You've been delivering regular personal attacks against Prince Dan...
Are you trying to say Prince and Dan are the same person?
Google isn't branding their product to consumers, they're doing it to the manufacturers. I don't think it's part of the strategy. Google is going after the rest of the market, not the iPhone. Soon, plenty of available handsets will have Google Maps, search and who knows what else built in. Rather unsettling...
Except that Apple is making big strides in both business and government. Plus, the iPhone gets far better satisfaction ratings from business users than does RIM.
I had a good link, but as happens so often, this is what's left:
Thanks for the links. I'll be glad if the iPhone takes it all. It deserves to. I still think there needs to be more of a business oriented OS or app store business for it to really roll it over. But then you still have AT&T. I just don't see enterprises switching as easily as the general public. Verizon will fight to keep those contracts.
Except that Apple is making big strides in both business and government. Plus, the iPhone gets far better satisfaction ratings from business users than does RIM.
I had a good link, but as happens so often, this is what's left:
"Asked by Shaw Wu of Kaufman Brothers about Apple's sales to businesses, Cook answered, "Employee demand for iPhone in the corporate environment is very strong. Since the launch of the 3GS, the iPhone is either being deployed or being piloted in well over 50% of the Fortune 100.
Thanks for the links. I'll be glad if the iPhone takes it all. It deserves to. I still think there needs to be more of a business oriented OS or app store business for it to really roll it over. But then you still have AT&T. I just don't see enterprises switching as easily as the general public. Verizon will fight to keep those contracts.
The fact that only AT&T has it is a major limitation. I don't know many have Sprint, but that would be a limit as well. I doubt too many use T-Mobile.
But now there's a rumor that Apple is contracting for a universal phone for late 2010, I suppose that means the June introduction. If that's true, it will be interesting.
There are plenty of business apps in the store. Some by big hitters.
And it was all going so well! If I recall, RIM are still gaining marketshare.
They are gaining marketshare but only at a fraction of what Apple is gaining each quarter and have significantly dropped their gross profit margin by offering BOGO offers in order to do it. More detrimental to RiM and what Quadra 610 means by ?one-trick pony? is these new phones offering ActiveSync hurt their business model because there is no server-side BES HW to buy from RiM and no $100 per user per year fee that companies have to dish out. The recession has helped these other devices when companies are weighing the cost of having 100k users on Blackberries of integrating new ActiveSync capable devices onto the network.
i thought Price/Dan's article is very insightful and a very good read. but in focusing on the Android platform's fragmentation problems he forgot to actually discuss its business model - the title of the piece!
Google's goal of course is to max its ad revenues (and anything it may charge for its cloud services eventually). that is its "business model." as long as Android phone owners use Google search and services a lot - and a lot of Android phones of all varieties are sold - GOOGLE DOESN'T CARE if the OEM's and telcos screw up other third party app and data interoperability via fragmentation.
in the Google business model, Apple and its iPhone are not the competition (since Google gets most of that search business too) - MS and Yahoo are. and while i suppose you can do it (need fact check), how many Android owners are going to bother to change their default search engine to Bing or Yahoo? nobody really.
Google no doubt sees search on portable devices as the huge growth market of today and tomorrow, while the desktop search market is pretty much set. that's why Android exists ....
People seem to give Google a pass on any deficiencies in Android because it is a new venture for them and they expect it will improve over time. On the other hand AT&T and iPhone get ridiculed for every little thing as if the world has never seen such incompetent losers, when in fact Apple is also pretty new in the handset and mobile OS business and AT&T is still sorting out the pieces an parts of Cingular/SBC merge so they are pretty new in the cell game as well.
I think both Apple and AT&T have done a pretty good job ramping up to meet the challenge, but I would like to see Verizon get the iPhone so the whiners can finally get what they deserve.
In regard to corporate users preferring Verizon, that may slowly change as AT&T starts getting more coverage and speed. After all their cell reputation was basically inherited from Cingular which was not known for focusing on businesses. Furthermore, most corporations already use AT&T for their regular phone service and I believe they are pretty well regarded in that respect. I like it anyway.
Are you trying to say Prince and Dan are the same person?
Google isn't branding their product to consumers, they're doing it to the manufacturers. I don't think it's part of the strategy. Google is going after the rest of the market, not the iPhone. Soon, plenty of available handsets will have Google Maps, search and who knows what else built in. Rather unsettling...
They are... Dan also writes on roughlydrafted.com (did not know about apple insider until recently)... they are one in the same
i thought Price/Dan's article is very insightful and a very good read. but in focusing on the Android platform's fragmentation problems he forgot to actually discuss its business model - the title of the piece!
