dick Applebaum on whether the iPad is a personal computer: "BTW, I am posting this from my iPad pc while sitting on the throne... personal enough for you?"
Reply
post #47 of 97
Yes there is indeed a difference between 2 year subsidized and BOGO. The Storm2 two year price is $279.99. An offer to give one away from free, VZW would have to eat $279.99. VZW is not paying RIM the same price for both phones. VZW is not going to swallow that $279.99.

Quote:
Originally Posted by ifail View Post

There is no difference between a subsidized and a BOGO lol. You just get a better subsidization price (free initially).

Im sure VZW gets a lower price than other carriers for BlackBerrys since they move so many, but to think they are getting these phones half off from RIM is absurd.
post #48 of 97
Quote:
Originally Posted by solipsism View Post

That is what i'm referring to. SurePress makes typing slow. Can you turn it off? I didn't see a way. They need (all handset makers) to go with a better capacitance touchscreen. It was hard to say how the iPhone "experience" could be so much better than the others with large touchscreens, but it's been shown that Apple uses a better touchscreen. There are likely other aspects from the apps down to the firmware, but accuracy and speed in typing on the iPhone is great compared to other phones. This includes smartphones with tiny physical keyboards.

There is no way to disable surepress currently. There is quite an uproar about it, and apparently there is about a 30% chance the new Storm 3 wont be sporting it. I personally typed pretty quickly on mine, but i never tried to push beyond say 40ish WPM cause the 9530 was very fickle and would break easily.

The 9530 had a terrible UI, massive glitches at launch (4.7.0.65 = EPIC FAIL) hardware issues and all kinds of shit, if you werent on crackberry download leaked firmwares you were probably going to sling your phone out the window. The 9550 is what the 9530 should have been, but the UI is STILL LACKING.



Quote:
Originally Posted by solipsism View Post

I thought they used WebKit for their browser already. What engine are they using if it's not WebKit. A good browser is one of the most important features for users. If the iPhone had a poor browser experience I think their sales numbers would be cut in half.

No, its whatever RIM has built and used since day one. Its mediocre now, but javascript performance is god awful. They bought TorchMobile back in Nov or something so we know Webkit is coming. I doubt the iPhone would be hurt much by a lackluster browser, it doubles well as an iPod and is very simple to use. BlackBerry has always been superior at messaging of any kind, and why its such a popular device now. If the texting boom never happend i think RIM would still only be "corporate only"
post #49 of 97
Quote:
Originally Posted by TenoBell View Post

Yes there is indeed a difference between 2 year subsidized and BOGO. The Storm2 two year price is $279.99. An offer to give one away from free, VZW would have to eat $279.99. VZW is not paying RIM the same price for both phones. VZW is not going to swallow that $279.99.

279.99 for a Storm and 30.00 monthly for required data plan. 10 dollars go to RIM a month so 20.00 x 24 months (term of contract) = 480.00 which is well less than what VZW pays for the phone. This isnt including any profit from texting and voice. VZW most likely gets the phone at 350ish.

This is no different than carriers paying 600 bucks for the iPhone and selling it at 199. They get the money back.

Remember all the hooplah with VZW charging out the yingyang for ETF, its cause they NEED you to stay for 2 years to make that money back and then some, people would get new BB, pay the 175 ETF and sell it on ebay for 500+
post #50 of 97
Quote:
Originally Posted by solipsism View Post

Perhaps, but since WinMo has never been made for general phones I have to assume he was implying the smartphone market with those figures. I can't imagine for a second that he expects MS to own 60-80% of the entire handset OS marketshare with just a smartphone OS.

I've attended conferences where Microsoft execs have spoken and it's always been stated that their long-term goal is to own a large chunk of the entire cell phone. The assumption has always been that smartphone adoption will rapidly grow as the cost barrier lowers.

The non-touchscreen version of Windows Mobile has relatively low hardware requirements and the cheapest phone based on it retails for around $100 unsubsidised.

