or Connect
AppleInsider › Forums › Mobile › iPhone › Editorial: Can Apple survive 2013?
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Editorial: Can Apple survive 2013?

post #1 of 266
Thread Starter 
Given the recent implosions of BlackBerry, Palm, Nokia, Microsoft, can we safely assume that Apple is next and will likely fail before the year is out, simply because, well? Android?

What is Android?



Of course, you might be thinking, "but Apple earns three quarters of the mobile industry's profits and an even greater majority of the world's mobile app revenues. It has a successful desktop platform, millions of loyal customers who rank it far higher in satisfaction than Android, and it has a coherent strategy?"

Well let me stop you right there: this is the Internet! We don't need facts or logic. The whole point of an open platform like the web is that you can celebrate the sheer volume of mouths in motion rather than focusing on the actual performance or reputation of any particular one of them.

And just like the web, Android doesn't have to profit to be wildly successful. As a loose ideology, it can be both the state of the art in mobile technology (Android 4.3 with NFC!) and, at the same time, the outdated and buggy version the majority is actually stuck with.

Mobile OS installed base stats


Android is regarded a omniscient deity that gets credit for everything positive that ever happens without also getting blamed for all of the ugly cruelty and suffering in the world. Apple is more like the scientist who cures cancer, only to hear complaints of "why didn't you do that last year?" and "so you're not going to cure my obesity? What a jerk!"

After acquiring and deploying C3's technology for turning satellite images into interactive 3G maps last year, Apple's work has remained the subject a bizarre level of contempt. Just this week, CNET mocked a 3D image of a plane appearing on a tarmac as "bad news for passengers." Really? Is somebody going to get lost underneath that jet on the runway?

bad news for passengers?
CNET


The same sort of scorn hasn't been applied to Google Maps and Earth, which continue to portray Hoover Dam in false perspective and with a collapsed bridge a year after Apple was assailed for its own flawed rendering. Google doesn't even integrate global 3D imagery in Android's Maps+Navigation app, it's just sort of assumed that, just because it looks like an iPhone, it does everything an iPhone can do.

iOS Maps Hoover Dam


Google Maps Hoover Dam


A bigger issue for the definition of "Android" is that it's not just the 66 percent of Google Play users that have no access to a modern version of Android; it's also the majority of the growing, "white box" market that is outpacing Samsung and the other Android licensees that everyone identifies as "Android."

As Needham's Charlie Wolf noted in a piece this morning by Philip Elmer-DeWitt of Apple 2.0, "most of these companies, located in China, have entered the market with low-end, cheaply produced Android phones that are not much more expensive than feature phones."

Wolf added, "Indeed, most buyers of these phones use them as feature phones."

What is Android doing?



Turning feature phones running some old version of a Java-like mobile OS into modern smartphone owners shouldn't be so difficult, right? After all, that's what Apple did with the iPhone, the reason why Nokia and its Symbian platform is no longer very relevant. Android is being swallowed by mediocrity so rapidly that it today looks more like an 8 year old Windows XP in 2009 than Windows XP actually looked in 2009. This is particularly remarkable given that Android is really only 4 years old.

So why is Google simply maintaining the status quo rather than affecting real change with Android to turn basic mobile owners into modern smartphone users? Part of the problem is that not even Samsung, the leader of Android licensees, is producing mostly modern smartphones.

Android is being swallowed by mediocrity so rapidly that it today looks more like an 8 year old Windows XP in 2009 than Windows XP actually looked in 2009. This is particularly remarkable given that Android is really only 4 years old.

Unlike Apple's iPhone, where the installed base since 2010 overwhelmingly runs modern iOS 6 software on modern A4-class hardware with features like a Retina Display and 6-axis motion sensors, Android is fractured not only in software but also in hardware capabilities, from the display to the screen technology down to the GPU cores.

That's what's really keeping Android software fragmented, and that fragmentation is keeping Android from accomplishing anything of real value other than converging Java feature phones into Dalvik feature phones.

What if Google realizes what Android is doing?



