The general wisdom suggests that without strong competition a product will stagnate over time. Apple does need competition, but this is mostly to keep reasonable pricing and wider distribution (e.g. with all carriers).
As far as the OS development and product design goes, I don't think competition is a primer driver for Apple. It DOES affect Apple and makes it to adjust the course here and there, but the general strategy is already in place. My feeling is that Microsoft, Android, Nokia, Palm, you name it, do not have a clear idea where to go from here, besides adding hardware and software "features".
Apple has a vision, it follows it's course (minor corrections of the direction notwithstanding) and is not distracted by the competition.
On the other hand, the other players are looking around what feature to copy and what to attack. Palm was a good example. They were preaching how fast their super-duper-specially-optimized-for-mobile-devices OS will be, how they will beat the iPhone on copy/paste feature and physical keyboard. When the Pre actually arrived, the phone looked roughly on par with the old generation iPhone in terms of performance, the 3GS smoked it performance-wise, the keyboard was crappy for most users and the copy/paste implementation happened to be a joke compared to Apple's. Oh, and the multitasking advantage was questionable outside a small group of advocates.
Some peaces of the pattern are somewhat similar to the Droid: the highly touted physical keyboard turned out to be a peace of crap for most.
The bottom line: so far, there is ABSOLUTELY NOTHING Apple can get from competition in terms of innovative ideas. It knows where it wants to go. The third-party background apps will come some day (more likely some other option first, like scheduled launching or system wide autolaunch/notifications on certain events like location change), but Apple does not need Verizon to help solving the tradeoff dilemma when desining a mobile device.
The general wisdom suggests that without strong competition a product will stagnate over time. Apple does need competition, but this is mostly to keep reasonable pricing and wider distribution (e.g. with all carriers).
As far as the OS development and product design goes, I don't think competition is a primer driver for Apple. It DOES affect Apple and makes it to adjust the course here and there, but the general strategy is already in place. My feeling is that Microsoft, Android, Nokia, Palm, you name it, do not have a clear idea where to go from here, besides adding hardware and software "features".
Apple has a vision, it follows it's course (minor corrections of the direction notwithstanding) and is not distracted by the competition.
On the other hand, the other players are looking around what feature to copy and what to attack. Palm was a good example. They were preaching how fast their super-duper-specially-optimized-for-mobile-devices OS will be, how they will beat the iPhone on copy/paste feature and physical keyboard. When the Pre actually arrived, the phone looked roughly on par with the old generation iPhone in terms of performance, the 3GS smoked it performance-wise, the keyboard was crappy for most users and the copy/paste implementation happened to be a joke compared to Apple's. Oh, and the multitasking advantage was questionable outside a small group of advocates.
Some peaces of the pattern are somewhat similar to the Droid: the highly touted physical keyboard turned out to be a peace of crap for most.
The bottom line: so far, there is ABSOLUTELY NOTHING Apple can get from competition in terms of innovative ideas. It knows where it wants to go. The third-party background apps will come some day (more likely some other option first, like scheduled launching or system wide autolaunch/notifications on certain events like location change), but Apple does not need Verizon to help solving the tradeoff dilemma when desining a mobile device.
[A small comment that the grammar is quite a bit out of control in that piece! It's an Apple related site, so I'd like to think we all believe that quality matters.]
Either way, it's an Interesting article and I certainly learnt a few things about the platforms and where the differences are starting to appear. I sold my iPhone to use a work Blackberry, but whilst the article is about the business model, this type of piece helps determines a lot about the suitability of these platforms for the next personal phone purchase.
Though I'd love it to be just about the technical architecture, a lot of the comment about brand control of Android V the iPhone also matters quite a bit. Like it or not, we like the strength of a quality brand and what that says to us and those around us. A loose brand (where one size fits all) is something that doesn't make us feel good about buying it. Even if it were free or cheaper than the iPhone, an unloveable brand is something people don't want.