Their goal wasn't so laughable before the iPhone and Android hit the scene. Times have changed and Microsoft's execution has been terrible.
post #51 of 97
Quote:
Originally Posted by RichL View Post

I've attended conferences where Microsoft execs have spoken and it's always been stated that their long-term goal is to own a large chunk of the entire cell phone. The assumption has always been that smartphone adoption will rapidly grow as the cost barrier lowers.

The non-touchscreen version of Windows Mobile has relatively low hardware requirements and the cheapest phone based on it retails for around $100 unsubsidised.

Their goal wasn't so laughable before the iPhone and Android hit the scene. Times have changed and Microsoft's execution has been terrible.

I abjure from any more defense of Ballmer's comment. It was good deed for the day. I still get the points, though, which means I won't feel guilty for ripping TEKSTUD a new one... again.
Dick Applebaum on whether the iPad is a personal computer: "BTW, I am posting this from my iPad pc while sitting on the throne... personal enough for you?"
Reply
Dick Applebaum on whether the iPad is a personal computer: "BTW, I am posting this from my iPad pc while sitting on the throne... personal enough for you?"
Reply
post #52 of 97
Quote:
Originally Posted by mrochester View Post

I think you need to read it again. I can't see anywhere that Balmer said he was talking about smartphones only. In fact, the 1.3billion figure indicates he is talking about ALL mobile phones, and in that respect he is dead right about the 2-3% marketshare.

My point stands regardless of what Balmer was referring to, the fact that he seemed to be talking about smartphones is just icing on the cake.

In any case, the statement he made, at the time he made it, makes absolutely no sense unless he *was* talking about smartphone share as opposed to total market share, so I gave the tired old salesman the benefit of the doubt and ascribed his comments to talk of smartphone share only.

I guess I should have been meaner and said that the OP's argument was wrong all by itself, and
BTW Balmer is an idiot? But I don't actually think he's an idiot.

Balmer is a lot of things, (most of them nasty), but he isn't an idiot.
post #53 of 97
AT&T isn't offering to give any iPhone's away for free.

Quote:
Originally Posted by ifail View Post

This is no different than carriers paying 600 bucks for the iPhone and selling it at 199. They get the money back.
post #54 of 97
Quote:
Originally Posted by TenoBell View Post

AT&T isn't offering to give any iPhone's away for free.

Missing my point here

(phone sold to AT&T) 600-200.00 (price of phone) = 400 to make up over contract
(phone sold to VZW) 350/400-0.00 (price of phone) = 350/400 to make up over contract

Im not sure how much clearer i can get, there is no damn difference.

EDIT: There are carriers that give it away for free as well
post #55 of 97
Quote:
Originally Posted by ifail View Post

Missing my point here

(phone sold to AT&T) 600-200.00 (price of phone) = 400 to make up over contract
(phone sold to VZW) 350/400-0.00 (price of phone) = 350/400 to make up over contract

Im not sure how much clearer i can get, there is no damn difference.

I the average iPhone subsidy is less by about $50-70, if I recall Apple's average take correctly.

Do BBs require a contract on Verizon of you go with a BOGO deal and do you have to get both activated at time of purchase?
Dick Applebaum on whether the iPad is a personal computer: "BTW, I am posting this from my iPad pc while sitting on the throne... personal enough for you?"
Reply
Dick Applebaum on whether the iPad is a personal computer: "BTW, I am posting this from my iPad pc while sitting on the throne... personal enough for you?"
Reply
post #56 of 97
Quote:
Originally Posted by aaarrrgggh View Post

Amazing that Microsoft still has as much share as they do. Curious what devices drive their sales (in the US).

That is a good question. The answer is that the numbers are usage and not sales numbers. Hence, Microsoft going from say 18 to 17 % means there were more people leaving the platform than starting with it.

If people buy a new phone on average every 3 years, 33% is renewed each year. Losing 1% in usage market share means losing 3% in sales market share. So, Microsft dropping, say, from 18% to 17% would fit with dropping in sales from 12% to 9%. These are all made up numbers by me, but you get the point.
post #57 of 97
Quote:
Originally Posted by ifail View Post

RIM does not sell buy one get one, the carriers do.

