or Connect
AppleInsider › Forums › Mobile › iPhone › RIM, Motorola post dismal figures for their iPhone, iPad competitors
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

RIM, Motorola post dismal figures for their iPhone, iPad competitors

post #1 of 79
Thread Starter 
RIM and Motorola both published sales figures for their iPhone and iPad competitors that establish a huge gulf between demand for Apple's products and competitors'.

RIM

Canada's Research In Motion issued a warning stating that its smartphone sales would hit the low end of its projected 13.5 to 14.5 million in unit sales this quarter.

In the third calendar quarter of 2008, Apple's chief executive Steve Jobs first announced that "Apple beat RIM" in quarterly sales, noting that "RIM is a good company that makes good products. And so it is surprising that after only fifteen months on the market that we could outsell them in any quarter."

The two companies' quarters end on different months, but Apple now regularly eclipses RIM in its quarterly smartphone sales. It appears that when RIM does announce its final figures for the most recent quarter, it will be substantially below Apple's 18.65 million iPhones sold in the first three months of 2011.

According to a report by Bloomberg, RIM's warning incited analyst Matt Thorton with Avian Securities to note "the sales on their existing devices must have fallen off a cliff," and that "they are getting hit by a combination of a stale portfolio and heated competition on devices."

Michael Walkley, an analyst at Canaccord Genuity, said RIM's forecast indicates that its high end smartphones like the BlackBerry Torch "have not sold so well."

In the conference with analysts, Jim Balsillie, RIM's co-chief executive officer, explained that "all things being equal, we would love to have these products earlier and not be having this call. Because its such a big upgrade, it takes longer.

The company said RIM's new PlayBook tablet, aimed to compete against Apple's iPad, was selling 'in line with previous estimates,' and stated that the disasters in Japan had not had a significant impact on the company's supply chain.

Motorola phones

Motorola Mobility also reported results today, with its mobile devices group stating revenues up 30 percent to $2.1 billion, but with an operating loss of $89 million.

Motorola shipped 9.3 million mobile devices, a marginal 9.4 percent increase over the year ago quarter where it sold 8.5 million, but it converted a much larger percentage of its mobile device sales from simple feature phones to smartphones.

Sales of smartphones increased by 78.3 percent, from 2.3 million to 4.1 million, jumping from 27 percent of the company's mobile phone mix to 44 percent. Smartphones are not only more expensive but also generally far more profitable to sell.

Apple's smartphone mix is 100 percent of its mobile phones, and the company shows little sign of expanding into the larger but less profitable market for so-called "feature phones." Apple sold 18.65 million iPhones in the quarter, including a new expansion with Verizon Wireless that encroached directly upon Motorola's business.

Behind iPhone 4 and iPhone 3GS, Motorola's Droid X is the third most popular smartphone in the US; NPD reported earlier today that Apple's Verizon launch had caused Google's Android platform to lose ground for the first time in the US. It stated Android had lost three percentage points of share in the US since last winter while RIM had lost 5 and Apple had gained 9 points.

Motorola Xoom ships 250,000 boxes

In tablets sales Motorola reported shipments of 250,000 Xoom tablets, but like Samsung last fall, the company refused to elaborate on how many of those were actually bought by consumers.

The firm's chief financial officer Marc Rothman said only that Xoom sell through was "good," while noting that the new tablet didn't begin shipping until late February, halfway though the quarter.

A report on Motorola's earnings by Moconews said "the Xoom was widely viewed as the Android communitys best answer to the iPad when it was unveiled at CES in January, but response from consumers and reviewers once the device was out in the wild has been less than enthusiastic."

Apple shipped 4.69 million iPads in the first calendar quarter of 2011, but noted that its channel inventory had actually been depleted, indicating that sell through was about 5 million iPads.

The company's chief operations officer Tim Cook said that demand for the iPad was "staggering" and that the company is "heavily backlogged," although it plans to produce "a very large number of iPads" to meet demand over the next quarter.

post #2 of 79
Keep it up Apple!
post #3 of 79
Sales are quite "smooth."
post #4 of 79
MOT Mobility should have bought Palm, before HP did... Now maybe HP should buy MOT Mobility...
post #5 of 79
I predict the iPad will have a natural monopoly like the iPod.
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 #6 of 79
Quote:
Originally Posted by solipsism View Post

I predict the iPad will have a natural monopoly like the iPod.