If the big G find a lot of cheap phones being dumped onto the market using the Android name it runs the real risk of undermining take up rates at the top end which, at best, is where they'll derive any indirect profits applicable to the platform.
users want a phone that works reliably and does everything they might want it to do without artificial restrictions or limitations put in place by the vendor.
This isn't realistic and is why super open platforms like Android will never get large market share. You can't guarantee reliability while allowing users to do whatever they want to the device. Restrictions aren't artificial - they are in place to protect the user experience until the restrictions can be safely removed. The people at Apple don't get up every morning thinking about what new cool thing they can build into the platform and then cheat you out of. Give me a break. Those who insist on jailbreaking every new release of the iPhone OS because they somehow think they deserve full access to everything on the platform are just the type who will kill off Android with the consequences of what their "no rules" behavior always leads to: malware, bugs and reliability problems.
no no. you're not getting me. way down the thread my first point is Google sees mobile device search as the huge growth market of the future that it wants to dominate (and they are right about its growth potential). search on any OEM"s device, all OEM's devices. any phone, every phone, including Apple's. in the saturated desktop search market battle their main competition is MS, with Yahoo in distant third. but MS search on mobile devices other than WinMo is almost zero. if Google can land a knockout blow against WinMo by giving Android away for free while MS is stuck with only the obsolete 6.x OS to offer at $30 license fee, that would be huge for them. after that happens Google's total search market share of desktop + mobile would dwarf MS' combined total of desktop only (plus WinMo 7 someday maybe) even more than just the desktop stats do now. and in advertising it is how many ad views and what audience share you can deliver that in turn determines the rates you can charge multiplied by the number of hits. which totals your revenue! this is what it's all about.
Also bear in mind the other upcoming head-to-head battle between Google and MS for all kinds of cloud services. MS has been slow to get its act together, but certainly intends to try and match Google's comprehensiveness in the near future. but again, if WinMo is relegated to a tiny market share by Android et al. and MS has no significant presence on mobile devices it will fail in that ambition too. the provider you use for mobile cloud services will undoubtedly wind up being the one you use on your desktop too. no one is going to juggle two of them. (MS is incredibly stupid not to be porting its cloud services to iPhone apps).
despite the delay of Google Voice, Google will port nearly all its cloud services to the iPhone eventually for the same reasons. there is some competition with Apple's MobileMe here, but Apple focuses MM on its own hardware ecosystem which Google can't completely match (like Back to My Mac) because of course Apple makes its money selling hardware (why they charge so much for MM i can't fathom). now if Google launched its own media store to compete with iTunes, then there would be a real head-to-head showdown with Apple, because iTunes is the heart of the Mac ecosystem. but not until then.
I am getting you. I know Google wants to dominate mobile search. But it also want to dominate all cloud usage as well. That's just as important to them, and it can't be satisfied without a device that will pretty much REQUIRE using Google's cloud software and services, because it will get Ad dollars out of that as well. Possible more than from search alone.
It is the publishers duty to print the truth. Factual information should be referenced.
Opposing views should be supported with references. Otherwise they should be deleted or if proven incorrect, retracted.
Articles in question should be sent back to the author for comment and/or corrected accordingly. Authors who refuse to do so, should have their articles or contentious materials noted and/or deleted.
It doesn't do us readers any good if the editorial staff publishes everything that is submitted knowing that they are inaccurate to start with. We wouldn't do it in the peer reviewed scientific community, why do we have to accept it here?
Unfortunately, online sites such as this one, and many others, don't have the funds for editors, fact checkers, and a staff that can vet what goes up.
Even major newspapers and Network Tv news gets caught with articles with incorrect facts. Indeed, some have had writers make up entire long running columns.
It's impossible to keep the really intentional "errors" out of major publications. How can places like this do so?
The fact is that none of the writers here are doing anything intentionally deceptive. Some errors creep in, and occasional barbs at the competition, but it's not that bad.
And we catch it ourselves.
I'd like to see the authors do a better job of fact checking, but the problem here, it seems to me, is that if they feel sure about a "fact" they aren't likely to check it out.
