First Google Android phone spotting reveals bulky iPhone rival - Page 3

Ironically I quit using Windows in 1998, 10 years ago.


That goes with what Rot'nApple posted. MS accomplished these things in part by lying, cheating, and stealing.

Unbelievable what people think wining the war is, and why Microsoft came to dominance. The worst products are always the best sellers. The Ford fiesta was once the best selling cars in North America. Was it the BEST car in NA? NO NO NO NO!!!! So why was it the best selling car? Because it was the cheapest piece of junk out there, so lots of people bought it. BMW does not want to make crap cars like the ford fiesta so it has a very small market share as a result. Apple was never interested in making cheap crap computers, they want to make the BEST computers and that means making your own software and hardware. Would BMW be better if they didn't make their own engines and keep tight quality control on their cars? No, BMWs are better cars because BMW has tight control over what they make. I can't stand it when people equate apples tight control to being a socialist way and the PC is the free democratic way. In any other industry keeping tight control over your product is considered a good thing! Apple has a comparable market share in computers to BMWs market share in the auto industry, it would be a real shame if BMW suddenly started making ford fiestas in order to grab a 90% market share like Microsoft has because the quality of the BMW car would go down.

But none of this has anything to do with android. It hopefully will be a great system and have lots of success. Android does not have to loose for Apple to succeed. There is plenty of room for apple, RIM and android to do very well and to all thrive much as do all the car makers in the world. The monopoly of MS in the computer OS is really an anomaly in the business world, very few industries have a monopoly like that and the smart phone industry has lots of players, no need to think any single one will "Win the war".

You kidding right?
Why people always think that Apple wants to be dominant in Computer Industry? There's no war between mac and pc. Apple is just a great business machine that makes money of great products.
Macs have never failed. Apple failed few times. iPhone will not fail because iPod never failed. Who you think will create a phone that is 100% open and 100% customizable with cheap price and no string attached? Google? I don't think so. This phone exist in a world where companies dont work for profit.

First, its "I think you're...", not 'your'.
Second, you can tell someone who's just trying to just get attention by picking a fight on a thread by the fact that they respond to each reply immediately... zero posts between replys. Indicates an interest in pushing buttons, not discourse.
Finally, anyone who can't see the difference between trajectory (Apple up, MS down) and monopoly driven market share is pretty clueless.

So which is it?
1) iTunes sucks and we're all being tortured by 'having' to use it, or
2) iTunes makes alternatives look like crap (i.e. is better.)

People today largely don't understand the context of the Apple versus PC competition. Apple was a small company with a small budget that was struggling against an entrenched market already using PCs. Moreover, those PCs were associated with IBM, which at the time could do no wrong. It isn't like Apple and IBM started off at the same time, and Apple ended up on the bottom. Finally, Apple might have not won that battle, but unlike most other competitors long gone, APple is still around.

Who said the "PC war" is over? In the scheme of things, it's just started.

Windows being cheaper was not the factor at all. Apple created it's own market from scratch whereas MS piggybacked itself onto IBM's existing enterprise market. A huge market! IBM hired MS to develop for them and virtually handed them that market. MS did nothing but ride the wave then steal ideas from Apple. That is THE reason and only reason why MS is where it is today.

So Google creates a "PC" like OS for cell phones. So what? Where's that single mass market to place that OS into? IBM controlled the entire enterprise market hence MS succeeded in plating it's OS with one stroke. Who controls the cell phone market? No one. Too many players here. It's an entirely different situation.

Poor management bred a poor business model. I am not sure why you think their business model from 1985-1995 was good.

Wow. A "joke"? Did you have any clue what you were buying when you whipped out your credit card?

It's a stellar product that is just before its time. I have every new rental sitting on mine for the entire family to enjoy at their leisure. No returning discs in a hurry - no missing a movie because you were too busy the week it came out.

Oh, and no more burning home movie DVDs. I haven't had to buy a single DVD-RW in I don't know how long.

Oh, yeah...forgot to mention the music streaming to the main entertainment room.

Not bad for a "joke".

There were certainly many faults during that time, but I'm guessing TenoBell is referring Apple's unwavering integrated SW/HW model and lack of desire to produce profit-less, budget PCs.

Outsell is one thing, but out perform is another. AAPL is performing so the company has to be selling more hardware than MS ran computers because their stocks are not.