It sure is beginning to look that way, isn't it?
The best of the "competition" can't compete on hardware (battery life, size, weight, screen, build quality) nor can they compete on OS quality. They cannot compete on quantity of apps or quality of apps. Finally, they cannot even begin to touch the iPad on the whole ecosystem concept.
All they have left is random scattered features: USB ports, promise of useable Flash, rootability...

After two rounds of iPad killers, they appear to be so far behind as to look like a Sandisk MP3 player next to an iPod 5 years ago...
Progress is a comfortable disease
--e.e.c.
Reply
Progress is a comfortable disease
--e.e.c.
Reply
post #7 of 79
They simply can't compete at any level. To say these competitors have a 26% market share is laughable.
post #8 of 79
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bageljoey View Post

It sure is beginning to look that way, isn't it?
The best of the "competition" can't compete on hardware (battery life, size, weight, screen, build quality) nor can they compete on OS quality. They cannot compete on quantity of apps or quality of apps. Finally, they cannot even begin to touch the iPad on the whole ecosystem concept.
All they have left is random scattered features: USB ports, promise of useable Flash, rootability...

After two rounds of iPad killers, they appear to be so far behind as to look like a Sandisk MP3 player next to an iPod 5 years ago...

And another key point that you left out - they can't attract and support a sustainable developer community of any meaningful size because of all their inherent flaws. Developers want to make money and these platforms don't even come close to delivering.
post #9 of 79
But Canalyst's survey said that competing tablets had a 26% market share!

Please update the AppleInsider app to function in landscape mode.

Reply

Please update the AppleInsider app to function in landscape mode.

Reply
post #10 of 79
This is incredibly embarrassing and sad. I am surprised that their Boards aren't getting in front of this slow and inevitable train wreck more aggressively (the senior management obviously is not capable of doing this).

A lot of shareholder value and jobs are going to get destroyed.

Given how difficult this is turning out to be for just about everyone else, one has to simply marvel at what Apple has accomplished here. What an amazing machine Jobs has put in place!
post #11 of 79
Quote:
Originally Posted by FreeRange View Post

And another key point that you left out - they can't attract and support a sustainable developer community of any meaningful size because of all their inherent flaws. Developers want to make money and these platforms don't even come close to delivering.

Right and new this just makes the bad situation even worse for them. It is a vicious cycle that is spiraling down to the land of Zune.


Quote:
Originally Posted by jd_in_sb View Post

But Canalyst's survey said that competing tablets had a 26% market share!


I bet that was shipped not sold product making up that number.
Been using Apple since Apple ][ - Long on AAPL so biased
nMac Pro 6 Core, MacBookPro i7, MacBookPro i5, iPhones 5 and 5s, iPad Air, 2013 Mac mini, SE30, IIFx, Towers; G4 & G3.
Reply
Been using Apple since Apple ][ - Long on AAPL so biased
nMac Pro 6 Core, MacBookPro i7, MacBookPro i5, iPhones 5 and 5s, iPad Air, 2013 Mac mini, SE30, IIFx, Towers; G4 & G3.
Reply
post #12 of 79
Quote:
Originally Posted by solipsism View Post

I predict the iPad will have a natural monopoly like the iPod.

Possibly short term. I'm thinking that in the near future (5 years or so) HTML5 will improve to a level that making webapps (with offline access) will become feasible, so the OS will start to matter less.

I'm kinda curious to see how the WebOS tablet and whatever Nokia is cooking turn out myself.
post #13 of 79
Quote:
Originally Posted by Menno View Post

Possibly short term. I'm thinking that in the near future (5 years or so) HTML5 will improve to a level that making webapps (with offline access) will become feasible, so the OS will start to matter less.

I'm kinda curious to see how the WebOS tablet and whatever Nokia is cooking turn out myself.

Yeah, in the meantime, Apple will do nothing between now and five years from now.

Get real.
post #14 of 79
Quote:
Originally Posted by Menno View Post

Possibly short term. I'm thinking that in the near future (5 years or so) HTML5 will improve to a level that making webapps (with offline access) will become feasible, so the OS will start to matter less.

I'm kinda curious to see how the WebOS tablet and whatever Nokia is cooking turn out myself.

