or Connect
AppleInsider › Forums › Mobile › iPhone › Steve Jobs on P.A. Semi, love for Intel; 3G Blackberry delayed
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Steve Jobs on P.A. Semi, love for Intel; 3G Blackberry delayed - Page 3

post #81 of 95
Quote:
Originally Posted by anantksundaram View Post

Wow... take a look at this story in NYT today.... actually, forget the story, just click on the graphic that says "A Narrower Lead."

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/04/27/te...=1&oref=slogin

All I can say is, iPhone-haters can yap all they want, but under any reasonable set of scenarios, competitors such as RIM are pwned in this space (of course, only if your horizon extends longer than that of a gnat).

There a lot of quotable sentences in that article. I've said this before, even if you hate the iPhone and Apple the affect it is having is good for every consumer that owns a cell phone, especially a smart phone.

Is there any truth to the claim that RiM devices are much more secure than the iPhone?


PS: I wonder how long before RiM clashes their exorbitant PUSH subscription fees.
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 #82 of 95
Quote:
Originally Posted by SpamSandwich View Post

Think again. Of the few people I know, all of them switched to Apple because they heard about Apple adopting Intel chips. All of them.

And one of the reasons for that could very well be that they can now run Windows in some usable form or another.

My daughter wants to run Windows under the Boot program so that she can run games.

Others would have different reasons.
post #83 of 95
Quote:
Originally Posted by solipsism View Post


Is there any truth to the claim that RiM devices are much more secure than the iPhone?

Yes. Cisco's scheme uses double encryption, which is good, but can be broken.

RIMs scheme uses triple encryption, which can't be broken.

It's also more secure going through RIM's one point servers than thousands of individual unprotected servers and MS's software directly.

Lastly, RIM has complete encryption of all phone data, passwords, etc, while the iPhone still won't have that.
post #84 of 95
Quote:
Originally Posted by anantksundaram View Post

Wow... take a look at this story in NYT today.... actually, forget the story, just click on the graphic that says "A Narrower Lead."

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/04/27/te...=1&oref=slogin

All I can say is, iPhone-haters can yap all they want, but under any reasonable set of scenarios, competitors such as RIM are pwned in this space (of course, only if your horizon extends longer than that of a gnat).

The market share graph is misleading because as the article says, the market grew by leaps in bounds, so a slight decline in market share is more than offset by a huge increase in the market. RIM still grew a lot in the last year, actually, they doubled their revenue over the previous year.
post #85 of 95
oops.
post #86 of 95
Quote:
Originally Posted by anantksundaram View Post

Wow... take a look at this story in NYT today.... actually, forget the story, just click on the graphic that says "A Narrower Lead."

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/04/27/te...=1&oref=slogin

All I can say is, iPhone-haters can yap all they want, but under any reasonable set of scenarios, competitors such as RIM are pwned in this space (of course, only if your horizon extends longer than that of a gnat).


Yes of course, what a great suggestion. "Hey, don't bother to read all the boring facts just click on the graph that makes it look better for Apple" .

The reason why RIM's market share is slightly down is because the market has grown so much and the biggest section of growth has been the consumer entertainment based devices that the iPhone is owning at the moment. But Blackberry's sales are still growing in a huge way. To be honest Consumer targeted smartphones and business targeted smartphones should be two separate markets. Blackberry already had the corporate world sewn up and with the Pearl they are taking Window's mobile customers left right and centre. They are only just starting to target consumers (though unlike the article suggests the Pearl and the Curve are still not consumer devices by any stretch of the imagination, most buyers are still corporate).

If you did bother to read the story you would see that it is about what work RIM needs to do to be able to crack the consumer market but also the hard job Apple are going to have if they want to crack the business market.

I think that each will have some success but see no real reason for RIM to steal too much marketshare from iPhone with future devices and I do not ever see the iPhone being a business class device to rival the Blackberry. Each to their own successful markets I would think. The article is right about one thing, the keyboard on the blackberry is much better for an email machine (which all the Blackberry essentially is, and a good one at that) and it will always have that in it's favor.

I use Apple computers at home but honestly would not dream of swapping my Pearl for an iPhone, it is without doubt the greatest little phone I have ever owned.
post #87 of 95
Quote:
Originally Posted by wizard69 View Post

what they hell does PPC or X86 have to do with running Flash? Let me point out, it has nothing to do with it!!!!!

Binary compatibility? Even if it does have to be recompiled, it makes Adobe's job easier.

Quote:
Originally Posted by wizard69 View Post

It is the number one issue when it comes to Browser reliability on browsers of all types on all platforms. Beyond that it burns CPU cycles and wastes memory.

People who use it incorrectly burn CPU cycles and memory. Flash itself is a very good product and makes up for areas where the Web standards are lacking. Reliability and security are issues I agree but no more than any other software product.