Google's goal of course is to max its ad revenues (and anything it may charge for its cloud services eventually). that is its "business model." as long as Android phone owners use Google search and services a lot - and a lot of Android phones of all varieties are sold - GOOGLE DOESN'T CARE if the OEM's and telcos screw up other third party app and data interoperability via fragmentation.
in the Google business model, Apple and its iPhone are not the competition (since Google gets most of that search business too) - MS and Yahoo are. and while i suppose you can do it (need fact check), how many Android owners are going to bother to change their default search engine to Bing or Yahoo? nobody really.
Google no doubt sees search on portable devices as the huge growth market of today and tomorrow, while the desktop search market is pretty much set. that's why Android exists ....
It matters because Every phone sale impacts on every other phone sale.
Even if Google is looking to Win Mobile (often said to be a major thought to them) and RIM, as well as Yahoo and others, if Android phones sell well, it will impact on Apple's phone sales, even if Google isn't meaning to do so.
And the other way around, Apple's phone sales will prevent Android phones from selling as many as they would otherwise have.
You don't have to aim at a target to hit it here. Besides, Google is leaving it to the manufacturers and carriers to do the marketing. So what Google is aiming at really doesn't matter, because the phones still have to overcome other better established phones.
You've been delivering regular personal attacks against Prince Dan, but I have yet to see any cogent explanation of why you think his articles are bad.
Can I have a go, please?
To put it simply, Dan is a bullshitter. And I use the scientific definition of a bullshitter.
Let me explain. Someone who's honest knows the truth and chooses the tell the truth. Someone who's a liar knows the truth and chooses to not tell the truth. A bullshitter neither knows the truth or cares about the truth. All the bullshitter cares about is making their point and impressing his or her peers. Dan is a classic example of a bullshitter.
He writes a lot of articles on subjects that I know nothing about. What he writes is very plausible and it's easy to take what he writes at face value. However, as soon as he writes about a subject that I'm an expert in, I begin to realise what a total bullshitter he is. The basic factual errors he makes is remarkable. He cherry-picks data and he twists facts until there is zero value in the conclusions he makes.
What I don't understand is why he bothers. Apple are big enough and clever enough to defend themselves. Apple's products speak for themselves. They don't need some superficial semi-person licking their collective bums.
You've been delivering regular personal attacks against Prince Dan, but I have yet to see any cogent explanation of why you think his articles are bad. I'd rather see you voice your own opinion that to denigrate the author's. Or even point out what you think is inaccurate or misguided. This article seems pretty spot on.
If you can't argue your own position, you might as well put on blinders and wave cardboard signs about Socialism and pictures of the president with The Mustache. I think the guys who hate Prince Dan are just upset that he's been right over and over again, from PFS to the Zune to the iPhone. He seems to be the only writer pointing out that there's some serious potential downsides to Android. Are you afraid he's right and don't want to be proven wrong next year, or can you just not put up a convincing argument about why this is all somehow off base?
Well if you've been following my other posts against Dilger, you would have already read numerous reasons I can't stand the Mac zealot:
He leaves out important facts to make Apple's competitors look bad.
He can't help but slam Microsoft any chance he gets, even if doing so is inappropriate to the content of the article.
Despite his rampant hatred of Microsoft, if Apple engages in similar behavior he has no issue with it.
His news "articles" are more along the lines of opinion pieces. This "article" for example is filled with opinion and not facts.
He's constantly using the articles to provide press for his own Mac zealot website.
He has absolutely no ability to be critical of Apple. Even if he pretends to be discussing an issue with Apple, he'll just go further and further off topic and never actually address the issue.
There is that a good enough summary of why I can't stand reading his crap?
I gave up about half way through this one. Which is admittedly further than I usually get. But I stopped reading when he just started ranting about why Google's Android platform sucks. Considering how he has no idea what Google has planned for Android, he has no real basis for arguing about what he sees as problems with the Android platform. Nor does he bother to discuss the actual issues with the iPhone platform (part of the exclusion of anti-Apple facts thing I started my list with).
Comments
You've been delivering regular personal attacks against Prince Dan...
Are you trying to say Prince and Dan are the same person?
Google isn't branding their product to consumers, they're doing it to the manufacturers. I don't think it's part of the strategy. Google is going after the rest of the market, not the iPhone. Soon, plenty of available handsets will have Google Maps, search and who knows what else built in. Rather unsettling...
Why don't you type it into Google?
I would if I had the time.
Except that Apple is making big strides in both business and government. Plus, the iPhone gets far better satisfaction ratings from business users than does RIM.