Im sure in 5 years webcode(HTML/CSS/JS) will improve even more dramatically than they have in teh past 5 years, but so will Xcode and other native development platforms. People thought Java would do the same thing and it did get better as HW improved but it was still was subpar compared to native apps.
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 #15 of 79
Quote:
Originally Posted by Menno View Post

Possibly short term. I'm thinking that in the near future (5 years or so)

Except 5 human years equates to about a hundred iPad years - 5 generations! A very long time in this industry. In 5 years everything could have changed.
post #16 of 79
Quote:
Originally Posted by solipsism View Post

I predict the iPad will have a natural monopoly like the iPod.

While I think I agree with your statement, there's nothing "natural" about it. Apple designed, manufactured, marketed and sold the hell out of this thing right out of the gate. They left their competitors with only a ghost of a chance to catch up.

Apple worked hard to create this "monopoly".
post #17 of 79
I wonder if the Xoom's smooth sales covered the cost of the Superbowl Ad?
Better than my Bose, better than my Skullcandy's, listening to Mozart through my LeBron James limited edition PowerBeats by Dre is almost as good as my Sennheisers.
Reply
Better than my Bose, better than my Skullcandy's, listening to Mozart through my LeBron James limited edition PowerBeats by Dre is almost as good as my Sennheisers.
Reply
post #18 of 79
Quote:
Originally Posted by Psych_guy View Post

While I think I agree with your statement, there's nothing "natural" about it. Apple designed, manufactured, marketed and sold the hell out of this thing right out of the gate. They left their competitors with only a ghost of a chance to catch up.

Apple worked hard to create this "monopoly".

I was using natural in two ways. The first with the common definition and the other to imply it was not had illegally.

A monopoly describes a situation where all (or most) sales in a market are undertaken by a single firm. A natural monopoly by contrast is a condition on the cost-technology of an industry whereby it is most efficient (involving the lowest long-run average cost) for production to be concentrated in a single form. In some cases, this gives the largest supplier in an industry, often the first supplier in a market, an overwhelming cost advantage over other actual and potential competitors. This tends to be the case in industries where capital costs predominate, creating economies of scale that are large in relation to the size of the market, and hence high barriers to entry.

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 #19 of 79
Quote:
Originally Posted by Psych_guy View Post

While I think I agree with your statement, there's nothing "natural" about it. Apple designed, manufactured, marketed and sold the hell out of this thing right out of the gate. They left their competitors with only a ghost of a chance to catch up.

Apple worked hard to create this "monopoly".

I realize you are perhaps making a different point, but just so his original point does not get lost, the term 'natural monopoly' has a somewhat specific set of meanings and implications in both economics and antitrust law.

(I see that solipsism was typing at the same time I was).
post #20 of 79
Quote:
Originally Posted by Psych_guy View Post

While I think I agree with your statement, there's nothing "natural" about it. Apple designed, manufactured, marketed and sold the hell out of this thing right out of the gate. They left their competitors with only a ghost of a chance to catch up.

Apple worked hard to create this "monopoly".

No doubt Apple worked their butts off, that's why they have a natural monopoly. The term doesn't mean it just randomly happened, it just means that there aren't artificial barriers to competition. When Microsoft pushed Netscape out of the picture, that is not a natural monopoly. Apple didn't force anybody out of the industry, they just made a superior product with superior support, vision, and attention to detail that nobody could ever come close to matching.
post #21 of 79
today i was writing about poor management at microsoft ( http://bit.ly/kioBg2 ) and mentioning it as an example of an absolutely badly managed company. I forgot RIM as another example of folks determined to run their business into the ground by their prided blindness.
post #22 of 79
Quote:
Originally Posted by solipsism View Post

I predict the iPad will have a natural monopoly like the iPod.

Apple is the Gorilla in the tablet space with proprietary system a value added chain (App & Book store). They have reached the middle of the S-Curve phase with near double digit growth. Very difficult for the competition to catch Apple in the Tornado Phase.
post #23 of 79
Quote:
Originally Posted by anantksundaram View Post

Yeah, in the meantime, Apple will do nothing between now and five years from now.

Get real.

I never said they wouldn't.

But I think that in this "Post-PC" era, the ability to run the same app on your phone, your computer, whatever else is here in five years without being locked to a single OS to do so.

I think native apps will still have a place (especially with games), but I don't think "locked" applications are the future, no matter how slick the interface, how awesome the code, etc.