But that brings us back to the beginning of my post.
Yet when I tried to say that all phones compete against each other I was rubbished.
Well, we are talking about smartphones. It's not likely that someone who wants a simple, and free phone will consider a several hundred dollar phone with an expensive plan.
nothing is perfect, so they will always be some very small number who will, but it's just a very small number.
Really, people who are likely to buy a Hyundai are not going to consider a MD Maybach, except as a fantasy.
While the difference in phones isn't nearly that great, there is still a stratified buying public.
But, over time, smartphones are going to get cheaper, and so, almost all phones will be smartphones of one kind or another, and then you will be correct. Even now, O2 is going to off the not very popular Pre free with a two year contract.
Believe it or not, but right now it is just ONE hardware setup for Android (despite they look very different, it is the same device from the developers perspective), while iPhone has three different ones (original + GPS + compass) so you have to face this on iPhone, too. Plus nobody knows about the plans of Apple, so if they ever introduce iPhone Nano or Tablet, you'll be in the same situation but without any previous knowledge. At least you get the info about the future direction on Android.
You're really missing the point here. It doesn't matter that now, the setup is the same. Many apps won't work on many phones because they lack the hardware to do so.
The advantage to Apple's scheme is that there are very few models, and they supersede one another in a timely, and predictable fashion. Everyone knows what generation is what, and what they can do. Apple has made that very easy.
Not so with other phones, and certainly not so with Android phones.
There will be a bewildering number of different models selling with small differences with different names all over the place, as will be true of the Droid, which will be sold under differing names, depending on where it will be sold.
In addition, there is no naming convention at all. So the "big" Droid is made by Motorola, but the "small" Droid Eris (formally known in an earlier model as the "Hero") with different features, is made by HTC.
Well, we are talking about smartphones. It's not likely that someone who wants a simple, and free phone will consider a several hundred dollar phone with an expensive plan.
While the difference in phones isn't nearly that great, there is still a stratified buying public.
But, over time, smartphones are going to get cheaper, and so, almost all phones will be smartphones of one kind or another, and then you will be correct. Even now, O2 is going to off the not very popular Pre free with a two year contract.
The problem is you are assuming that all people purchase subsidised phones (ie the ones you say are free, the iPhone is free in some countries). There are people that purchase smartphones, but don't purchase expensive plans, there are people who get cheap phones and get expensive plans.
My phone is starting to die (I should stop dropping it so much), I have choice of several phones, the iPhone 3GS 32GB $1349, a Nokia N97 $1800, a Nokia E63 $400 (all unsubsidised) etc. All of them will do what I want, are you saying they are not all in competition with each other?
You're really missing the point here. It doesn't matter that now, the setup is the same. Many apps won't work on many phones because they lack the hardware to do so.
The advantage to Apple's scheme is that there are very few models, and they supersede one another in a timely, and predictable fashion. Everyone knows what generation is what, and what they can do. Apple has made that very easy.
Not so with other phones, and certainly not so with Android phones.
There will be a bewildering number of different models selling with small differences with different names all over the place, as will be true of the Droid, which will be sold under differing names, depending on where it will be sold.
In addition, there is no naming convention at all. So the "big" Droid is made by Motorola, but the "small" Droid Eris (formally known in an earlier model as the "Hero") with different features, is made by HTC.
Talk about confusing!
Yes, there are many Android devices. Some of them looking strange. Some of them with confusing names. Some of them with custom home screens. So what ? From the developers perspective, they are all quite the same. Google is very strict about who will get the Android Market and other "with Google" features, so it is not that easy for third parties to screw this up, so I guess it will stay this way for a while.
You mentioned "Apple" and "predictable" in the same sentence ? This was supposed to be a joke ?
Yes, there are many Android devices. Some of them looking strange. Some of them with confusing names. Some of them with custom home screens. So what ? From the developers perspective, they are all quite the same. Google is very strict about who will get the Android Market and other "with Google" features, so it is not that easy for third parties to screw this up, so I guess it will stay this way for a while.
