RIM, Motorola post dismal figures for their iPhone, iPad competitors - Page 2

was at my favorite local over-priced computer store yesterday afternoon. they had a sign up indicating they had the xoom for sale. i asked the employee if they had a demo unit i could take a look at. they "did", but it was in a kryptonite cage and they wouldn't let me handle it. i asked him which he preferred -- ipad or xoom -- and he said the xoom. but he qualified that with "i haven't used an ipad". i mentioned something about my mac and he said "i use a pc". to myself, i thought "of course you do".

i find it interesting that there is seemingly such a totality of effort being spent, by so many companies, on keeping up with apple, rather than spending it on true innovation. i get that they want a piece of the market ... and although plagiarism might be the most sincere form of flattery, it ain't gonna get you too far. i'm just sayin'

Many dont have to be, but that doesnt mean they arent better for it. Running in an abstraction layer just to say your app is just fine isnt how you make great products.

You and Menno arent looking at the big picture. The future will make web apps better but will also make native apps better.


Apple has been quiet? They changed the game by developing and supporting HTML5/CSS/JS in their efficient and powerful WebKit engine. They have created JS frameworks to make web apps work more like native apps. They even created a way for web designers to save a web app as full screen and an iOS icon to your Home Screen so it looks and feels more like a native app. If they were scared about webcode disrupting the App Store they wouldnt have invested so much into webcode

He and his store don't make much money off the Apple products, that's why.

I'm not missing it, I'm saying that for a majority of applications, they'll stop getting the benefits they used to get from being in native code (or the costs will outweigh those benefits)

Will some apps always require native code? Yes. Will HTML5 ever catch up to native code? Highly unlikely. Does this mean that a majority of applications will continue being developed in native code (and then redeveloped if they want to port them)? Unlikely.

I'm not missing the big picture, I just see one that's different.

Because when you're talking iphone/ipad if a company isn't directly trying to compete with those products, the consumer could care less. Apple was VERY successful at getting consumer mindshare. Customer's don't come into a wireless store looking for a smartphone, they come into the store looking for "Something like the iphone" even if they've never handled an iOS device (or a competitors) before. If a device varies in design too much, they risk turning away a customer, even if there is nothing "inferior" about that design.

Of course, some companies take things too far (ala Touchwiz/Galaxy s) But before a company can get someone to look at their software, or what they offer, they have to overcome that significant iHurdle.

There are some companies doing some very innovative things when it comes to their devices, but if they vary too much, they risk alienating their customers. No other company in the world has the mindshare of apple.

Apple creates markets, other companies enter markets.

In the end though, average consumers will try out other products because they're going to be cheaper than iOS products in the future. Yes right now iPad is very competitive in price but it won't last and in the end iPad will go back to be the 'premium product'. Not that it's a bad thing for Apple though.

In another 5 years?

The OS will have returned (by going forwards) to it's roots, the loader and abstraction. iOS's "dull pages of apps" is the precursor. Not that everyone wants to get this.

The hardware was king
The OS is king
The App will be king

To the point IMHO where you'll have application makers releasing dedicated devices (not only but as well). The device will be totally valueless, it should "disappear" but so should the OS.

Apple said something along the lines of "when the tech gets out the way" in referring to the iPad. Thing is, the uni-tasking nature of iOS means the OS goes away also...

Fanboys in 5 years will be fighting about application conglomerates.

The biggest problem with that type of app is efficiency. It's been tried with Javelin, as we all know. But java apps are often ugly, don't conform to a particular platform's UI standards, Nd can't use specific hardware features of different platforms. The same thing will be true of these apps.

While there will always be some apps that are FI e using that model, a large number, even the majority, won't. And then we have games. Simple games will work fine, as the Flash and Java games do now. But anything complex, or that requires performance, won't.

Palm tried that with the Pre at first, and it bombed. Apple had web apps, and they weren't exactly setting the world on fire. Adobe has their commoditizing software that Apple attempted to prevent on iOS, but failed. It will produce apps at the lowest common denominator. In other words, second rate apps that are the same on all platforms.

Is this what most people really want? No, it's not.

They will never work that well. Apps are already somewhat abstracted from the hardware in modern OS's. You can look to programs such as VMWare and Parallels to see that there is a performance hit. And those work on powerful machines. There is much talk of virtualization as being the answer to most everything, but it's not the answer for many things. Anything that requires performance, or adherence to certain UI standards won't make it in either an abstracted, or virtualized environment.