I had a good link, but as happens so often, this is what's left:
http://www.businessinsider.com/smart...lients-2009-10
Here's another:
http://www.jdpower.com/electronics/a...olume-2/page-3
Obviously, Apple is doing it right.
Thanks for the links. I'll be glad if the iPhone takes it all. It deserves to. I still think there needs to be more of a business oriented OS or app store business for it to really roll it over. But then you still have AT&T. I just don't see enterprises switching as easily as the general public. Verizon will fight to keep those contracts.
The Blackberry is a one-trick pony that is in a downward slide.
And it was all going so well! If I recall, RIM are still gaining marketshare.
Except that Apple is making big strides in both business and government. Plus, the iPhone gets far better satisfaction ratings from business users than does RIM.
I had a good link, but as happens so often, this is what's left:
http://www.businessinsider.com/smart...lients-2009-10
Here's another:
http://www.jdpower.com/electronics/a...olume-2/page-3
Obviously, Apple is doing it right.
And another;
Apple Q4 2009 Conference Call
"Asked by Shaw Wu of Kaufman Brothers about Apple's sales to businesses, Cook answered, "Employee demand for iPhone in the corporate environment is very strong. Since the launch of the 3GS, the iPhone is either being deployed or being piloted in well over 50% of the Fortune 100.
http://www.appleinsider.com/articles...us_growth.html
I would if I had the time.
So you can write dozens of posts here during the day, but you can't take 20 seconds to type a few words into the Google box?
Thanks for the links. I'll be glad if the iPhone takes it all. It deserves to. I still think there needs to be more of a business oriented OS or app store business for it to really roll it over. But then you still have AT&T. I just don't see enterprises switching as easily as the general public. Verizon will fight to keep those contracts.
The fact that only AT&T has it is a major limitation. I don't know many have Sprint, but that would be a limit as well. I doubt too many use T-Mobile.
But now there's a rumor that Apple is contracting for a universal phone for late 2010, I suppose that means the June introduction. If that's true, it will be interesting.
There are plenty of business apps in the store. Some by big hitters.
And it was all going so well! If I recall, RIM are still gaining marketshare.
They are gaining marketshare but only at a fraction of what Apple is gaining each quarter and have significantly dropped their gross profit margin by offering BOGO offers in order to do it. More detrimental to RiM and what Quadra 610 means by ?one-trick pony? is these new phones offering ActiveSync hurt their business model because there is no server-side BES HW to buy from RiM and no $100 per user per year fee that companies have to dish out. The recession has helped these other devices when companies are weighing the cost of having 100k users on Blackberries of integrating new ActiveSync capable devices onto the network.
So you can write dozens of posts here during the day, but you can't take 20 seconds to type a few words into the Google box?
You got it. I'd be reading those specs all day long and you know how long it takes me to read and get it right.
Hey -I sent the links for The Whaling Wall on the other thread, what more can you want then that?
You got it. I'd be reading those specs all day long and you know how long it takes me to read and get it right.
Hey -I sent the links for The Whaling Wall on the other thread, what more can you want then that?
Sigh!
Google's goal of course is to max its ad revenues (and anything it may charge for its cloud services eventually). that is its "business model." as long as Android phone owners use Google search and services a lot - and a lot of Android phones of all varieties are sold - GOOGLE DOESN'T CARE if the OEM's and telcos screw up other third party app and data interoperability via fragmentation.
in the Google business model, Apple and its iPhone are not the competition (since Google gets most of that search business too) - MS and Yahoo are. and while i suppose you can do it (need fact check), how many Android owners are going to bother to change their default search engine to Bing or Yahoo? nobody really.
Google no doubt sees search on portable devices as the huge growth market of today and tomorrow, while the desktop search market is pretty much set. that's why Android exists ....
Sigh!
I know- right?
I think both Apple and AT&T have done a pretty good job ramping up to meet the challenge, but I would like to see Verizon get the iPhone so the whiners can finally get what they deserve.
In regard to corporate users preferring Verizon, that may slowly change as AT&T starts getting more coverage and speed. After all their cell reputation was basically inherited from Cingular which was not known for focusing on businesses. Furthermore, most corporations already use AT&T for their regular phone service and I believe they are pretty well regarded in that respect. I like it anyway.
Are you trying to say Prince and Dan are the same person?
Google isn't branding their product to consumers, they're doing it to the manufacturers. I don't think it's part of the strategy. Google is going after the rest of the market, not the iPhone. Soon, plenty of available handsets will have Google Maps, search and who knows what else built in. Rather unsettling...