Do you have any sources that reveal that RIM does NOT absorb some portion of the revenue reduction?
"you will know the truth, and the truth will
set you free."
Reply
"you will know the truth, and the truth will
set you free."
Reply
post #58 of 97
Quote:
Originally Posted by TenoBell View Post

That's equivalent to what Verizon charges, its not a problem.

I wasn't comparing to Verizon smartphone.

The question I was addressing was how much a person would be willing to pay extra for a smartphone, in this case, iPhone, rather than just buying a featurephone.

My teen daughter would love an iPhone, but she also wants texting. No way am I going to pay $50 a month for her to do that. So just featurephone with limited texting for her. Yeah, she's a teen, but I've run into many people who absolutely want unlimited texting, and they might consider a smartphone for an extra $30 with it, but not $50 extra.
"you will know the truth, and the truth will
set you free."
Reply
"you will know the truth, and the truth will
set you free."
Reply
post #59 of 97
Quote:
Originally Posted by MsNly View Post

My family doesn't have the texting plan. It's an extra cost you don't need. I mean you can send most people an email these days or you can use an application like textPlus, textNow, ect.

That's what I do with my iPhone, but I find that since something like textPlus requires the people you want to text with to take an additional step and save your "text number", it doesn't happen as much.
"you will know the truth, and the truth will
set you free."
Reply
"you will know the truth, and the truth will
set you free."
Reply
post #60 of 97
Quote:
Originally Posted by solipsism View Post

I the average iPhone subsidy is less by about $50-70, if I recall Apple's average take correctly.

Do BBs require a contract on Verizon of you go with a BOGO deal and do you have to get both activated at time of purchase?

Both have to be activated at the same time, and require a 2 year contract. VZW will pull 960.00 of revenue for both phones solely from the data plan alone for 2 years, not including Voice/Data. They get their money back over time.

Quote:
Originally Posted by mark2005 View Post

Do you have any sources that reveal that RIM does NOT absorb some portion of the revenue reduction?

No, its logical they probably sell to a lesser price to VZW since they sell so many, but RIM is NOT GIVING THEM AWAY. At best, VZW gets a 10% lesser price than any carrier since they sell so many.
post #61 of 97
Quote:
Originally Posted by MacTripper View Post

Hmm...seems most of what people do with a iPhone (outside of making calls) is better done with a real computer with a real keyboard.

So the iPhone really a matter of convenience with it's smaller size, that's all.


I don't regret my decision to stick with a MBP and a cheap disposable phone with low monthly rates.

The money I saved the last two years not purchasing a iPhone is going to buy me one of those new i7 MacBook Pro's coming today.

opps did I tell a secret?

No, not really. You only revealed what works for you. For those of us who purchased the iPhone, it does what we need it to without having to haul around our MBP's everywhere. I'm a perfectly satisfied customer with the iPhone (and an MBP, by the way). No problem here.
post #62 of 97
Quote:
Originally Posted by ifail View Post

Missing my point here

(phone sold to AT&T) 600-200.00 (price of phone) = 400 to make up over contract
(phone sold to VZW) 350/400-0.00 (price of phone) = 350/400 to make up over contract

Im not sure how much clearer i can get, there is no damn difference.

EDIT: There are carriers that give it away for free as well

I don't have any solid evidence that the BOGO handset makers eat a part of the "free", but note that RIM's average selling price has declined from $370 (qtr ending 2/28/09) to $317 (qtr ending 11/28/09) over this past year.

I grant that one needs to account for some seasonality, as the 370 was a high point following the launch of some BB phones.
"you will know the truth, and the truth will
set you free."
Reply
"you will know the truth, and the truth will
set you free."
Reply
post #63 of 97
Quote:
Originally Posted by ifail View Post

No, its logical they probably sell to a lesser price to VZW since they sell so many, but RIM is NOT GIVING THEM AWAY. At best, VZW gets a 10% lesser price than any carrier since they sell so many.

For simplicity, assume that VZW decides on its own to sell BOGO free, and pays RIM the full contracted price for a set number of phones. The next time VZW goes to contract with RIM for this model, you can bet VZW is not going to be willing to pay as much for it as they did the last time.