At some point, Google might realize that, in order to have a mobile platform like Apple, it will need to do some of the work Apple is doing. After experiencing the same sort of frustration Microsoft had with its innovation-deprived PC and then MP3 "PlaysForSure" partners, Google followed the same Zune strategy of releasing its own hardware.

Xoom


Google even spent $12.5 billion to acquire Motorola, the leading Android hardware failure, to prove that Microsoft's Zune strategy doesn't work even if you buy the Toshiba behind it. After the failure of Google's Android 3.0 Honeycomb and Motorola's Xoom in 2011, Google set out to more closely copy the Zune in a loose partnership with Asus to bring the Nexus 7 to market in 2012. That didn't magically result in a iPad style success either.

The only other way Google could pursue a more Zune-like strategy is by going "Zune HD" and bringing substantial work inside to deliver a new tablet product targeting the iPad years after it first became established. Google is due to release exactly that next year under its X brand.

Really, how is it that Google's spectacular history of failure in Android tablets remains so quiet?

The real problem for Google is not that it is ineffectually copying Microsoft's Zune, but that Android is actually copying Apple's miserable history of the Mac System Software from the mid 1990s. Just as with the half decade of tepid updates of Apple's System 7, Google has largely just rolled in features invented by hobbyist users.

There's no apparent strategy (outside of NFC, which is failing without iOS support) and no effort to jump the platform ahead of the game by inventing anything spectacularly new.

Instead, just like the Old Apple, Google is following the advice of those who thought Microsoft-style OS licensing was the only way to sell technology. The problem is that Microsoft-style licensing has only ever worked for Windows, and it only worked when Windows had a virtual monopoly that restrained all competition. Android doesn't have a monopoly over mobile devices, and it isn't holding back Apple from bringing products to market or selling them. Not at all.

In fact, the only way to make Android look competitive against iOS is to bundle in a huge segment of feature phones under the now meaningless term "smartphone," and ignore profitability and platform success in order to focus only on unit shipments.

That's the same sort of creative math that Gartner and IDC used to hide the reality that the iPad was deeply gouging the PC market until "surprise!" they could announce that "there is something dreadfully wrong with PC sales and who could have possibly predicted this shift in the market that we failed to see, despite it being our primary job as market research firms?!"

Google's Android shares much more in common with Apple's failed Mac OS licensing program from the mid 1990s than Microsoft Windows. Apple once struggled to compete against its own licensees, couldn't ask for enough licensing money to justify its engineering costs and faced stiff competition from an entrenched competitor with a much stronger platform. Now Google does.

Newton Message Pad


Also like the Old Apple, Google is wasting its resources on a 7 inch tablet that users aren't buying in sustainable volumes because it has no specific function and what it does do is sort of half baked and has rough edges. Google is successfully copying Apple, but it's copying the wrong decade.

The decade Google should be copying is the one where Apple built out a global retail chain; developed incredible first party native apps (like Final Cut Pro, iWork and iLife) to show off its platforms; assembled an in-house processor design group to take control of the future of device hardware and developed a operating system that could scale from workstation PCs to mobile devices, sharing technology advancements across its product line. Google hasn't done any of those things.

What if Samsung realizes what Google is doing to Android?



If Google isn't empowering Android to compete against Apple, then might Samsung? Unlike Google, Samsung is vertically integrated and quite competent at building hardware products. It even has produced a series of first party apps, although not quite on the scale of Apple.

Samsung also has its own leading chip design and fab, something that Apple has taken advantage of and even found it difficult to divorce itself from. Samsung doesn't have a software platform however, leaving it to hop between Windows Phone, Windows and Android (or combine them). That has has put it at the mercy of mistakes originating at Microsoft and Google, including grievous security lapses it has attempted to bandage with acquisitions like Knox.

Samsung Knox SAFE for work


Samsung has also tried to replicate Apple's retail stores, announcing, just like Microsoft, a plan to open 1400 mini-stores inside Best Buy. However that too is something that's tied a lot closer to Apple's failure in the 1990s than Apple's more recent retail success.

After opening lots of "stores within a store" in partnerships with various big box retailers, Apple promptly began closing them because they didn't work. It has since focused its retail efforts on stores it owns and can control.

