First Google Android phone spotting reveals bulky iPhone rival - Page 2

Compared to ? Nothing- it doesn't matter. Nobody talks about it anymore . It has no buzz. It's relegated to the back of the store. I could go on and on. It's a joke.

Yes I own it- rarely use it- and I should have bought a MiniMac instead. At least then I could do 100 times more functions with it than the Apple TV.
I feel that the Apple TV is nothing more than an iTunes digital jukebox- put $'s in it to rent or buy more from Apple.
However, I've learned a BIG lesson- never buy first G anything again.

They are not forced to use iTunes there are other options. With over 100 million voluntary downloads of iTunes. The majority of the market likes it.


There is no need to for one OS to rule everything. Windows has shown that does not really work.

Your talking about the hardware company that is Apple. Yes they are profitable in comparison to the other hardware venders.

I'm talking about OS's

(and what Europeans call "monopolistic behaviour")

http://www.yamipod.com/main/modules/home/

Yea... that looks like allot of fun.

I am not sure why you think that Apple is marketing this as a cellphone rather than a smartphone when the ads I've seen all highlight "surfing twice as fast", "finding your way twice as fast" and "downloading twice as fast". Were it not for the closing shot of accepting a call (without any corresponding voiceover), it would be easy to think this is just an internet device rather than a cellphone.

Apple has thus far exerted little public effort to compete directly in the corporate marketplace, preferring instead to aim the iPhone as a consumer device which is usable in a work environment. At this point, I think corporate uptake of the iPhone is all gravy to Apple.

The real test is how well it sells. Period. If Apple captures 1% of the cellphone market, they will have hit their publicly stated sales goal.

Apple is profitable because of the integration of its hardware and OS.

A monopoly in itself is not bad. To abuse your monopolistic position is bad.

Apple's competitors need to step up their game.

Lawsuit about IE tightly integrated in MS os in the US.
E-mails about lack of concern for security and holes in os from MS themselves.
Lawsuits about monopoly in the EU.
Zune.
Vista's perception (rightly or wrongly), not that great. MS vows to avoid Vista mistakes in Windows 7 - http://www.electronista.com/articles...ows.7.updates/
Just wait for Windows 7.
We like our business model for the mobile phone market. - Steve Ballmer.
Stock price flat, flat flat!

If that's winning, I'm glad Apple lost the PC war! - \

I think most people like it. There are other solutions out there. If you want to manually put your music on your iPod or even run Linux on it you are free too, but I think most people are drawn to the iPod because ofnot in spite ofthe ease of use brought on by the union between the iPod and iTunes.



Since Apple makes OS X specifically to run on its own HW it's a bit disingenuous to only compare the OS sales here.

There is no mention of a data plan- many people assume that texting is the same thing. Where does it mention data plan in either TV or print adds?
Many cell phones have web features.

Did someone mention.....DEVELOPERS???

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8zEQhhaJsU4

Microsoft won the OS war because Gates outsmarted Apple under John Sculley, IBM's top brass, and most of the rest of the nascent high tech industry, period. That doesn't prove the superiority of the Windows business model so much as it proves the incompetence of Microsoft's then-competition.

Apple has much smarter leadership now and IMO seems to have learned the lessons from the past. The market has also seem the downside to the Windows business model: lack of innovation, lack of accountability (Dell blames Windows bugs, Microsoft blames Dell hardware), a vast amount of mediocre choices of hardware and software when most people would rather have fewer but higher-quality choices. The market is taking a second look at Apple's way of doing things and Apple's computing marketshare is growing as a result.

Back directly on-topic: I don't think any one mobile OS is going to ever gain a Windows-like majority. I see iPhone and RIM as being the two dominant players, with a healthy percentage of Android and Symbian thrown into the mix. I am skeptical about the long term prospects of "design by committee" platforms being able to truly achieve excellence, but they will gain their share. With all this competition, the mobile OS market will be much more healthy and vibrant than the stultified desktop computing market dominated by Windows. Happy days!

I also think Windows Mobile is doomed as a significant player in the mobile OS market. I see a lot of their third party partners defecting to Android or other Linux-based OSes. Why should their hardware partners trust them anymore?

GD! That guy either needs to lose weight or get a CPAP machine.

So by this definition, the LG Dare and Samsung Instinct are marketed as cellphones rather than smartphones. I guess people like paying extra for a phone to just make calls.

Can you point to a link with Google's valid response to the criticism? Their public silence on Android is deafening. I can not find anything recent regarding their strategy.