Also, Apple's virus to computer ratio looks a lot better than MS's Vista's.

Yes that is exactly what I was talking about.

XP still outsells Vista.

Heh heh, I think you're wasting your breath (and your bandwidth) trying to explain to this teckstud guy.

Well said. And, 'nuff said.

Good grief, Okeefe...you funny, dude!

"Competition" - you say? This from the company that got sued over its monopolistic practices? And which just managed to duck out from most of the penalties from it when it realized the importance of Washington connections and got favorable Justice Dept and judicial treatment?

Explain the "new developments" part to me, I'm not seeing it. I see it in Apple's product line, I'm not seeing it much from Dell, HP, Lenovo, or <cough> MSFT.

The part that really got me was the silly Apple=Socialist computing, Windows=Free Market pairing.
I refer to the well documented monopolistic practices of MSFT, and would include its repeated attempts to extend that monopoly thru its WMA DRM, DirectX and other initiatives.

If anything had the look and feel of "socialist computing" (whatever that is...) it would be the schlock that passes for software emanating out of Redmond: clunky, slow, ugly, buggy crap that's always 3-5 years behind the curve. It's going the way of the American auto industry -- poorly designed, cheaply made, and not worth paying for.

That last part isn't anti-American (proud to be one, just wished Detroit could give us something to be proud about is all) -- just stating the obvious.

First of all, if you define it as a war then you also see it as the war is ongoing because OS X, Unix and Linux are being installed every day. But is it really a war as you'd like to define it as a 1:1 ratio of an OS to OS unit sales comparison? For instance, Windows running on vending machines and point-of-sale systems really be counted along with consumer PC users? I don't think so, but it's only you and others like you who are concerned with the number of OS units sales among all systems, not Apple otherwise they would sold their OS to the masses long ago.

You also don't look at the fact that OS X is sold only on Macs per Apple's choice, not to their chagrin, so your war variables are false from that standpoint too. By your argument, PCs with modern components have lost the PC war because PCs with outdated components selling for $400 heavily outsell more expensive PCs. That is just ludicrous.

In closing, Apple has an 8.5% marketshare in the US. It's ranked third, which is very impressive when you consider the average selling price and the minimum selling price of both their desktops and notebooks compared to the top two. If unit sales, not profit, are what matter to you I respectively recommend that you never start your own company.

my dad has a mac PowerBook and he has a custom built pc and he never complains about vista. My girlfriend and her mother both have dells with vista they don't complain and my lady is a graphic designer for epitaph records. I would like a MacBook and a nice dell notebook I would love to have both. Way I have noticed is mac users are the biggest bitchers I have ever met lol. My iPhone is less then satisfactory I hope MacBooks aren't the same. The most funny thing about all of this is the war between the two companies I don't hear this much complaining from people About other competing markets. A lot of this is based on opinion, experience, and what is available to you. So everyone just... Please.... Relax! Enjoy the product you have and shut up. That goes for me too!

I was asked if I owned one and was merely responding to a question and your personal feelings of denial in its failure is also not a valid metric measurement. That metric you quote is for iTunes not Apple TV. More people download and rent for iPods than AppleTv. Your comparison is baseless.

I am so glad to see you are in such a happy minority that thinks AppleTv is such a success.
You must be holding your breath with your foot in your mouth again- you can take it out now.

Wow I love how this thread has gotten so far off track. I have been a apple user since the IIe came out. I used to sell cellphones and can say this 95% of the customers that come in want a free phone and don't want to spend over $60 for a plan. Android can easily taking on apple in the cellphone market due to those factors. I know many of us have no problem shelling out the money of the monthly plan while a vast majority do not or will not. You have Moto, LG, Samsung and HTC all able to make a phone using a free OS with all of Google's free goodies . I mean you can trash Google for making a weaker looking OS but the fact is that Android will more than likely dominate in both China and India since it will be a free OS. Yes Apple makes the OS for the iphone so its not a big deal there but for most of the other companies they have to dump money into their own OS costing more money. Android can take a ton of business since any carrier can opt to carry a Android based device. AT&T is the only US carrier with the iphone so it is a closed market to about a 120 million customers in the US. Apple to dominate in all markets would have to give up their revenue sharing to get all carriers to buy into the iphone and then they could take a massive chunk of the market.