People on this forum (and others) like bringing up that if Motorola could get away with making their own OS, they would, and I think they'd like to have some unique OS as well (though looking at Bada, it's clear that this isn't always a good thing)

Let's take the App Read it later as an example.

There is a web app, and an app for iOS and Android. I'm sure there are tablet versions available/in the works as well.

Now, if you want to have the app on your ipad and on your android phone, you'll have to buy it twice. I'm not complaining about that right now, since it's two different OS's so there's different development costs/teams.

But an app like that would be perfect for something like HTML5 (once HTML5 stabilizes). Then instead of buying the app multiple times, you buy it once, and you can use it across platforms.

News apps and the like are the simplest ports, and then some basic games. And once that happens you'll see tablets running different Operating systems because it's not as high a barrier to entry as it is right now.

Think about it. Right now if you want to compete in the phone/tablet space you have to create the Operating system AND an ecosystem because smartphones/tablets are all about apps. If more apps are portable, then all a company needs to do is develop an operating system with a kick a55 browser.

I'm NOT saying that iOS won't improve, I'm just saying that I'm hoping HTML5 becomes increasingly relevant for more than just video. (just look at the insane stuff they can do with Canvas)
post #24 of 79
Quote:
Originally Posted by Menno View Post

I never said they wouldn't.

But I think that in this "Post-PC" era, the ability to run the same app on your phone, your computer, whatever else is here in five years without being locked to a single OS to do so.

I think native apps will still have a place (especially with games), but I don't think "locked" applications are the future, no matter how slick the interface, how awesome the code, etc.

People on this forum (and others) like bringing up that if Motorola could get away with making their own OS, they would, and I think they'd like to have some unique OS as well (though looking at Bada, it's clear that this isn't always a good thing)

Let's take the App Read it later as an example.

There is a web app, and an app for iOS and Android. I'm sure there are tablet versions available/in the works as well.

Now, if you want to have the app on your ipad and on your android phone, you'll have to buy it twice. I'm not complaining about that right now, since it's two different OS's so there's different development costs/teams.

But an app like that would be perfect for something like HTML5 (once HTML5 stabilizes). Then instead of buying the app multiple times, you buy it once, and you can use it across platforms.

News apps and the like are the simplest ports, and then some basic games. And once that happens you'll see tablets running different Operating systems because it's not as high a barrier to entry as it is right now.

Think about it. Right now if you want to compete in the phone/tablet space you have to create the Operating system AND an ecosystem because smartphones/tablets are all about apps. If more apps are portable, then all a company needs to do is develop an operating system with a kick a55 browser.

I'm NOT saying that iOS won't improve, I'm just saying that I'm hoping HTML5 becomes increasingly relevant for more than just video. (just look at the insane stuff they can do with Canvas)

You do make some very good points. Yes, people will look for cross- platform solutions. But they will be suboptimal, ultimately. Such an approach will necessarily seek out the lowest common denominator of OS capabilites rather than take advantage of their uniqueness.

People will continue to gravitate to 'apps' based on their OS of choice, rather than their cross-platform appeal. No different from how something even as ubiquitous as MS Office has to be written for and still continues to be used by people wedded to two fundamentally different OSes. That's the reason why cross-platform solutions (such as Google's web attempts at Office) never took off.
post #25 of 79
[deleted]
post #26 of 79
Quote:
Originally Posted by solipsism View Post

I predict the iPad will have a natural monopoly like the iPod.

very good chance that, yes, the iPad will hold a 70+% share of the "tablet" market indefinitely, as the iPod has done for five years in the PMP market. with the rest split up among several alternatives. that is not quite a "monopoly" in the legal sense, although it would warrant close attention for any anti-competitive Apple practices. more accurate maybe to call it a "dominant" market position.

of course the iPod touch is in fact a mini-tablet. and a portable game player. not just a portable media player. so that muddies up definitions of market share in all three of these categories. and if Apple introduces a 5.5" version of the iPod touch, as well it might, that would further confuse the pundits/analysts (which is totally easy to do).

it's the wide and seamless reach of the iOS/iTunes platform, or ecosystem, across multiple devices and Apple software that makes the iPad dominant. Apple execs keep saying this, it's no mystery. no other company can replicate all of it. just chunks that have to be mixed and matched with various OEM hardware and a melange of software. that can never be as easy for consumer use no matter what "standards" they use or what cloud they offer.

to hold this dominant market position for years, Apple will have to keep expanding its ecosystem aggressively. so this year we will see what the upcoming "iCloud" will offer, and how much iOS is woven into OS X Lion. and in the Fall, what if anything Apple will do to reinvent television.

and any surprises. like an iPod Shuffle wristwatch/phone? calling Dick Tracy!
post #27 of 79
Quote:
Originally Posted by Menno View Post

I never said they wouldn't.