That?ll be fun to have to explain to people that not all Android-based phones will have the same Ui for a given timeframe, then have to explain that Android is Google?s mobile OS but without the cryptic ?with Google? addition they won?t get certain features. Sounds like a great business model Apple should follow.
Quote:
You mentioned "Apple" and "predictable" in the same sentence ? This was supposed to be a joke ?
Let?s see. Next Summer we?ll get iPhone OS v4.0, my 3GS will also get v4.0 for free, and we?ll get a new revision to the iPhone HW. I?d call that predictable.
The problem is you are assuming that all people purchase subsidised phones (ie the ones you say are free, the iPhone is free in some countries). There are people that purchase smartphones, but don't purchase expensive plans, there are people who get cheap phones and get expensive plans.
My phone is starting to die (I should stop dropping it so much), I have choice of several phones, the iPhone 3GS 32GB $1349, a Nokia N97 $1800, a Nokia E63 $400 (all unsubsidised) etc. All of them will do what I want, are you saying they are not all in competition with each other?
Those are all smartphones, and so meet the test of what we're talking about here. You also admit that they all do what you want.
You are contradicting your own statements with that. According to you, ALL phones are competing with each other. In that case, you would include the Nokia 1208 for your consideration, as well as the Pantech C3B, the LG CG180 and others.
I mean, after all, again, you say that ALL cellphones are in competition with each other for the same customer. As you are a customer, I wonder why you didn't include those or others.
Is it because ALL phones are NOT competing with all others?
I mean, after all, again, you say that ALL cellphones are in competition with each other for the same customer. As you are a customer, I wonder why you didn't include those or others.
Because I couldn't be bothered finding the price of them out, but they are just as likely to be looked at as every alternative, and since I will only be purchasing one phone, they are in competition with each other.
So because of ideas like this I see my next phone....
- Saving me Money (don't waste mine)
--- A phone with a webcam that has the physical capability to perform video recording but doesn't make me buy new hardware to receive the feature (3G vs 3Gs); provide it now
--- A mic that can perform voice phone calls and with a software upgrade also perform a desktop search feature, nope have to pay for that (3G vs 3Gs)
--- What Android can do to help - Install Google Voice App and use it on the carries cellular lines, save my minutes (thanks for the money) - Want turn by turn directions install Google Maps Navigation app, how much is that? Free / Apple $50+ (thanks for the money back)
-Control
--- I want tethering, I can enable it with simple xml hack, but there goes my SW/HW support.
--- What Android can do to help - Install Android Proxy App, can I still get HW support? of course (also thanks for the money savings)
Hmm. Seem to be several misunderstandings here about 3G vs 3GS:
- The 3G mic works fine for voice calls. (I made the assuption you meant VoIP calls.) I use Skype on it all the time on my 3G and it works pretty well. There is the issue of not being able to use Skype on cellular network, but that is purely policy/software and now that ATT has relented, we should see a version that runs there also with nothing more than SW upgrade.
- The Google Voice app was not VoIP and would not save you from using carrier minutes. It was to do the usual hack of GV dialing your cell, then the called party and splicing the two calls together. That being said, I am not happy with Apple in blocking the app. The web app in the works is likely to be fine, however.
- My 3G is now running "desktop" search after just a SW upgrade. Did not need to upgrade to a 3GS. [Edit: I guess you meant voice-based desktop search. Well, hard to see how a HW upgrade is unavoidable. The 3G CPU is kind of gutless for this sort of thing. Would have been nice to see voice dialing in the the 3G tho, so you have me there...]
- Re free nav: Certainly room for competitive pressure on Apple and the navigation industry on this issue. Personally, I feel that a navigation app that does not work when not connected to the network is a lose, but that is just me. But, is there any reason why Google could not offer this same navigation function at the free price point on the iPhone? Turn-by-turn directions are a different use-case than Google Maps so if TomTom can offer it on the iPhone, don't see why Goggle can't also.