Shanghai 2


I could next write about the prospects of other Android licensees to more effectively take over and destroy Apple, but that would strain credulity. And that's because the entire premise of Android existing as an open platform to challenge Apple's "closed, walled garden" by empowering innovation and competition across the industry has imploded, just like Microsoft's similar claims that Windows worked as this open platform for expanding choice.

Rather than serving some grandiose "open" purpose, the primary thing Windows and Android have done is to hide incompetence, reward failure and transfer intellectual property from an inventor to a pool of manufactures with myopic vision and waning creativity. They do this by forging a coalition between huge volumes of garbage products and a tiny minority of modern, decent products.

In the end, the promise of freedom and choice boils down to a monoculture where there is no choice, or there are silly choices like Samsung's PC that runs Windows 8 paired with a tablet-like screen that runs Android, so that when you want to relax on the couch you can detach your system and continue to play Cut the Rope, but with ads.

Realize what Apple is doing to Samsung, Google and Android



Apple's iOS 7 is highlighting a variety of things the company is doing that its competitors aren't. While critics tried to portray Apple as "catching up" with a "flat" appearance before iOS 7 even appeared, and then tried to maintain that there was nothing new to see here even after seeing it, a variety of observers from different places are now noting that Apple is doing something new.

For starters, iOS 7 looks new. It also looks different, and involves lots of novel ideas nobody has really used before in a mobile OS. Why does it use bright colors in icons and highlights, a largely white background, thin fonts, translucency and gyroscopic motion-based animations?

iOS 7


Some have suggested that the use of colors will appeal to Asian markets. That bright white backgrounds are difficult to copy on OLED screens (where white draws more power than black, as opposed to LEDs where backlighting is always required; this is why the Zune/Windows Phone is so overwhelmingly back). That thin fonts require typographical expertise and Retina Displays. That translucency requires A4 processing power, and that motion controls require a 6-axis gyroscope.

Put together, it sure looks like Apple is simply following its long term business plan of identifying advanced, enabling technologies and packaging them together in ways that communicate value for users. Apple scouts out hardware advances and software advances and sells the combination by developing clear and valuable applications for buyers, from FaceTime to Siri to Maps.

Google and Samsung have both done a good job at finding cool new technologies, but neither has done a very good job of applying them in useful ways. A lot of the tech media hasn't figured this out, preferring to instead be enamored with specifications like CPU GHz and GB of memory installed. That model, copied from the WinTel era, is collapsing. On mobile devices, it's not about how fast you can run Office, but how long your battery can run while doing lots of useful things that are fun.

And while the various elements of iOS 7 point to an effort by Apple to ditch competitors with applied hardware and software advances, it really comes down to delivering an experience that is fun, and that works. There will be more from Apple in 2013 related to both fun and work.
post #2 of 266
"Apple is more like the scientist who cures cancer, only to hear complaints of "why didn't you do that last year?" and "so you're not going to cure my obesity? What a jerk!"

lol
Applez teh doomed
post #3 of 266
This article is a joke. Apple might not be as strong but I got news for you. There will always be a market for people that doesnt want all the configurations that android offers and wants a walled garden. I know I do. I would like the extras that android features but I will also trust apple to make the decision for me to make the function simple. If they don't put it in ios because it was a decision that was made by apple, I am okay with it. That is why I pay apple for. I would much rather have the walled garden where things are screened. But I will not hate on android. Google is apples AMD. Intel needs it and so does apple. It keeps apple honest where the company wont get lazy. But they will never get left behind unless they lose their competitive spirit.
post #4 of 266
post #5 of 266
And, what will the paid Samsung "critics" say about this article?
post #6 of 266
I like the idea that the bright light/white display is to take advantage of Apple's display while making sure the OLED will kill its batteries trying the same.

If this came out during the iPhone 3GS/4 days, it might have stopped Samsung. Better late than never though.
post #7 of 266

I'm surprised that Hwy 93 does NOT descend into the Colorado River gorge like that. Google Maps is clearly the gold standard for Mapping Truth.