But I think that in this "Post-PC" era, the ability to run the same app on your phone, your computer, whatever else is here in five years without being locked to a single OS to do so.

I think native apps will still have a place (especially with games), but I don't think "locked" applications are the future, no matter how slick the interface, how awesome the code, etc.

People on this forum (and others) like bringing up that if Motorola could get away with making their own OS, they would, and I think they'd like to have some unique OS as well (though looking at Bada, it's clear that this isn't always a good thing)

Let's take the App Read it later as an example.

There is a web app, and an app for iOS and Android. I'm sure there are tablet versions available/in the works as well.

Now, if you want to have the app on your ipad and on your android phone, you'll have to buy it twice. I'm not complaining about that right now, since it's two different OS's so there's different development costs/teams.

But an app like that would be perfect for something like HTML5 (once HTML5 stabilizes). Then instead of buying the app multiple times, you buy it once, and you can use it across platforms.

News apps and the like are the simplest ports, and then some basic games. And once that happens you'll see tablets running different Operating systems because it's not as high a barrier to entry as it is right now.

Think about it. Right now if you want to compete in the phone/tablet space you have to create the Operating system AND an ecosystem because smartphones/tablets are all about apps. If more apps are portable, then all a company needs to do is develop an operating system with a kick a55 browser.

I'm NOT saying that iOS won't improve, I'm just saying that I'm hoping HTML5 becomes increasingly relevant for more than just video. (just look at the insane stuff they can do with Canvas)

Let's say you're right and web apps overtake native apps. You say the OS won't matter, but I would very strongly disagree. Once the app is the same, the differentiators become the hardware and the experience. Apple wins on both accounts.

The iPad is made out of a unibody aluminum with a battery that lasts me over a week on a single charge usually. Their OS is in-house and tailor-made to work seamlessly with the in-house processor, GPU, RAM, etc., making everything run buttery smooth.

The Xoom is made out of plastic, has a lower quality screen, and while having arguably better specs than the iPad 2, barely outperforms the iPad 1, and even then, the kitchen-sink approach of Android slows real-world use down even further.

The Playbook is also made out of plastic, has a smaller, lower-quality screen, and while the OS is built in-house, it is based on something (QNX) that is very flexible, but way too generalized to be great, and is too taxing even on the top-of-the-line specs RIM put in the device.

All three of these devices can access the same exact content on the web, but unless you just have to have flash on a platform it was never designed to be on, the iPad is going to win every single time.
post #28 of 79
Quote:
Originally Posted by anantksundaram View Post

You do make some very good points. Yes, people will look for cross- platform solutions. But they will be suboptimal, ultimately. Such an approach will necessarily seek out the lowest common denominator of OS capabilites rather than take advantage of their uniqueness.

People will continue to gravitate to 'apps' based on their OS of choice, rather than their cross-platform appeal. No different from how something even as ubiquitous as MS Office has to be written for and still continues to be used by people wedded to two fundamentally different OSes. That's the reason why cross-platform solutions (such as Google's web attempts at Office) never took off.

You're assuming current gen limitations though.

Who would assume 10 years ago that Apple would be one of the most (if not THE most) profitable company in tech?

Who would've guessed 5 years ago that the marketplace for smartphones would be so huge, or 4 years ago that people would want "Apps" on their phone for more than just productivity? Heck, if you would ask the average tech geek 5-6 years ago he would laugh in your face if you ever suggested that the mobile phone would become a more profitable and attractive platform than dedicated handhelds.

And the really big thing holding Gdocs back right now (if you talk to people who've tried it/use it) is the lack of offline usability. Certain things (like opening an attachment) don't work well with webdocs unless you're using the latest version of Chrome and prefer Gmail (since they built the needed HTML5 into both apps).