To be more complex, the VZW-RIM contract could have options, i.e., if VZW sells X number by X date, VZW will buy Y more at a price P, but if it doesn't, the option doesn't get exercised at all.

There are all sorts of variations on options that might've been used, but the bottom line is if the phone doesn't sell well, the handset maker will eventually get lesser revenue.
"you will know the truth, and the truth will
set you free."
Reply
"you will know the truth, and the truth will
set you free."
Reply
post #64 of 97
Quote:
Originally Posted by mark2005 View Post

I don't have any solid evidence that the BOGO handset makers eat a part of the "free", but note that RIM's average selling price has declined from $370 (qtr ending 2/28/09) to $317 (qtr ending 11/28/09) over this past year.

I grant that one needs to account for some seasonality, as the 370 was a high point following the launch of some BB phones.

Cheap devices like the 8520/30 drive down sale prices, since it costs RIM only 110-120 (these devices reuse old cameras/keyboards but run new processors and and more memory).

New BlackBerrys should drive the price up, but only 20-30 dollars. RIM wants to capture every part of the smartphone market, from bargain bin to top of the line
post #65 of 97
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gazoobee View Post

My point stands regardless of what Balmer was referring to, the fact that he seemed to be talking about smartphones is just icing on the cake.

In any case, the statement he made, at the time he made it, makes absolutely no sense unless he *was* talking about smartphone share as opposed to total market share, so I gave the tired old salesman the benefit of the doubt and ascribed his comments to talk of smartphone share only.

I guess I should have been meaner and said that the OP's argument was wrong all by itself, and
BTW Balmer is an idiot? But I don't actually think he's an idiot.

Balmer is a lot of things, (most of them nasty), but he isn't an idiot.

I think it's fairly certain that his comment was with regard to ALL mobile phones, not just smartphones, hence the 1.3billion figure, which is far far higher than the amount of smartphones sold. And within that, I guess his comments referred to Apple only ever achieving 2-3% of that market, which might be about where they are now. If the trend continues, and they stay at 2-3% marketshare, then Balmer was dead right. I am yet to fathom at what point it was ever indicated that he was talking about smartphone marketshare specifically as the numbers he quotes just don't relate to smartphones at all.
post #66 of 97
Quote:
Originally Posted by mark2005 View Post

For simplicity, assume that VZW decides on its own to sell BOGO free, and pays RIM the full contracted price for a set number of phones. The next time VZW goes to contract with RIM for this model, you can bet VZW is not going to be willing to pay as much for it as they did the last time.

To be more complex, the VZW-RIM contract could have options, i.e., if VZW sells X number by X date, VZW will buy Y more at a price P, but if it doesn't, the option doesn't get exercised at all.

There are all sorts of variations on options that might've been used, but the bottom line is if the phone doesn't sell well, the handset maker will eventually get lesser revenue.

I agree, but a 10% decrease is roughly 20-30 dollars saved per device, and that easily equates to millions saved selling only 100k devices, VZW is estimated to sell roughly 20% of RIMs devices a quarter, that becomes a huges savings to VZW.

RIM is willing to eat that lesser selling cost cause they will get it right back through BIS/BES subscriptions
post #67 of 97
Quote:
Originally Posted by sflocal View Post

Yes, talks much but says little.

No- more like says little and gets his point across unlike the ramblers on here.
post #68 of 97
Quote:
Originally Posted by ifail View Post

RIM is willing to eat that lesser selling cost cause they will get it right back through BIS/BES subscriptions

So far it's been working out great for them, but I don't think it's a sustainable model. BES isn't the godsend it once was for the enterprise and a lot of money can be saved by going directly from Exchange to a device with ActiveSync.