"Apple should pull the plug on the iPhone."

John C. Dvorak, 2007
Reply

"Apple should pull the plug on the iPhone."

John C. Dvorak, 2007
Reply
post #8 of 266
Nice to see the fandroids called out for their double standards (hell lack of standards) and hypocrisy.

I've long maintained that android is not a smartphone platform, because it is neither a platform nor does it produce smartphones.

This is why they're being sold to feature phone buyers who use them for nothing more than making phone calls. (for the most part)

Android is not a platoform because it is not designed to provide a consistent SDK that developers can program against. First there's the fragmentation of all the different versions of "android" out there-- not to mention forks like the Kindle OS, etc. And then on top of that, every maker of devices puts their own UI on it.

This means you cannot write software for the android platform, you have to write a software that somehow manages to work on a variety of incompatible platforms with different UIs and different capabilities.

This is the Java "Write Once Test Everywhere, Support almost nowhere" method in action again. Not surprising given that android is a ripoff of java too.

It's astounding that the Apple bashers-- like CNET-- can get away with their blatantly dishonest articles without being called out and shamed out of employment. It just goes to show that most people don't know much about technology and believe what they read. (Which is why Samsung is able to make a profitable android business-- people have been tricked into believing their devices are worth buying.)
post #9 of 266

The title usually gives the DED away. This delightful piece shall have to wait till I do the Saturday run with the kids, but that is OK; I like to postpone the little pleasures in life to savour them in peaceful contemplation without distraction.

Booze helps too, but works better in the evenings.

I just peeked at the final paragraph—feeling a poetic moment coming on.

When I find time to rewrite the laws of Physics, there'll Finally be some changes made round here!

I am not crazy! Three out of five court appointed psychiatrists said so.

Reply

When I find time to rewrite the laws of Physics, there'll Finally be some changes made round here!

I am not crazy! Three out of five court appointed psychiatrists said so.

Reply
post #10 of 266
Quote:
Originally Posted by RobM View Post

"Apple is more like the scientist who cures cancer, only to hear complaints of "why didn't you do that last year?"

 

No.

 

Apple (lately) is more like the scientist who claims to have cured cancer, but actually just copied another scientist who really cured it 2 years ago.

post #11 of 266

So, to summarize....

 

 

 

?

post #12 of 266

This article does not hold up to the level of quality and professionalism I have come to expect from Apple Insider. Very silly and crude.

post #13 of 266
Gotta love it when people comment based on a headline, without bothering to read even the first paragraph of the article.
post #14 of 266
Lots of interesting facts in the article. I know it is an editorial opinion piece but the whole tone of it seems to miss that Google/Samsung/Android OEMs/MSFT, just like Apple, is generally made up of some very smart people. I don't think many of us could march in there and start giving lessons about how they actually should run their businesses. Absolutely, they are executing different strategies, some of which will end in failure and some of which will be valuable.
post #15 of 266
Quote:
Originally Posted by wubbus View Post

Lots of interesting facts in the article. I know it is an editorial opinion piece but the whole tone of it seems to miss that Google/Samsung/Android OEMs/MSFT, just like Apple, is generally made up of some very smart people. I don't think many of us could march in there and start giving lessons about how they actually should run their businesses. Absolutely, they are executing different strategies, some of which will end in failure and some of which will be valuable.

 

Those that can, do; those that can't, blog.

post #16 of 266
Enjoyed your article. Apple Insider appears to be Apples only defender in a sea of American media hatred of this iconic American company. Keep up the fight.
post #17 of 266
Quote:
Originally Posted by AKaplan123 View Post

And, what will the paid Samsung "critics" say about this article?

Ace Metrix will do an analysis of it and say
Quote:
Originally Posted by japm View Post

No.

Apple (lately) is more like the scientist who claims to have cured cancer, but actually just copied another scientist who really cured it 2 years ago.
Quote:
Originally Posted by japm View Post

No.

Apple (lately) is more like the scientist who claims to have cured cancer, but actually just copied another scientist who really cured it 2 years ago.