Compared to the iPod say? I'm a geek, and I have lots of geeky friends. Everyone I know has an iPod (or 2 or 3...), but I don't know a *single person* who owns an AppleTV.

For me they blew it when they didn't include a DVD player. I'd quite happily have ditched my existing DVD player and bought an AppleTV instead, just to have the latest gadget, and who knows, by know I'd probably be buying and renting all my movies from the iTunes store. As it is, I considered it briefly, looked away, and never looked back I'm afraid.

You have an option with the Dare not to get a data plan. I know nothing of the Instinct.
You have no such option with iPhone.

I know of several you do and like it for what it is. Why put a DVD player in it when that is older tech. There would have been countless replies as to why Apple didn't include Blu-ray, HD-DVD, or have multiple versions of the AppleTV for this. I had hoped Apple would eventually offer an add-on solution that would utilize that USB2.0 on the AppleTV for optical drive support once the HD optical format war was over. It looks like Apple is only focusing on networked media.

My parents love it because of the ease of use for renting movies and buying a missed TV show from time to time. To them that makes the $229 price tag quite feasible, which really isn't much when you consider the cost of DVD and VHS players back in the day and adjust for inflation for the ease of use for near-instant viewing.

Unless teckstud, I don't see it as a failure and enjoyed it after my 3 returns of the device, but it's not for everyone's needs. Last week I even talked one friend who absolutely loves his iPhone 3G (his first Apple product) from buying an AppleTV for his home media system. He's an IT guy, too, so I would have thought he'd have checked different options first. I sent him pros and cons of several systems, and I expected, he's undecided as none of them are a perfect solution.

I would like an option for the device to play more media types natively and not require video to be imported into iTunes first. I love iTunes for music, but not for video. At very least it could b an advanced option where the user can turn on disk support which will read shared folders of LAN based machines.

Apple needs to kill the AppleTV as a separate product, and just integrate all its software into the iPod. Give people a reason to buy the bigger iPods again. Video out connectors have been available for awhile for the iPod, and could serve the same purpose as the AppleTV while continuing to lock in Apple's iPod dominance.

Nope and I think they should offer it without a data plan. I had thought that the lower than average data plan rate worked out because it was required by all iPhone owners so I felt that that requirement was justified, but in the past year the average data rate plan has lowered and the iPhone rate plan increased to match others so that hypothesis is pretty much bunk now.

Unless the iPhone data usage is at least 50% higher than AT&T had previously anticipated. I look forward to the August numbers of smartphone internet usage.

With will probably lead to a "Why would you want an iPhone without a data plan?" I wouldn't, but I figure there are people that want to consolidate their current cell phone and iPod, and perhaps have ample access to WiFi hotspots.

There is no way any iPod could handle what the AppleTV can handle. For instance, the AppleTV has 1000BASE-T, 802.11n, and 720p capabilities.

ekeefe-

It took a while (and a lot of advances by Apple and mistakes by Microsoft) for people to realize that the tight control results in a higher quality product. They even realize that the quality difference is large enough to justify spending a $1000 for the cheapest Mac instead of $400 for some bargain basement PC. Even though Windows still dominates the desktop OS market, many users will admit that the Mac OS is superior but that they are stuck using Windows for whatever reason. Many of those reasons are starting to break down, which is why the Mac OS is regaining share as people enter the computer upgrade cycle.


Bottom line: I think that your argument is outdated and that Apple's business model that failed for so long will ultimately prove the right choice.

Thompson

I am more surprised that no one said that the Google phone will fail because it's starting out on T-Mobile. I have t-mobile and a BB pearl, and I gotta say, signal strength amongst other things, crap out quite often. Then again, I have a friend who has the 1st gen iPhone and I get better signal than he does in most locations.

On another note, I think the only people who can take out Apple, is Apple itself. With the latest news on the iPhone 3G's inconsistent signal problems, MobileMe fiasco, and missing features that are on basic phones that are cheaper or for even for free, they're not shining too bright in the spotlight either.

As far as Vista goes, I don't hear so much complaints about Vista as much as I hear about Office '07.

I have been a Windows users from day one and have been "enjoying" Vista for about a year now. Vista slowed down my daily mundane tasks working with Outlook, Word, EXCEL and surfing. Even though my previous XP notebook was 2 years old when I replaced it with a new Vista machine, everything on the XP notebook was faster. Talking to other people who "upgraded" to Vista experienced similar issues. And the regular updates do not help either - the last ones on August 12th messed up the computer of a colleague; luckily, mine was not affected. Meanwhile, I have been watching over the shoulders of a number of friends who effortlessly do work on their Macs. My frustration with Vista has been so great that I will likely switch to a Mac when the new Mac Book Pro comes out. That's why I am lurking around this board...