The reason it that as these environments get better, the OS's themselves get more sophisticated and better. These environments will never catch up. They will always be second best.

You can even see a difference in how webcode works when running a web app in WebOS v. a native app in WebOS.

Man alive you like to hear yourself talk.

Be nice!

I have a Xoom and the thing is terrible. Although I'm interested to see what Android 3 is doing, it's really all about the experience and they fall short of the iPad 1 in most respects. The thing is slow and laggy, despite having alot more cpu and ram than the iPad 1. Web browsing is very jittery. Playing youtube movies in the browser gives you 10fps playback at best.

The inside of the box actually comes with a slip-card that says "Xoom will work with Flash once it's released" or something to that effect. There is a flash beta release you can download for it, but like everything else its slow and buggy.

They're on par in certain technical respects, ahead in some ways, but far far short of the user experience, and I can attest to the fact there are almost no real tablet apps on the store.

I feel bad for souls that actually bought one of these things, thinking it might be competitive to the iPad. And the entry price is $600, spending more for less. There's a gulf that is real and tangible between what Apple sells and what the competition is selling.

For the record I have an iPad 1 and 2 for comparison.

I think in this case, they really are implying "slow".

And you like to avoid responding to solip's rebuttal.

? sorry, don't know what DED means for?

As a developer of 16 years, 10 of which was in Java, I can say with certainty that Java was not write once, debug anywhere. I worked on many applications, enterprise apps that ran without modification across different operating systems. The most typical java dev environment is still Windows and overwhelmingly the production system was a Unix variant. I've even deployed apps across Sun's VM to IBM's VM.

Comparing web apps that barely have access to native resources, abilities like threading, or even basic design patterns to enterprise level java applications is absurd.

No offense, but with respect to java, this simply isn't true. I defy anyone to find any coding environment that brings coding productivity, library support, performance, maintainability, scalablity(both in terms of code and operations) and portability together better than Java. Many can do some, but none can currently do all, IMO.

But he usually has something to say that is actually worth reading.

Not exactly. Java is able to match native C/C++ on a variety of performance fronts and exceed it in others. Native back-end code can be hard pressed to match dynamically optimized Java code.

What everyone is talking about is client-side java which, I fully admit is awful. AWT is slow and ugly. Swing is slow and almost as ugly. SWT was faster, better looking, but sacrificed portability.

Server-side java is excellent.

That being said, I agree that cross-platform client side products are usually awful. Go back to the nineties with C++ tools like Galaxy and scripting languages like TCL/TK. All bad.

Flash is a good example of this and one where I agree with SJ wholeheartedly. Cross-platform solutions tend to be either 1)lowest common denominator or 2)full of customized nonstandard widgets. Client cross-platform development tends to lag behind the native environments until the companies can get out support for new features. It wasn't until Java 6 that client Java got support for system tray notifications. That would put us in the 2007 timeframe. Yikes.

Almost four years after iPhone, and all Flash mobile has really done is to add Android to the list of zero day vulnerable platforms.

Native client side code will always, I think, provide a superior optimized experience, certainly for the foreseeable future. Even 5 years out will look like 5 years ago where people were still predicting the rise of the web app and subsequent fall of native. Web apps have many advantages, not the least of which is deployment,but UI is not one of them.

You're absolutely right.

Here's the deal: Apple has taken the slow, considered, multi-pronged approach to product development. The original iPod was four years in development, the iPhone was seven years in development, and the original iPad was, I think, eight years in development.

Apple built the infrastructure with iTunes--an easy way to rip your CD collection to your Mac. iTunes then allowed your Mac to be the "mother ship" for the original iPod, and every subsequent iOS device. Users who bought any iOS device after the original iPod already knew how to make their device work with their Mac. Not only was there a software infrastructure, but a customer base infrastructure as well.
Then, negotiating with record companies and eventually TV networks and movie studios, Apple made it easy for customers to legally acquire movies, music and TV shows, which created a revenue stream for all parties involved. The success of the iTunes Music Store proved that customers weren't all closet pirates--they just needed an easy way to purchase media online. Obviously, piracy will never be completely eradicated, but the iTunes Store has given honest users a "path of least resistance" for acquiring videos, music, apps and games.
This level of security and dependency has created a "safe" environment for developers and users. Apple's "closed" system and restrictive (draconian??) approval process means that nefarious developers will have a tougher time getting their evil intentions out to wreak havoc on hapless users. Apple is not only the shopping mall, but mall security as well.