I didn't know one can copy a cure, must be the morning coffee.
post #18 of 266
Quote:

Can Apple survive 2013?

 

I think this is sarcasm.

Which of us is the fisherman and which the trout?

Reply

Which of us is the fisherman and which the trout?

Reply
post #19 of 266
Quote:
Originally Posted by wubbus View Post

Lots of interesting facts in the article. I know it is an editorial opinion piece but the whole tone of it seems to miss that Google/Samsung/Android OEMs/MSFT, just like Apple, is generally made up of some very smart people. I don't think many of us could march in there and start giving lessons about how they actually should run their businesses. Absolutely, they are executing different strategies, some of which will end in failure and some of which will be valuable.

No, what Mr Dilger did not emphasis was:

1. … since 1978.

2. … the number progression is roughly 75% - 20% - 5%.

 

Your comment on "some very smart people" is generally applicable when these people can get hired on at Apple, if they are good enough.

 

Cheers

post #20 of 266
Quote:
Originally Posted by wubbus View Post

...Google/Samsung/Android OEMs/MSFT, just like Apple, is generally made up of some very smart people.

Why did they have to steal an OS and hardware from Apple, then?

Originally posted by Relic

...those little naked weirdos are going to get me investigated.
Reply

Originally posted by Relic

...those little naked weirdos are going to get me investigated.
Reply
post #21 of 266
Really, you needed that headline to sell your words? A bit whorish!

Imaging a consumer looking to buy an Apple device, and searching the web and finding your article, "Can Apple Survive 2013". And we are already only six months away from the end of 2013.
I if I didn't know better, unlike most consumers, and with the beating the stock is getting (with no real reason, except speculation), would take my money elsewhere. Why would anyone buy from a company that might go out of business this year?

You see, you think that most people understand your nuances, or read the piece. No, a headline is good enough for the regular consumer. Thank you very much for unknowingly (maybe, Samsung pays well) helping the competition.

Competition is great, but honest competition is.

Did you have the curiosity to investigate why all of a sudden, one research company is telling us Apple new ad has failed? Doesn't that interest you as a so-called journalist, or whatever you call yourself?
Tell me the last time Apple had to lie about their competition? Even Microsoft in their new ads use deceptive practices by photoshopping the look of the iPad vs. the Surface. Did you write about it? Has Apple ever had to hire people to protest in front of a competitor business?

Balance boy, balance. The difference between an honest man and an unscrupulous one.
post #22 of 266
This is one of the better pieces I have read analyzing the playing field both past, future and present. Most writers are truly clueless whether pro or anti apple. Some, like this writer, seem to have been around long enough to learn the history and be able to see what is right in front of them. Most "analysts" fall flat when trying to understand these things. So I say very nice job to this writer for a well done article/analysis.

I have to add something very obvious and slightly off topic that apple should do (NOW) and once they do everyone will say "why didn't they, or anyone do this before?". Solve battery life. How? Use the new MacBook Air CPU clustering to cut down on power AND (this is the big one) put a larger battery on the phone. I use a mophie case to double my battery. A built in battery would bulk the phone up but it would be a fraction of the mophie case.

Give users and road warriors a choice here. Make a standard thin phone to show what you can do but add a millimeter or two and squeeze more lipo in those native iPhones. If you could double the battery life of an iPhone you would smoke everyone out there. The race is not to be the smallest/thinnest but for some to actually have enough battery so it is not a brick by 3PM. This is simple, easy and obvious. I'd dump my iPhone 5 for a new one in two seconds if it had nothing more than a larger battery. It would still be plenty thin, light and ergonomic. Would probably be no thicker or weigh more than the iPhone 4 did.

Rant over :-) Listen up Cook!
post #23 of 266
Quote:
Originally Posted by alaska99801 View Post

I if I didn't know better, unlike most consumers, and with the beating the stock is getting (with no real reason, except speculation), would take my money elsewhere.

People are dumb, not that dumb. lol.gif
Quote:
Did you have the curiosity to investigate why all of a sudden, one research company is telling us Apple new ad has failed? Doesn't that interest you as a so-called journalist, or whatever you call yourself?