Was that what that was? I am not used to working on a PC and I'm at work, creating 3D graphics and elements. I just updated the Vista OS thinking that it was like my Mac OS and everything would be honkey dorey after the update; ya'know make things faster. Instead it F***ed up my system and it runs slower and crashes the program more often.

And yet another out of focus video.

Ballmer is indeed an inspiration, not only to his company but to the industry as a whole.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZIk4qTKmKzE

This is NOT the Droid you're looking for.

Kind of makes you feel dirty after watching it, doesn't it?

~ CB

Does RIM do anything of relevance outside North America? Honest question.

Android is more open. That's an advantage that builds up. No telling how much they can eat into Mobile OS X.

Given how it's advertised on TV and such, bringing up maps, finding restaurants and such, I don't see how people wouldn't know that it's not a smartphone. Do they need to see a stylus or a lot of buttons to realize it's a smart phone?



"everyone you know" is problematic because it introduces selection bias.

Last I heard, there are options out there to hook up iPods to other programs. They aren't promoted widely that I can tell. I think iPods can even be managed using a Linux computer, which iTunes doesn't support.



Also, we need a video of Balmer overdubbed with "Tripods, Tripods, Tripods!"



Open vs. closed doesn't really tell the whole story on anything. There may be many factors in initial adoption (early adopters), then there may be other factors in cascading adoptions (mainstream acceptance).



Mac is not as tightly controlled though. While you can only buy the machines under one brand, but it's considerably more open than iPhone. At least one can develop their own software for free and distribute it many different ways, without the requirement of a silly choke point under the guise of protecting us from malware.

If I recall correctly, they are now in India and moving into China this year. That is like 600 Billion potential customers... and that is just from a rural village in the Zhang province.

As reported by Stephen Cobert:

http://www.comedycentral.com/colbert...videoId=179247

What's funny is that you obviously didn't "hear" most of the tech press complaining about Vista for the best part of 2 years.


By the way ... three years ago Microsoft computers with XP were outselling Apple Macs by 50 to 1. So what is your point exactly?

To be clarified a failure it has to be judged by some type of metric. Apple holds the largest marketshare of downloadable content, video and audio.


Your personal use of the AppleTV is not a valid metric for how well it is doing in the wider market.

Your analogy is completely wrong for several reasons. The situation today with the iPhone is totally different then when the Mac was introduced in 1984. Back then the mac was the first GUI computer made and apple did loose the PC war (although they are still a better platform) in that they are not the dominant PC force in the world today. But the iPhone is not the first smart phone pocket computer on the market, there are already lots of pocket computer smart phones out there, blackberrys etc. It's the iPhone that is poised to swoop in take over the market and dominate, much like microsoft did to the mac in the old days. Apple did not start this tech revolution as you say, but they are in a position now to revolutionize it and potentially dominate much like microsoft did. But in reality I don't think any company can dominate the smart phone market like microsoft has with windows, there are already so many smart phone out there that it would be a bit ridiculous to think that one phone will come in and grab the kind of dominance that microsoft did with windows. There is plenty of room for successful iPhone, blackberry and android phone systems, no need for any of them to win a war. I think it's unreasonable to postulate that the iPhone will "fail" as you have, because compared to the already entrenched success of the blackberry I would say the iPhone is doing really well and is already a success and non-failure. It's the iPhone that is playing the microsoft like roll of entering the smartphone market late and stealing away the industry from the already established companies who thought they had it all sewn up, much like apple though with the original mac.

That statement was made more in the context of how Apple controlled the Mac in the 80's vs how Apple controls the Mac now. My point is that its essentially the same. Apple's problems in the 90's had little to do with how the Mac is controlled and more to do with company management.

I don't think the point of the app store is to protect us from malware. I believe point is to establish a development culture of apps that all behave responsibly with respect to the limited resources of the device and respect the deals Apple has in place in wireless carriers.

Are you kidding?
90% of personal computers in the world run a windows based operating system. Yes things are starting to turn and Linux and Apple are starting to make headway.

For the last 10 years windows was the only game in town.

Is apple a better computing experience? i think so, but to deny what Microsoft accomplished from 1995-today is well.... dumb.

It wasn't the only the game in town. There is OS X and several versions of Linux and Unix. These didn't pop up over night, Unix has been around a lot longer than Windows has. regardless of how much growth Apple can achieve they will still be a minor player to Windows when you look at the very limited view of looking only at the OS so long as Apple doesn't design its OS to run on any HW.