- Pricing for supported tethering on other platforms are more or less the same as for iPhone. Sure there are hacks that allow a few geeks to do it in an unsupported and TOS-volating basis, but for mass-market, support tethering I don't see any difference. Now you and I may be geeks and do this, but it has little bearing on the market in general. If more than a few users try the former, don't delude yourself in thinking that the carriers will not come down heavy on this. Verizon is certainly no different that the other in this regard. (I know this from personal experience :-))
All the above being said, I am glad Android is there to keep the pressure on Apple.
Because I couldn't be bothered finding the price of them out, but they are just as likely to be looked at as every alternative, and since I will only be purchasing one phone, they are in competition with each other.
The definition we use, which admittedly is loose, is that it has to have e-mail, a large high color screen, supported third party apps, an alphanumeric keyboard of some kind, and 3G. That's pretty much the base today.
If we look at the expanding technology coming out all the time, and that is now standard on so many phones, smartphones and others, I suppose we would also need to include GPS. In another year, likely accelerometers would need to be included, and possibly the compass.
Specs are constantly being upgraded. What was considered a smartphone five years ago, isn't necessarily one today.
Yes, there are many Android devices. Some of them looking strange. Some of them with confusing names. Some of them with custom home screens. So what ? From the developers perspective, they are all quite the same. Google is very strict about who will get the Android Market and other "with Google" features, so it is not that easy for third parties to screw this up, so I guess it will stay this way for a while.
You mentioned "Apple" and "predictable" in the same sentence ? This was supposed to be a joke ?
So what? If they are different, one program won't fit all.
As you attempt to show that the different generations of iPhone are different, you can't act s thought the widely differing Android phones aren't different.
A developer here said that he would need to be carful of the differences, and would have to assume certain standards. That's ok for now, but won't be a year or two from now.
Yes, Apple has been very predictable in upgrading their phones in the way I SAID they are. One phone upgrade a year at the same time the OS is upgraded. That's very predictable.
Moving forward, I would hope that Apple would at some point un-tether the iPhone from iTunes, and make it a more web-centric device as far as contacts, calendar events and the like are concerned. I shouldn't need to connect my phone to my Mac for these things, and I shouldn't have to pay $99 a year either. There should be an "open sync" spec for the iPhone that lets google, yahoo, microsoft and others host iPhone data in the cloud. This is the one area where the iPhone's competitors are looking attractive to me.
I am starting to think they are mostly there. ActiveSync seems to form the basis for this. I am dumping MobileMe for using either Google+ActiveSync or Google+NuevaSync+ActiveSync as the basis for my cloud. For music sync, iTunes still seems the only usable current scenario, but if something like a LaLa iphone app shows up, I might give it a try.
I have several other non-PIM apps that use other mechanisms like WebDav or Bonjour as the basis for their cloud sync (e.g., OmniFocus, 1Password).. Only problem here is that each app uses something different. Perhaps this is a reflection of the different semantic requirements of sync for different app data-sets, but a bit more communality on this would be great.
Comments
As far as the OS development and product design goes, I don't think competition is a primer driver for Apple. It DOES affect Apple and makes it to adjust the course here and there, but the general strategy is already in place. My feeling is that Microsoft, Android, Nokia, Palm, you name it, do not have a clear idea where to go from here, besides adding hardware and software "features".
Apple has a vision, it follows it's course (minor corrections of the direction notwithstanding) and is not distracted by the competition.
On the other hand, the other players are looking around what feature to copy and what to attack. Palm was a good example. They were preaching how fast their super-duper-specially-optimized-for-mobile-devices OS will be, how they will beat the iPhone on copy/paste feature and physical keyboard. When the Pre actually arrived, the phone looked roughly on par with the old generation iPhone in terms of performance, the 3GS smoked it performance-wise, the keyboard was crappy for most users and the copy/paste implementation happened to be a joke compared to Apple's. Oh, and the multitasking advantage was questionable outside a small group of advocates.
Some peaces of the pattern are somewhat similar to the Droid: the highly touted physical keyboard turned out to be a peace of crap for most.