Wouldn't matter. No one can prove that Samsung was behind it, even if they were.

Originally posted by Relic

...those little naked weirdos are going to get me investigated.
Reply

Originally posted by Relic

...those little naked weirdos are going to get me investigated.
Reply
post #24 of 266
Whoever writes these pieces is too sensitive and lives in la-la land.
post #25 of 266
AI needs to abandon this guy's editorials, or editorials in general.
The article is as usual over wordy, incorrect on facts and knowledge, and ideologically driven. This week this is one nugget of sense

Errors of Fact:
Quote:
"but Apple earns three quarters of the mobile industry's profits”

Wrong - 57 % and falling. In fact that sharp drop off should cause concern to the “profit share” supporters, it may be caught by Samsung this year. Maybe this Q.
Quote:
“ and an even greater majority of the world's mobile app revenues.”

Wrong again. Apple earns exactly 75%. Not more.

Apple Licensing.

Apple didn’t licence in the “early 1990’s”, if it had it might have increased market share, it licenced in the late 1990’s after the plunge.

Strawman:

The supposed problem with Apple Maps is just unfair comparisons with the look of the overfly, or 3D graphics.
In reality the real problem with Maps is the data and the seeming inability to rectify this data. This problem has been flagged by Apple users, who are the only people who would count.


Errors of logic:

Google:
Claim:
Google has failed because it doesn’t have enough hardware sales:
Quote:
The only way to make Android look competitive against iOS is to bundle in a huge segment of feature phones under the now meaningless term "smartphone," and ignore profitability and platform success in order to focus only on unit shipments.

In fact Google is giving it away for free so they don't care about upfront profits, nor apps. What Google wants to do is get it’s OS on mobiles, so that its search engine and other services like Maps are out there. It originally set up this team to combat Bing on mobiles, and they saw the iPhone and decided that multi-touch was the future. This pissed off Apple, but Google were not really going after Apple - well except for Rubin who didn’t like Apple.

Samsung

The article admitting that Samsung is successful in it’s hardware and systems, then it is argued to be at the mercy of Microsoft, or Google for the OS. Another way of saying "at the mercy off" is they are getting free r+d from both companies. And Samsung can fork the OS for Google if it wants. Like Kindle did. No real argument there.

Tiny nugget of vauge sense.

The only part that makes some kind of sense is the bit about iOS 7, he’s probably right about the transparency being there to differentiate between it and Android. That doesn’t look so successful yet, though, the jury is out. But it might, if so lower end Androids won't be able to do it.

The other thing missed about iOS 7, unsurprisingly since the ideology of this kind of head in the sand editorial is that everything is JUST FINE M’Kay, is that it probably augurs in an era of cheaper phones - the colors - and indeterminate screens, larger or smaller. After all, if buttons are now borderless text resizing your app takes no work, no designer needed.
Quote:
We don't need facts or logic.

Apparently not.
I wanted dsadsa bit it was taken.
Reply
I wanted dsadsa bit it was taken.
Reply
post #26 of 266
I maintain that Apple's biggest challenges are expanding distribution and increasing production capacity to supply these new channels. Apple's growth has slowed a bit until this infrastructure is built out with new suppliers. This is precisely why Tim Cook is the perfect man to be running Apple right now. This expansion of the supply and distribution chains has been hampered by Samsung. Not due to Samsung's products but mostly by having to replace them as a supplier.

Samsung and Google could be backing themselves into a corner in the long term. Apple is strengthening Samsung's competitors on the supply side and as more and more services on the iPhone are moved away from Google services (particularly in overseas markets just as they are in Asian versions of Android) Google could find it hard to hold onto its data aquisition it needs to push its ad revenues. Samsung could see its vertical integration advantage collapse when it moves chip business to TSM and display business increasingly to Sharp.

These feature phones running Android will face pressure from Firefox OS and the like on the low end again depriving Google of data aquisition and Samsung of volumes it needs to drive capacity.