By comparison, Apple's "competitors" have glued bits of plastic and glass together and said "TA-DA!! iPad killer!" Virtually no security, no infrastrucure, no eco-system.

I've been saying this for a long time. The cycle just keeps repeating itself. They are all running around trying to design the next "iPad killer" to compete with Apple. But their goal is wrong to begin with. Apple focuses on developing the best product, the coolest product, the sleekest product (etc). When coupled with great marketing, the product literally sells itself.

This is completely different from their competitors, whose main goal is compete with Apple. to do that, they figure they need not a "greaT" product, but one that's good enough to compete with Apple. Coupled with usually lackluster marketing, this results in poor sales.

Surprise, surprise.

In addition to that, each time a "competitor" announces an "iPad killer", they inadvertently give more legitimacy to the iPad and the Apple brand. They reinforce the notion that the iPad is the de facto standard.

Your comment above is ridiculous. Bet you could get a job at Gartners.

Look at what iPad2 performance especially in graphics did to XOOM and Galaxy ... back to the drawing boards.

And the demand line in Japan for iPad2 is 3 blocks long ... and the cry for product is immense.

He was giving a sarcastic response to another earlier comment which implied that the rest of the world was going to move forward technologically, while Apple was going to just sit around and do nothing to improve or innovate.

Maybe I'm misunderstanding, but isn't this particular discussion entirely about client-side code on resource-limited portable machines? That's what apps are. Observations of Java's excellent server-side performance do not address that.

Maybe. I saw a few comments about web v. native as well as java is "write once, debug everywhere" but did not see anything specifically limiting the context to mobile side only.

If that is the case and we are talking about client side java on mobile devices, then please forgive my off topic reply.

No problem - your comments were interesting. I was just trying to clarify.

Besides for the fact that no one implied that.

So yes, his comment was ridiculous.

Well, it actually was being implied. The implication was that these others would advance their products much faster than Apple would, and so they would catch up, and surpass them. That would imply that Apple was standing still for all intents and purposes.

So your comments are off base.

What makes you not trusting Google's numbers but trust Apple's ? I think both publish the daily numbers of activations and it is at least a wash, if Android is not ahead. The number of the applications in the respective app stores is also about to equal (both are in 300 thousand range) and major publishers tends to release their titles for both platforms at the same time...doesn't sound like a monopoly at the smartphone arena at all.

iPad 2 is pretty nice piece of hardware, but it won't be nowhere as dominant through the 2011 and with more and more apps for Honeycomb showing up, there will be more reasons for people to use the same OS as they have on their phone.

Take few examples. Kindle : recent Honeycomb version is having the bookstore built in, which is sweet. If reading kindle books is important tablet use-case to you, Xoom with a big screen is not that bad choice at all. Mail : iOS mail client is no way superior to Honeycomb, quite contrary. Maps : This is clear edge for Android. Vector maps and offline caching rules. Video conferencing : so many people have GMail account and can use video in GTalk.

iOS and iPad is great, but trying to convince yourself it will maintain a dominant position through entire 2011 sounds like pissing into pants for warmth to me.

It is not clear to me why you would not want every app you run to be specifically written to use every pixel and every feature on the phone to the fullest extent. Apps written so far in Java, flash and HTML have shown that this is unlikely to be achieved without native code. New and special features (gyroscope?) of a phone are usually supported first by the native API. Many apps on the iPhone have been spectacular and are very much likely to get even better. There is no shortage of programmers in the world and I hope we see many many apps specifically written for the iPhone.

Web apps, yeah, that's the ticket. People have been predicting that the future is web apps for at least the last 15 years, and it seems even less likely now


Of course, users don't give a damn about any of those things.

Neither do developers that care about making great apps for a platform.

Would that include Nooks and Kindles?

I was going over some information I had on the executive team at Apple recently and was amazed at what a solid set of expertise and savvy Jobs has brought together. I am amazed at times that pundits who arguably have even better access to such information cannot analyze it for what it is. Far beyond Apple's ability to innovate is its ability to deliver on its vision. I realise this is a fine hair to split - but of such splits are acute observations made. It is one thing to have a vision, it is another to have a team that not only owns the vision but has the talent and expertise to drive it successfully. Good call.