For example, if I download an excel spreadsheet from a website, I have to re-upload it to Gdocs before I can view it since I don't have a native desktop client. (conversely, if someone emails it to me, Gmail does this for me in Chrome) For that reason alone, most people will just get a traditional office suite (MS office, iWork, OpenOffice, etc).

Remember, the concept of being "online" all the time is still really new. It wasn't all that long ago that most people connected to the internet via dialup or really slow DSL. Offline was the ONLY way you could really get things done. HTML5 is still in its infancy too. People are doing some insane stuff right now, and once that makes it into the "Standard" web apps will become a lot more powerful.

Native apps will most likely always have a place (for security/bleeding edge tech reasons). But cross platform apps don't always mean lowest common denominator, specifically if HTML5 is going to be as powerful as everyone (including Apple) seems to think it will be.

Side Note: I still prefer iWork to MS Office, but the fact that I can't even get a document viewer for iWork documents on a windows machine is really crappy. I have to buy another mac if I want to access those documents again, which sucks.
post #29 of 79
Quote:
Originally Posted by hittrj01 View Post

Let's say you're right and web apps overtake native apps. You say the OS won't matter, but I would very strongly disagree. Once the app is the same, the differentiators become the hardware and the experience. Apple wins on both accounts.

The iPad is made out of a unibody aluminum with a battery that lasts me over a week on a single charge usually. Their OS is in-house and tailor-made to work seamlessly with the in-house processor, GPU, RAM, etc., making everything run buttery smooth.

The Xoom is made out of plastic, has a lower quality screen, and while having arguably better specs than the iPad 2, barely outperforms the iPad 1, and even then, the kitchen-sink approach of Android slows real-world use down even further.

The Playbook is also made out of plastic, has a smaller, lower-quality screen, and while the OS is built in-house, it is based on something (QNX) that is very flexible, but way too generalized to be great, and is too taxing even on the top-of-the-line specs RIM put in the device.

All three of these devices can access the same exact content on the web, but unless you just have to have flash on a platform it was never designed to be on, the iPad is going to win every single time.

I never said that OS wouldn't matter, just that it wouldn't be as important, since it's a portal to get to the web. The OS would still have to be powerful/usable, but it would allow manufacturers (or start ups) to create their own Operating system without having it be DOA since they couldn't attract developers. This could allow for some insanely awesome innovation when it comes to Operating systems.

And again, you're making the mistake of comparing current gen technology/software to what we could/will have in 5 years once the web itself becomes more than simply a place for text with some pictures.

Heck, think back 5 years ago to what the web looked like, specifically on mobile. This was 2006, so think Blackberry and Old Windows Mobile. A LOT can change in 5 years. I think webapps will be better for all consumers, including those that prefer Apple devices.
post #30 of 79
Quote:
Originally Posted by philip.maccouch View Post

today i was writing about poor management at microsoft ( http://bit.ly/kioBg2 ) and mentioning it as an example of an absolutely badly managed company. I forgot RIM as another example of folks determined to run their business into the ground by their prided blindness.

Just read it. It your middle name DED?
post #31 of 79
Quote:
Originally Posted by Menno View Post

I never said that OS wouldn't matter, just that it wouldn't be as important, since it's a portal to get to the web. The OS would still have to be powerful/usable, but it would allow manufacturers (or start ups) to create their own Operating system without having it be DOA since they couldn't attract developers. This could allow for some insanely awesome innovation when it comes to Operating systems.

And again, you're making the mistake of comparing current gen technology/software to what we could/will have in 5 years once the web itself becomes more than simply a place for text with some pictures.

Heck, think back 5 years ago to what the web looked like, specifically on mobile. This was 2006, so think Blackberry and Old Windows Mobile. A LOT can change in 5 years. I think webapps will be better for all consumers, including those that prefer Apple devices.

Laptops and Desktops are many times more powerful than mobile devices and the OS still matters. As tech gets more capable we expect more from it so the requirement slides. Even with the browser being one of, if not the most used app, its still not the only app people use.

I remember about 1998 a tech for the company we leased our computer from was sure that "instant on" would happen in a few years because the HW was getting more powerful. He concluded that if the processing power doubles the time to boot will be halved each time. He also didnt take into account that the size and complexity of the code would change to accommodate the new HW.