Apple will be fine in 2013. Apple will begin to surge again in 2014 and be in good position to pick up the pieces of Android when it falls apart in 2015!!!!

cut the tech garbage and check me out at

www.appletechspot.com

Reply

cut the tech garbage and check me out at

www.appletechspot.com

Reply
post #27 of 266
Quote:
Originally Posted by AKaplan123 View Post

And, what will the paid Samsung "critics" say about this article?

 

More of the usual boring crap.

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 #28 of 266
With colored plastic phones? One wonders. Especially if Apple prices these colored plastic phones at $450 off contract. I'll be curious to see how they market them and where they will sell them.
post #29 of 266
Quote:
Originally Posted by hill60 View Post

More of the usual boring crap.

Or there won't be any "paid" Samsung critics of this article on this low volume, unimportant site on the internet. What would be nice is if the place wasn't run like a religious cult seeking out heretics, , or some trotskyite convention accusing some critics of selling out to the Bourgeoisie.

This DED guys is short on facts on logic, and fails to ever believe that Apple could make a mistake, or fumble a bit. With that being the editorial position of the once great - and once critical - AI, its no wonder the place has become a cesspool of semi-literate adhominens, accusations of trolling, and attempts at curtailing of debate.

Needs a clean out.
I wanted dsadsa bit it was taken.
Reply
I wanted dsadsa bit it was taken.
Reply
post #30 of 266

Most tech journalists and geek bloggers don't get how Apple products are designed, and what design means. Design is something you can feel in the human-machine interaction. That can't be bullet-pointed on a features list. This is one of the reasons tech like NFC have floundered so far. Everyone is focusing on the tech, not the way we use it, the way it enhances our lives. We're still waiting for someone (Apple, presumably) to "get NFC right." Bumping phones to exchange playlists isn't it. And when Apple does get it right, their competitors will justify copying Apple's idea, even going so far as to tell Congress that Apple's inventions are "standards essential" or "too important" to be kept to one company. 

"Apple should pull the plug on the iPhone."

John C. Dvorak, 2007
Reply

"Apple should pull the plug on the iPhone."

John C. Dvorak, 2007
Reply
post #31 of 266
Quote:
Originally Posted by asdasd View Post

Or there won't be any "paid" Samsung critics of this article on this low volume, unimportant site on the internet. What would be nice is if the place wasn't run like a religious cult seeking out heretics, , or some trotskyite convention accusing some critics of selling out to the Bourgeoisie.

This DED guys is short on facts on logic, and fails to ever believe that Apple could make a mistake, or fumble a bit. With that being the editorial position of the once great - and once critical - AI, its no wonder the place has become a cesspool of semi-literate adhominens, accusations of trolling, and attempts at curtailing of debate.Needs a clean out.

Perhaps you missed the paragraphs talking about what Apple did wrong in the 1990s. It's not Apple vs Google or Samsung, it's simple a matter of wise vs foolish. And you can see the pretty clear results of both, unless you're blindly hammering out an angry thesaurus full of personal attacks at the author instead of discussing the subjects raised.

AI has a pretty huge readership. Just ask Google.
post #32 of 266
Quote:
Originally Posted by RichL View Post

So, to summarize....



?

Has nothing to do with liking something, merely recounting the phony, one sided portrayal of Apple in the media and satirically examining the threat posed by Android. You are free to keep using Android, you just won't have any good apps.

But that's not the article's fault. It's the platform's fault.
post #33 of 266
Brilliant article. Spot on. Required reading by all.
post #34 of 266
Quote:
Originally Posted by ciparis View Post

Gotta love it when people comment based on a headline, without bothering to read even the first paragraph of the article.

Most times whenever the headline is a question the answer is no. It's obviously not the case now, but I would've titled it 'Is Apple doomed in 2013?'
"Few things are harder to put up with than the annoyance of a good example" Mark Twain
"Just because something is deemed the law doesn't make it just" - SolipsismX
Reply
"Few things are harder to put up with than the annoyance of a good example" Mark Twain
"Just because something is deemed the law doesn't make it just" - SolipsismX
Reply
post #35 of 266

An excellent article giving a wide angle temporally inclusive perspective. It was also fun to read and even makes me inclined to believe that Australia can win the Ashes, go figger.

post #36 of 266
Quote:
Originally Posted by Corrections View Post


Has nothing to do with liking something, merely recounting the phony, one sided portrayal of Apple in the media and satirically examining the threat posed by Android. You are free to keep using Android, you just won't have any good apps.