Everytime I need to search for music on AppleTV, I cringe. I'd rather use my Mac with Airtunes - it's much easier to search music files then AppleTV- even an iPod is easier to search.
Good for you for renting out the entire iTunes video rental catalogue- you are #1 ATV rental customer! I just hope your family get some exercise in because you have to sit for all those movies each @ 24 hours minimum and watch them all within 30 days.

Ok it's not a "joke"- but it is a "flop". In fact Forbes magazine even nicknamed it the "iFlop".

Before or after the inclusion of movie rentals? A flop because it's Apple's weakest product or a flop compared to other media extenders (this one is rhetorical)?


PS: Off topic: If you are a FaceBook user this is pretty funny: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nrlSkU0TFLs

http://design4dough.wordpress.com/

http://gizmodo.com/343641/1960s-brau...-apples-future

don't know if you guys have seen this but hey it looks like my iphone "borrows" designs from a movie and isn't that original with the rest of their products =p

It is uncanny at first glance, but I wouldn't call that a slam dunk argument. There were candy bar devices about that width and haptic touchscreen devices with finger sized buttons before the iPhone. It's only natural that the buttons be of a certain general size for the finger and the width of the device be wide enough to be useful but not too wide to fit comfortably in the hand (something RiM took to its maximum). Black cases with chrome trim was also been popular before the iPhone. Could their have been an Apple designer who saw that and thought it would make design for the iPhone? Sure! But is it more likely that it's a backwards discovery seen by an observant film viewer because of the iPhone's popularity? I think so.

YouTube Video

Watch the end of the Video with the Android running Google Street View... powered by GPS... Very neat.

Google is Holding out. Where is it for iPhone?

If you mean they lost the war, and still have 15, 18, 20+ BILLION dollars CASH in the kitty then your right, sucks being Apple.

Skip

I don't know if Apple touts its designs as original. Designers have been creating tools built around the need for human interface for thousands of years. Much of what we do today is built on very old concepts. Nothing is new.

What Apple does today was very common back in the 50's and 60's. It was common for companies to hire great industrial designers for their products. They would hire famous artists to create their corporate logos and accomplished music composers for corporate jingles.

I didn't say whether or not I thought AppleTV was a failure. I was asking you by what metric were you declaring it a failure.

How do you know Apple's leading media download share is only for the iPod and does not include Apple TV?

We? Sorry, but it's just a phone/OS, and competition is always good. Google does have the resources and people to make a good/great phone, but this is only the first possible version.

Apple has to work on the stability of the iPhone.... Right now 2.0 is shaky thats where they need to work. I have to restore my iPhone weekly because freaky apps keep hosing it.

All you Androids underestimate what Apple has done. Its going to take Google quite some time to copy what Apple has done with the iPhone.

Well, we'll see just how Android will succeed and succeed it will since the iPhone will still only be on the AT&T network. If the iPhone could be offered in various forms on different carries then the Android would be less successful like every other platform competing with the iPhone.

Apple needs the competition so it may learn how to better their product but the Android platform can use some pointers from Apple at this time.

If anything Android may cause some casualties in the phone OS wars. Namely Palm and Microsoft will lose their home-grown OSes. Palm is more prepared to do that and MS will throw a ton of money to prevent that but in the end MS may just be another software vendor competing for space on the iPhone, Android, or Symbian OS phones. Pocket Office anyone?

iPhone OS 2.1 is looking very firm. With the latest beta loaded on my iPhone 3G, i am quite impressed.

There are several things you should remember at this time:

1. The OS is the first time release at 3rd-party-level. Its bound to have bugs.
2. The OS is affected by the programs it runs, and iPhone OS is currently being blamed for program bugs. This is why Apple was hesitant to open the platform - do they want the blame for the bugs?
3. Apple was, sadly, way overstretched by management this year. The iPhone OS guys had far less time to bring this OS up to par, and were still releasing versions after gold master. Shows how tight it was as the 3G started shipping with a lower OS than the final 2.0.

Apple are adding in so many under-the-hood changes to make the OS more dynamic for developers, I think we need to be patient.

We are begging for more stuff, like IMs that work when the program is closed. The least we could do is give them a break on bug issues. After all, they have already addressed major bug issues with 2.0.1.

Lets just be a bit more forgiving.