You have to look account for all changes and when you do I think youll see that native C apps will get even better in comparison to web apps, even as web apps benefit from HW, OS and browser engine updates.
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 #32 of 79
Quote:
Originally Posted by solipsism View Post

Laptops and Desktops are many times more powerful than mobile devices and the OS still matters. As tech gets more capable we expect more from it so the requirement slides. Even with the browser being one of, if not the most used app, its still not the only app people use.

I remember about 1998 a tech for the company we leased our computer from was sure that "instant on" would happen in a few years because the HW was getting more powerful. He concluded that if the processing power doubles the time to boot will be halved each time. He also didnt take into account that the size and complexity of the code would change to accommodate the new HW.

You have to look account for all changes and when you do I think youll see that native C apps will get even better in comparison to web apps, even as web apps benefit from HW, OS and browser engine updates.

But isn't Apple showing us that many apps can be "good enough" without all that horsepower. It is my opinion that most of the apps in the various app stores should be able to be written with equal functionality (and possibly more) in HTML 5. One code base. Multiple platforms. No 30% to the app store owner.

And yes, the app store is valuable to unknown companies. But no one needs an app store to discover the WSJ if you know what I mean.
post #33 of 79
This is what happens when you release unfinished product.
post #34 of 79
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jacksons View Post

But isn't Apple showing us that many apps can be "good enough" without all that horsepower. It is my opinion that most of the apps in the various app stores should be able to be written with equal functionality (and possibly more) in HTML 5. One code base. Multiple platforms. No 30% to the app store owner.

And yes, the app store is valuable to unknown companies. But no one needs an app store to discover the WSJ if you know what I mean.

I dont think I get your point.

There is nothing preventing anyone from making a web app. There is nothing preventing anyone from not using any app store.

30% of nothing is still zero, which is what nearly all web apps get right now.

Im not sure what more functionality could be had from webcode than from Xcode.
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 #35 of 79
Quote:
Originally Posted by solipsism View Post

Laptops and Desktops are many times more powerful than mobile devices and the OS still matters. As tech gets more capable we expect more from it so the requirement slides. Even with the browser being one of, if not the most used app, its still not the only app people use.

I remember about 1998 a tech for the company we leased our computer from was sure that "instant on" would happen in a few years because the HW was getting more powerful. He concluded that if the processing power doubles the time to boot will be halved each time. He also didnt take into account that the size and complexity of the code would change to accommodate the new HW.

You have to look account for all changes and when you do I think youll see that native C apps will get even better in comparison to web apps, even as web apps benefit from HW, OS and browser engine updates.

which is why I don't think Native apps will ever truly go away, at least not as we know them. But I think that a lot of apps that currently are coded to run natively on each platform could easily be ported to a more robust HTML5 since they barely use the benefits of native code as it is. (the big ones being news readers and basic games)

The OS still matters with PC's because they're a different type of device. I don't agree with Steve Jobs that the iPad2 qualifies as "post PC" at least not yet, but I think that the direction he talked about is the one we're moving in. People are thinking about their devices differently. Think about your computer. How much time does the typical person spend on it doing things OTHER than surf the web (and how many of those "native" things can be done on the web already, they just don't know/are locked into their current programs?)

With my parents, I could replace their computer with a Linux/Mac/Windows7 computer, show them where the browser was, and they would be fine with it. They're not tech people. My mom got confused when I tried to get her to switch to Firefox instead of IE (though she picked it up fine once I showed her the different icons). How many MILLIONS of customers are that way with computers already?

You might not be, I might not be, but we're not normal customers. Computers and operating systems ARE becoming increasingly complex, but we don't use a lot of that complexity. Steve Job's has made millions because of it, where people pick up an iPad instead of a second computer because that's all they want a device for.

Again, I don't think Native Apps will go away, I just don't see them being nearly as important as they are right now. If we're going to have more than 2-3 players in the market place, they can't be. And I don't think having one OS having even more than 50% of the marketshare (at least for non-contract devices) is a good thing for any consumer. Windows was dominate for decades, and I don't think that helped the average consumer much, if at all.
post #36 of 79
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jacksons View Post

But isn't Apple showing us that many apps can be "good enough" without all that horsepower. It is my opinion that most of the apps in the various app stores should be able to be written with equal functionality (and possibly more) in HTML 5. One code base. Multiple platforms. No 30% to the app store owner.