They are... Dan also writes on roughlydrafted.com (did not know about apple insider until recently)... they are one in the same
i thought Price/Dan's article is very insightful and a very good read. but in focusing on the Android platform's fragmentation problems he forgot to actually discuss its business model - the title of the piece!
Google's goal of course is to max its ad revenues (and anything it may charge for its cloud services eventually). that is its "business model." as long as Android phone owners use Google search and services a lot - and a lot of Android phones of all varieties are sold - GOOGLE DOESN'T CARE if the OEM's and telcos screw up other third party app and data interoperability via fragmentation.
in the Google business model, Apple and its iPhone are not the competition (since Google gets most of that search business too) - MS and Yahoo are. and while i suppose you can do it (need fact check), how many Android owners are going to bother to change their default search engine to Bing or Yahoo? nobody really.
Google no doubt sees search on portable devices as the huge growth market of today and tomorrow, while the desktop search market is pretty much set. that's why Android exists ....
It matters because Every phone sale impacts on every other phone sale.
Even if Google is looking to Win Mobile (often said to be a major thought to them) and RIM, as well as Yahoo and others, if Android phones sell well, it will impact on Apple's phone sales, even if Google isn't meaning to do so.
And the other way around, Apple's phone sales will prevent Android phones from selling as many as they would otherwise have.
You don't have to aim at a target to hit it here. Besides, Google is leaving it to the manufacturers and carriers to do the marketing. So what Google is aiming at really doesn't matter, because the phones still have to overcome other better established phones.
We can see this with Verizon's new Ads.
Quite the trend we're seeing.
I know- right?
It's ok. I love ya anyway.
Gee, a Dilger article that should be entitled "Why Product X Sucks and Apple's Product Y Rocks".
Color me (un) surprised by this sudden turn of events.
Can we focus on the content of the article and not your personal vendetta against Dan?
You've been delivering regular personal attacks against Prince Dan, but I have yet to see any cogent explanation of why you think his articles are bad.
Can I have a go, please?
To put it simply, Dan is a bullshitter. And I use the scientific definition of a bullshitter.
Let me explain. Someone who's honest knows the truth and chooses the tell the truth. Someone who's a liar knows the truth and chooses to not tell the truth. A bullshitter neither knows the truth or cares about the truth. All the bullshitter cares about is making their point and impressing his or her peers. Dan is a classic example of a bullshitter.
He writes a lot of articles on subjects that I know nothing about. What he writes is very plausible and it's easy to take what he writes at face value. However, as soon as he writes about a subject that I'm an expert in, I begin to realise what a total bullshitter he is. The basic factual errors he makes is remarkable. He cherry-picks data and he twists facts until there is zero value in the conclusions he makes.
What I don't understand is why he bothers. Apple are big enough and clever enough to defend themselves. Apple's products speak for themselves. They don't need some superficial semi-person licking their collective bums.
You've been delivering regular personal attacks against Prince Dan, but I have yet to see any cogent explanation of why you think his articles are bad. I'd rather see you voice your own opinion that to denigrate the author's. Or even point out what you think is inaccurate or misguided. This article seems pretty spot on.
If you can't argue your own position, you might as well put on blinders and wave cardboard signs about Socialism and pictures of the president with The Mustache. I think the guys who hate Prince Dan are just upset that he's been right over and over again, from PFS to the Zune to the iPhone. He seems to be the only writer pointing out that there's some serious potential downsides to Android. Are you afraid he's right and don't want to be proven wrong next year, or can you just not put up a convincing argument about why this is all somehow off base?
Well if you've been following my other posts against Dilger, you would have already read numerous reasons I can't stand the Mac zealot:
- He leaves out important facts to make Apple's competitors look bad.
- He can't help but slam Microsoft any chance he gets, even if doing so is inappropriate to the content of the article.
- Despite his rampant hatred of Microsoft, if Apple engages in similar behavior he has no issue with it.
- His news "articles" are more along the lines of opinion pieces. This "article" for example is filled with opinion and not facts.
- He's constantly using the articles to provide press for his own Mac zealot website.
- He has absolutely no ability to be critical of Apple. Even if he pretends to be discussing an issue with Apple, he'll just go further and further off topic and never actually address the issue.
There is that a good enough summary of why I can't stand reading his crap?I gave up about half way through this one. Which is admittedly further than I usually get. But I stopped reading when he just started ranting about why Google's Android platform sucks. Considering how he has no idea what Google has planned for Android, he has no real basis for arguing about what he sees as problems with the Android platform. Nor does he bother to discuss the actual issues with the iPhone platform (part of the exclusion of anti-Apple facts thing I started my list with).