As for android? Well... Google's good at what they do. Can they pull this off technically? Yes. Can they pull this off and keep the developers, customers, and companies happy at the same time? They are having it hard on this issue at the moment.

Will it sell? Its the same old war: quality v openness. We can tweak android a heck of a lot more, but I believe the iPhone is the superior device. The problem? Consumers are dumb. They want a phone that does everything forever. They want it to surf the internet with IM at the fastest speed all the time, and play music, and take calls, and still have power left after five days. They want control to change everything.

The problem? When they stuff up the device by their alterations, or they drain the battery life to about an hour, they will do one thing:

BLAME THE DEVICE. This is not a computer in a consumer's eye. Its a gadget. Gadgets stuffing up is the gadget-makers fault, not the software alterer's issue. On a computer they understand they may stuff it themselves. With a phone? They blame. Even if its their fault that they can't restore it cos of all the viruses they didn't protect against.

Apple is protecting its reputation and quality by taking the control themselves.

Google had better hope it doesn't get the wrong end of the stick when users destroy the software then complain.

Nice. So if thirty million people decide to jump off a cliff, but one million don't, the thirty million people are smarter or better off? Most people I know still don't know squat about what makes one platform/phone/political party/law/country/city/car/food/ etc. more advanced or better than another for whatever reason. Simply put, most people are moron sheep and follow what herd they belong to.

I would actually PREFER that Apple keep a smaller market share. I don't want the gene pool of products diluted because some moron can't understand why they may be better at whatever they were designed to do and the product focus is changed because of it.

How are those opposed to each other? I generally find open software and systems better quality on several counts. Both an open and a closed system can be improved immeasureably, but ultimately, the closed system has limitations. If it didn't, we'd call it an open system.

If what you are thinking of is more about quality vs features, that's only a question of tucking the features far enough out of sight that they don't bother the user that would be bothered by them. I wouldn't find it a problem if I had to enter a cryptic incantation in Terminal once to make the phone accept unsigned apps. Categorically disallowing them does not help any customer, and it hurts many. For me the difference is easily worth buying or not buying an iPhone. Understand that unlike sandboxing, which does protect the phone's operation, insisting on being the sole distributor of apps (through the required signing mechanism) is an almost pure money and power grab from Apple. It has nothing to do with security.
If the device can be bricked by running software on it, that *is* the manufacturer's fault for not building a good sandbox, or better yet, allowing the user to wipe the device and start from scratch. It is simple to do by allowing an emergency USB mass storage mode and putting up a clean phone image for download.

I'm not saying stupid people wouldn't still bark up the wrong tree, but if you aren't calling for Apple to start acting as gatekeeper for all software that can run on Macs, you have no reason to cheer them for doing that on iPhone.

Google is a very creative company but they have never had style. Apple has a much more dynamic and fluid vision for Web 2.0 than Google, which is probably why they are now more valuable than them!

I don't - and thats not what I said -and therefore I refuse to respond anymore if you can't read and comprehend.

1.) Both
2.) Apple's weakest product since the iPod HI Fi. What would you compare it to? I would compare it directly to the Mac mini first.

A flop because it got an upgrade on July 10th, Take 2.1, and the AppleInsider didn't even bother to post a thread about it.
Need I say more?

You expect us to believe that Forbes called it a flop because AI didn't do an article about the AppleTV? Which, by the way, they did....

•

http://www.appleinsider.com/articles...phone_2_0.html
edit:

I would compare to other products in its category. Saying it's a failure because you don't want it or that it's not as successful as the iPod is silly. It's a media extender and should be compared to other Media Extenders to see it's specific rank among such devices. Now, if you want to say that all media extenders are failures as they stand due to a low adoption rate over traditonal optical media players, then fine, that would be a legitimate argument.

Even Mr. Steve Jobs himself stated earlier this year that no one had gotten it right when referring to the AppleTV. They still refer to it a "hobby" and don't include it as one of its "3-legs" (Mac, iPod. iPhone) so we know that Apple doesn't see the current iteration as major money maker, but that in no way implies a flop either, as stated above. Do you think that any product a company makes less of compared to their other products a flop? Are the N95 a flop because Nokia sells many more of their cheaper, simple handsets? Of course not.

It's all relative and until you decide to compare to other like devices and not go on your personal feelings of the product's usefulness to you you can't make such a determination.