And yes, the app store is valuable to unknown companies. But no one needs an app store to discover the WSJ if you know what I mean.

This sounds awfully like Java. In sw development its not programming that is difficult, but rather testing. That was java's problem. It was write once, debug everywhere.

Of co ruse that is not completely analogous because the majority of browsers nowadays run on webkit. Unfortunately though the biggest market share is with ie followeb by Mozzila's gecko engine. It's only in the mobile space that webkit dominates.

It will. E interesting to see how this plays out. I absolutely agree that the web makes the os less important. In fact I think that is a big reason why the Mac has been able to steal markets are from windows.
post #37 of 79
Quote:
Originally Posted by anantksundaram View Post

You do make some very good points. Yes, people will look for cross- platform solutions. But they will be suboptimal, ultimately. Such an approach will necessarily seek out the lowest common denominator of OS capabilites rather than take advantage of their uniqueness.

People will continue to gravitate to 'apps' based on their OS of choice, rather than their cross-platform appeal. No different from how something even as ubiquitous as MS Office has to be written for and still continues to be used by people wedded to two fundamentally different OSes. That's the reason why cross-platform solutions (such as Google's web attempts at Office) never took off.

Which is why I think ultimate Android tablet sales are likely to pick up and eventually catch up with the iPad. People are likely to gravitate to tablets running the same OS as their smartphone and there are a lot of Android phones out there.
post #38 of 79
Quote:
Originally Posted by solipsism View Post

I dont think I get your point.

There is nothing preventing anyone from making a web app. There is nothing preventing anyone from not using any app store.

30% of nothing is still zero, which is what nearly all web apps get right now.

Im not sure what more functionality could be had from webcode than from Xcode.

The big functionality of being able to take your apps with you if you want to try another platform. When I went from Windows to mac I had to give up several hundred dollars in software. When I switched back to windows, I lost all that software I bought for the mac.

It's not providing "more functionality" than xcode that's the benefit, it's the portability. The goal of HTML5 is to approach native code usability. Native code will always be technically superior. Just like Lossless Codec will give better sound than compressed codec, but there's a point where the difference ceases to matter for most people.

What's preventing companies from investing heavily in HTML5 (yet) is that it's still not standardized, and some of the really useful features (like Gmail recognizing that you have a google docs account and opening the doc with that instead of computer app) haven't been adopted into the official HTML5 standard yet, or even adopted by other HTML5 developers.

5 years ago, Flash was the Only reliable way to transfer video online, WAP browsers were considered "amazing".

Now, your browser supports offline functionality, drag and drop, Native video, in browser games (including a fully functional quake port), and this is just the tip of the iceberg. HTML5 is about a lot more than replacing flash.
post #39 of 79
Quote:
Originally Posted by solipsism View Post

I dont think I get your point.

There is nothing preventing anyone from making a web app. There is nothing preventing anyone from not using any app store.

30% of nothing is still zero, which is what nearly all web apps get right now.

Im not sure what more functionality could be had from webcode than from Xcode.

What I am trying to say (quite unsucessfully it appears) is that with the computing power we can now hold in our hands, most apps don't need to be written in XCode. They will run just fine on an abstraction layer. Yes, we failed to acheive this with Java. But we are getting better. I don't think we are too many iterations away from being able to accomplish this successfully. Just look at WP7. All the non XNA apps run on Silverlight and they perform as well as their native iOS counterparts.

Now that I write this, this may be one of the reasons Steve and Co. have been so quiet on the HTML5 front. That bloody thing could be a serious disruptor to the app store. Thinking it through, if the WSJ is not writting an HTML5 version of the WSJ app - they deserve a serious slap across the head!
post #40 of 79
Quote:
Originally Posted by Orlando View Post

Which is why I think ultimate Android tablet sales are likely to pick up and eventually catch up with the iPad. People are likely to gravitate to tablets running the same OS as their smartphone and there are a lot of Android phones out there.

I agree.

Although, I still don't trust Android phone sales numbers that are being thrown around. I'd love to see hard, bottom-up numbers built up from data provided by people actually selling the handsets (and corroborated with numbers from service providers on activations), and not just estimates put out by consulting/tech advice firms analysts.
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: iPhone
AppleInsider › Forums › Mobile › iPhone › RIM, Motorola post dismal figures for their iPhone, iPad competitors