I'm just glad I gauged correctly when to jump out of RIMM. if I see something dynamic coming from them with the Storm 3 I'll likely buy back in for a spell.
Dick Applebaum on whether the iPad is a personal computer: "BTW, I am posting this from my iPad pc while sitting on the throne... personal enough for you?"
Reply
Dick Applebaum on whether the iPad is a personal computer: "BTW, I am posting this from my iPad pc while sitting on the throne... personal enough for you?"
Reply
post #69 of 97
Quote:
Originally Posted by mrochester View Post

I think you need to read it again. I can't see anywhere that Balmer said he was talking about smartphones only. In fact, the 1.3billion figure indicates he is talking about ALL mobile phones, and in that respect he is dead right about the 2-3% marketshare.

isn't a phone that runs minmo also by definition not a 'dumb' phone?
post #70 of 97
Quote:
Originally Posted by solipsism View Post

So far it's been working out great for them, but I don't think it's a sustainable model. BES isn't the godsend it once was for the enterprise and a lot of money can be saved by going directly from Exchange to a device with ActiveSync.

I'm just glad I gauged correctly when to jump out of RIMM. if I see something dynamic coming from them with the Storm 3 I'll likely buy back in for a spell.

Its not the godsend it once was but it still bests any enterprise offering by far when you go beyond Exchange.

Right now BIS/BES is still great because its not heavy on the network (stress is offloaded onto RIMs servers, emails/data/messaging) but when LTE/bandwith increase in the next coming years it will be interesting what RIM does with it.

The data compression BB have is nice, if you can get iPhone quality content (web/media/streaming) without eating monstrous amounts of data like the iPhone does, i dont think RIM will have much to worry about.
post #71 of 97
Quote:
Originally Posted by ifail View Post

There is no way to disable surepress currently. There is quite an uproar about it, and apparently there is about a 30% chance the new Storm 3 wont be sporting it. I personally typed pretty quickly on mine, but i never tried to push beyond say 40ish WPM cause the 9530 was very fickle and would break easily.

Surepress can't be disabled because it's a physical mechanism. In the original phone, there is one switch that sits in the center of the screen. When you press the screen, the entire screen moves downward, and closes the switch. The problem, other than the force needed to activate it, was that as you moved away from the center, it became less sensitive as the screen tilted, and more force was needed, and more errors occurred.

The Storm2 changed that. Now there are switches at the corners so that the sensitivity is equalized around the screen, and the force was reduced, resulting in less effort, so that it's not as tiring.

But, tapping the screen for other purposes can still activate a switch which causes problems.

I don't remember what changes, if any, are in store for the Storm3.
post #72 of 97
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tofino View Post

isn't a phone that runs minmo also by definition not a 'dumb' phone?

Meamo is a smartphone. But many Symbian phones are not. The S40 isn't considered to be a smartphone OS, but a feature phone OS. So counting smartphone sales depends on how one is counting the phones.
post #73 of 97
Quote:
Originally Posted by melgross View Post

Meamo is a smartphone. But many Symbian phones are not. The S40 isn't considered to be a smartphone OS, but a feature phone OS. So counting smartphone sales depends on how one is counting the phones.

But S40 isn't Symbian, so why would you count them in smartphone sales? All Symbian phones are smartphones by their very definition.

Quote:
isn't a phone that runs minmo also by definition not a 'dumb' phone?

Yes but he's imagining having Windows Mobile on 60-70% of ALL mobile phones, not just smartphones. Hence the 1.3billion figure.
post #74 of 97
Quote:
Originally Posted by melgross View Post

I don't remember what changes, if any, are in store for the Storm3.

http://www.mydroidworld.com/forums/b...storm-3-a.html
This guy is spot on and in the know, was a big leaker of OSs for the 9530

Quote:
The rumors have been churning and low and behold the Storm 3 is a real device. I only had about 5 minutes with the device and I could not take pictures or notes. There is also some information I cannot state as to protect the innocent.

The first thing I noticed about the Storm 3 is how much thinner it is then the 9550. Think iPhone thin. It also felt considerably lighter but I did not have enough time to break out my triple beam. There were reports from bbleaks that the boot up time was much faster and indeed it is. I counted to myself and it was 20 seconds from the time I pressed the on button to being fully powered up. Let me discuss the screen for a moment. It is the best screen I have ever seen. The color and resolution is fantastic. Compared to the Moto Droid sitting next to it, blew it out of the water. The UI is different. I cannot get into specifics, but Storm 3 does widgets

Something else I noticed was the speed of processor. I don't know what is under the hood but it was smoking fast even with the beta OS being used. It beat the Droid on every task I threw at it. Hands down the fastest phone I have used.