But that's not the article's fault. It's the platform's fault.

 

You're talking bollocks and you know it.

 

I'm not an Android user but I've used the platform enough to know that there's plenty of quality apps available these days. If you disagree then you're either ignorant, stupidly or a liar. 

 

It would be fair to say that there's more good apps on iOS. But there's enough good apps that a lot of people are happy to use Android.

post #37 of 266
Quote:
Originally Posted by ybfmiami View Post

Enjoyed your article. Apple Insider appears to be Apples only defender in a sea of American media hatred of this iconic American company. Keep up the fight.

Check out articles by Philip Elmer DeWitt. He does actual journalism instead of push propaganda.

Proud AAPL stock owner.

 

GOA

Reply

Proud AAPL stock owner.

 

GOA

Reply
post #38 of 266

In my opinion, the only reason Android devices have any sort of popularity are because of Apple haters and people with lower income.  I honestly believe it has nothing to do with user experience, because I can honestly say, owning my Nexus 7 for a year now.. Android is a horrid mess of features that don't seem to have an forethought or future planning in its design.  I sold my Galaxy Note 10.1 last year (after owning it for a few months) simply because it didn't serve the purpose I bought it for.. for drawing.  The (Android only) apps and OS were horrible and user unfriendly.. I'd almost go as far as user hostile.

 

Samsung just seems to throw shit (new models) at the wall to see what will stick, and they by are far and large the biggest Android device purveyor.

 

Regardless, my Nexus 7 was cheap enough for me to keep as a replacement for a magazine in the bathroom.

 

As soon as the new iPad5 shows up, I'll be grabbing one right away.

post #39 of 266

Not sure what the title had to do with the actual story or if sarcasm really served a purpose. The story also reads like a compilation of previous editorials here. I feel like I had deja vu and was reading a remix of the best hits from the past. It rehashed that Android is fragmented. It hinted that there is some discord among Google and Samsung and others. All of this has been said before so not really sure what new ground if any this article broke. Neither Android or Apple are going to implode and it is not a zero sum game. 

 

Apple will continue to do well. Google seems fine with their ad revenue. Samsung also seems to be prospering. HTC, Motorola, Nokia, Sony, LG, Blackberry  and the others seem to be left to pick over the crumbs. That doesn't seem likely to change anytime soon. 

 

The only people who really have a valid reason to complain about fragmentation on Android are the developers. If they find it too tedious or that it is not worth their effort they will simply stop writing apps. Some (but not all) people presumably choose the phone that works based on their needs, desires, and budgets and perhaps even their carrier. It wasn't that long ago if you wanted an iPhone in the U.S. you could only choose AT&T. During that time many people on the other carriers bought Android because they had little other choice and just got used to it. iPhone sales have increased on the newer carriers but they are still not close to the percentages at AT&T. 

 

The android is doomed mantra is just as silly and improbable  as the Apple is doomed chant. Apple simply doesn't meet the needs of people looking for more affordable phones or ones with larger displays (yet). If they expand the line to address those two segments then I might join in the Android is doomed chorus with you. But not quite yet...

 

Never argue with an idiot. They will only bring you down to their level and beat you with experience. 

Reply

 

Never argue with an idiot. They will only bring you down to their level and beat you with experience. 

Reply
post #40 of 266
As an old apple supporter ans long tome ai follower, I find this article quite depresing. It's obviously biaised, in such a heavy way that anyone following the tech industry would wonder if apple will indeed survive 2013... I for one don't believe that apple is in such a bad shape that its rabid defender would need to dismiss it's competitor to prove the genius of the company. Such a behaviour is both depressing and intriguing, ans suite disapointing fromage ai.
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: iPhone
AppleInsider › Forums › Mobile › iPhone › Editorial: Can Apple survive 2013?