..the entire Android app platform will be ported to Honeycomb (now locked to any modification unless you get Google's explicit permission) and available within the 2011 timeframe AND all the tab makers will have successfully ported Honeycomb to their tab offerings. Or a popular, easy to use and consumer -friendly method of rooting all these lovely 7" tabbies will have been released and will make the UI and app situation the essential equivalent of the iOS ecosystem?

In short you are asserting that the smartphone is the exact equivalent to the tablet and that they are used for the exact same reasons. Yet report after report cites users buying iPads to augment and/or replace (for common daily uses) their computer. Not smartphones. iPads. Can you elaborate on your statements in a way that makes sense, given this evidence that seems to contradict you?

Valid point. Though, I think the reason people don't trust Google's numbers is because of the variants of Android that aren't quite 'Android'. The numbers released by IDC/Gartner/Canalysis include these variants. The numbers Google released (activations-per-day) are pretty close to these numbers (even though they say they don't include these variants). So, do these phones based on Android variants sell in very low quantities, or is Google adding the sales of these Android variants into their numbers, while claiming that they don't? By the way, iOS has more activations-per-day.


False. Android has just below half the number of apps iOS has. And is it the majority of the major publishers that release their titles simultaneously for both platforms?


I'm sorry, but that's just naive. You think that the iPad won't be dominant simply because Honeycomb apps will magically appear? Especially when 2011 is close to half done?


Well, the Xoom's more expensive than the best-selling iPad. You could have at least used a better Android tablet.


And there are apps on iOS that are better than its Android version. Also, Skype is used more than GTalk for video chat, and it seems its iOS version is better.


Do you actually know what that saying means? Using it the way you did is quite... brainless.

You have a number of things wrong here. First of all, the number of apps on the platforms isn't close to even. I just checked, and there are now over 383,000 apps in Apple's App Store. The last reliable number I saw for the Google Marketplace, a couple of weeks ago was about 170,000.

But it's much more than the raw numbers. Apple vets their apps, as we all know, and Google doesn't, as we all know. I've looked at Apple's numbers on a regular basis, and occasionally, those numbers actually went down by a thousand, or even four thousand. That's because Apple removes apps from developers that are copyright violations of other legit apps. They also remove, sometimes by the thousands, apps that are empty apps, by the same developers, that just point to a website, or do other things that are not what real apps do. This is important.

But Google does none of this. Estimates are that anywhere from one third to as much as two thirds of all apps in the Google Marketplace are copyright violations, or empty apps. Google doesn't care. Estimates are that hundreds of apps have malware, perhaps more, but unless Google is called out for it, they don't care. The only reason they removed those 28 or so apps that were malware recently was because someone outside of Google found them, and went
public.

Also, every reviewer that has discussed apps, has stated that Android apps are not as good as iOS appseven when it's the same app by the same developer offering it on both platforms.

We know why this is.

Comparing numbers is a futile task, unless everything is equal, which it certainly is not here.

You obviously haven't tried the Google video conferencing. You should.

What were also seeing, when marketshare of the iPad, and Android tablets are compared, numbers that aren't comparable.

It's interesting to note that Apple has made it very clear, through Jobs and Cook, that Apple counts sell thru, i.e., sales to users, as the numbers they consider to be "sales", when they talk about "sales". Cook has stated this in their last conference call with analysts, which, by the way, is considered to be a legal financial document.

Meanwhile, others just talk about product "shipped". When asked about what the sell thru, or whatever other term for it others use, they are politely told that they aren't giving out those numbers. RIM's co-CEO got huffy about it, and whined that they shouldn't be questioned or doubted about their figures. Gee, I wonder why?

So now we're reading that Apple had 76% tablet marketshare last quarter based on these numbers. What numbers? The only numbers released on tablets sold were the ones for the iPad. I'm willing to bet the real percentage was upwards of 90%. and that goes for the quarter before, when Samsung released bogus numbers for the Tab, and were called on it, and had to backtrack, saying that they didn't sell nearly as many as they had shipped. And this isn't using the discredited "small" vs "smooth" controversy.

Also interesting is that Android marketshare in the USA has slipped, going from 53% to 50%, while iPhone numbers went from 19% to 28%. of course, RIM dropped as well. It's evidence that if the iPhone is sold on as many carriers as Android phones, it will do pretty well overall. So what happens if it's also sold on Sprint and T-Mobile? What about Metro Express, and other small carriers? What about if it's carried on all the carriers around the world that it's not carried on now? I think you know.