Now here is where it got cool. Adobe flash was incorporated into the browser and I have to say I was super impressed. Compared to mobile safari, this is better. Full desktop quality rendering of pages. While it looked better pages rendered slightly faster on the iPhone 3GS but faster than the Moto Droid. Another nice addition is tabbed browsing. It is implemented very cleanly into the browser UI.

The camera has been upgraded and is rocking a 6MP beauty. Photos I took on it were fantastic. Available RAM has been increased to 512mb, a nice bump for sure. I wasn't able to see what the SD card was so I have no idea there.

IMO this phone outperforms the Droid in all areas except for available apps (BB APP World is still very small). There were no games installed so I couldn't determine how well this phone performed from a gaming standpoint. Maybe on Round 2 I will be more lucky.

Just when I was about ready to give up on RIM, I am pleased to see the huge strides they have made not only from a hardware but also software perspective.

P.S. Rumors of this having a slider are completely false. There are and were never any plans on combining this phone with a slide-out Qwerty.
post #75 of 97
Quote:
Originally Posted by mrochester View Post

But S40 isn't Symbian, so why would you count them in smartphone sales? All Symbian phones are smartphones by their very definition.

The Symbian S40 OS. Would you rather I called it the Series 40 Symbian OS? It's not considered to be a smartphone OS.
post #76 of 97
Quote:
Originally Posted by melgross View Post

The Symbian S40 OS. Would you rather I called it the Series 40 Symbian OS? It's not considered to be a smartphone OS.

It's not Symbian though so cut out the name Symbian from the name and you've got it right. Nokia's S60 devices are Symbian, S40 devices are not Symbian, they are a proprietary in-house OS.
post #77 of 97
Quote:
Originally Posted by RichL View Post

He's clearly talking about cell phones and not just smartphones.

Microsoft wasn't building a 'dumb' phone operating system in 2007 and 3 years later in 2010, they're still not. And neither does Apple.

IPhone now sells more than all Windows "Smart" phones, therefore Apple is also selling more than all Windows "anything" phones.

Balmer was blowing wind then... and eating crow now. If it makes you feel better reinterpreting his comments then... knock yourself out.
post #78 of 97
Quote:
Originally Posted by ifail View Post

http://www.mydroidworld.com/forums/b...storm-3-a.html
This guy is spot on and in the know, was a big leaker of OSs for the 9530

Still doesn't say anything about the Surepress tech which was what I was talking about when I said that I didn't know if there were any changes. Of course the rest of the phone had to have improvements.

Using the Droid as a speed comparison isn't hard, as it's a slow phone.

I cant stand these "blew it out of the water" or "blew it away" comments. It's likely better. I would consider the iPad screen to "blow away" the Kindle screen, but thats pretty obvious. As for this, well... it's not going to be THAT much better. It would have been more interesting compared to the Nexus One.
post #79 of 97
Quote:
Originally Posted by mrochester View Post

It's not Symbian though so cut out the name Symbian from the name and you've got it right. Nokia's S60 devices are Symbian, S40 devices are not Symbian, they are a proprietary in-house OS.

Do you actually know anything about Symbian? Why didn't you look it up first?

http://forum2.mobile-review.com/showthread.php?t=80343
post #80 of 97
Quote:
Originally Posted by melgross View Post

Do you actually know anything about Symbian? Why didn't you look it up first?

http://forum2.mobile-review.com/showthread.php?t=80343

Clearly more than you do!

S40 is NOT Symbian. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nokia_S40

You can say it as much as you like, it just isn't true.

http://www.forum.nokia.com/Technolog...ice_Platforms/
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: iPhone
AppleInsider › Forums › Mobile › iPhone › Apple's share of U.S. smartphone market grows to 25% - study