Without Flash, youtube would not be accessible to everyone like it is now.
post #88 of 95
Quote:
Originally Posted by Solar View Post

That just sent a shiver down my spine, I can't help but think of the whole SGI/MIPS debacle. Though really it wasn't a debacle until intel entered the picture.

How was that a debacle? The debacle was SGI believing Intel's promises regarding Itanium's roadmap. Not surprisingly, Intel didn't deliver. What's Itanium stuck at, 1.8 GHz? Pathetic!

Not much different, really, from SGI believing Microsoft's promises regarding their graphics API partnership, which Microsoft basically used to steal from SGI and develop DirectX.

MIPS was doomed anyway, it would inevitably have become too expensive to develop new revisions at such low production volumes. PPC was doomed for much the same reason. MIPS is pretty popular in the embedded space, though. I'd love to see what you could do with a MIPS design on Intel's 45-nm process (I'm sure it would smoke Nehalem), but sadly that will never come to pass.
post #89 of 95
Quote:
Originally Posted by murphyweb View Post


If you did bother to read the story ....

Of course I did.
post #90 of 95
Quote:
Originally Posted by JeffDM View Post

The market share graph is misleading because as the article says, the market grew by leaps in bounds, so a slight decline in market share is more than offset by a huge increase in the market. RIM still grew a lot in the last year, actually, they doubled their revenue over the previous year.

No one claimed that RIM did not grow in absolute terms. I saw the article as really being about relative growth (which is what market share measures). Obviously, not everyone may feel that graph is impressive, and that's perfectly OK: I happen to think it's a stunning achievement, given that the product is less than a year old, and has zero percent of the corporate market. And, the fact that "non-corporate smartphone" was practically an oxymoron a couple of years ago.
post #91 of 95
Quote:
Originally Posted by anantksundaram View Post

No one claimed that RIM did not grow in absolute terms. I saw the article as really being about relative growth (which is what market share measures). Obviously, not everyone may feel that graph is impressive, and that's perfectly OK: I happen to think it's a stunning achievement, given that the product is less than a year old, and has zero percent of the corporate market. And, the fact that "non-corporate smartphone" was practically an oxymoron a couple of years ago.

I didn't say the iPhone uptake was unimpressive, but the way I saw what you wrote, it looked as if you were vaguely suggesting that the competitors should just pack up their bags and leave. Without much context, and you telling us to only look at the graph, that leaves a lot of the context out.
post #92 of 95
Quote:
Originally Posted by bsenka View Post

I would be shocked if Apple did not already have Macs running on PWRficient chips at Cupertino. If they DIDN'T, that would be a story all by itself.

I'm inclined to think your take is a pretty accurate indication of what Apple is doing; gearing for an eventual move to their own chips. Any questions about "how will they do this" are irrelevant since we don't know what Apple's plans for those chips might be. For all we know, Apple might get PA Semi design a chip that operates in ways we have no frame of reference for at this time.


I would think if this premise is correct, then that would be about the time of ....

OS 11 !!!


That could usher in a new chipset and radically redesigned OS.

Perhaps the current roadmap from Intel won't give them the ability to go where Apple wants to go and only some very custom chipsets will.

As an aside, we have not heard anything about the 10.6 OS revision. This year's WWDC should be a smoker!
post #93 of 95
Quote:
Originally Posted by Solar View Post

That's because RIM makes 3G products, this report is specifically talking about the new Blackberry 9000, for AT&T's new HSDPA 3G network, on which the iPhone will also be running. The phrasing in the AI article kind of makes it sound like it's RIM's first 3G product, when it's really their first HSDPA 3G product. (I think)

RIM have been shipping 3G models for at least the last 4 years. I think since the 7200 series..

I have a 3G 8830, because it's what I could get on my corporate account. Compared to an iPhone, I'd say the only thing that's really better, is the email (debatable), and the 3G speed. The browser sucks, but I do have unlimited phone as modem, so it connects via bluetooth to my macbook. As a media player it's a complete joke. RIM shouldn't even bother trying, it's just embarrassing. I was shocked when I realized it only had a usb 1 port on it. I think if the iPhone wasn't exclusivly on AT&T, RIM would be totally shitting their pants right now. They probably should be anyways..

Based on RIM website, they only have Edge Capable 8830 Blackberry, no 3G.

http://www.rim.com/products/handhelds/index.shtml
post #94 of 95
Quote:
Originally Posted by NasserAE View Post

Based on RIM website, they only have Edge Capable 8830 Blackberry, no 3G.

http://www.rim.com/products/handhelds/index.shtml

I am suprised. I figured you were only looking at a N. America and/or CDMA version but I can't any of that nodel that are 3G.
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 #95 of 95
^^^^

It's coming boys. Link.
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: iPhone
AppleInsider › Forums › Mobile › iPhone › Steve Jobs on P.A. Semi, love for Intel; 3G Blackberry delayed