The bottom line: so far, there is ABSOLUTELY NOTHING Apple can get from competition in terms of innovative ideas. It knows where it wants to go. The third-party background apps will come some day (more likely some other option first, like scheduled launching or system wide autolaunch/notifications on certain events like location change), but Apple does not need Verizon to help solving the tradeoff dilemma when desining a mobile device.
The general wisdom suggests that without strong competition a product will stagnate over time. Apple does need competition, but this is mostly to keep reasonable pricing and wider distribution (e.g. with all carriers).
As far as the OS development and product design goes, I don't think competition is a primer driver for Apple. It DOES affect Apple and makes it to adjust the course here and there, but the general strategy is already in place. My feeling is that Microsoft, Android, Nokia, Palm, you name it, do not have a clear idea where to go from here, besides adding hardware and software "features".
Apple has a vision, it follows it's course (minor corrections of the direction notwithstanding) and is not distracted by the competition.
On the other hand, the other players are looking around what feature to copy and what to attack. Palm was a good example. They were preaching how fast their super-duper-specially-optimized-for-mobile-devices OS will be, how they will beat the iPhone on copy/paste feature and physical keyboard. When the Pre actually arrived, the phone looked roughly on par with the old generation iPhone in terms of performance, the 3GS smoked it performance-wise, the keyboard was crappy for most users and the copy/paste implementation happened to be a joke compared to Apple's. Oh, and the multitasking advantage was questionable outside a small group of advocates.
Some peaces of the pattern are somewhat similar to the Droid: the highly touted physical keyboard turned out to be a peace of crap for most.
The bottom line: so far, there is ABSOLUTELY NOTHING Apple can get from competition in terms of innovative ideas. It knows where it wants to go. The third-party background apps will come some day (more likely some other option first, like scheduled launching or system wide autolaunch/notifications on certain events like location change), but Apple does not need Verizon to help solving the tradeoff dilemma when desining a mobile device.
Well said. I agree.
Either way, it's an Interesting article and I certainly learnt a few things about the platforms and where the differences are starting to appear. I sold my iPhone to use a work Blackberry, but whilst the article is about the business model, this type of piece helps determines a lot about the suitability of these platforms for the next personal phone purchase.
Though I'd love it to be just about the technical architecture, a lot of the comment about brand control of Android V the iPhone also matters quite a bit. Like it or not, we like the strength of a quality brand and what that says to us and those around us. A loose brand (where one size fits all) is something that doesn't make us feel good about buying it. Even if it were free or cheaper than the iPhone, an unloveable brand is something people don't want.
If the big G find a lot of cheap phones being dumped onto the market using the Android name it runs the real risk of undermining take up rates at the top end which, at best, is where they'll derive any indirect profits applicable to the platform.
This isn't realistic and is why super open platforms like Android will never get large market share. You can't guarantee reliability while allowing users to do whatever they want to the device. Restrictions aren't artificial - they are in place to protect the user experience until the restrictions can be safely removed. The people at Apple don't get up every morning thinking about what new cool thing they can build into the platform and then cheat you out of. Give me a break. Those who insist on jailbreaking every new release of the iPhone OS because they somehow think they deserve full access to everything on the platform are just the type who will kill off Android with the consequences of what their "no rules" behavior always leads to: malware, bugs and reliability problems.
no no. you're not getting me. way down the thread my first point is Google sees mobile device search as the huge growth market of the future that it wants to dominate (and they are right about its growth potential). search on any OEM"s device, all OEM's devices. any phone, every phone, including Apple's. in the saturated desktop search market battle their main competition is MS, with Yahoo in distant third. but MS search on mobile devices other than WinMo is almost zero. if Google can land a knockout blow against WinMo by giving Android away for free while MS is stuck with only the obsolete 6.x OS to offer at $30 license fee, that would be huge for them. after that happens Google's total search market share of desktop + mobile would dwarf MS' combined total of desktop only (plus WinMo 7 someday maybe) even more than just the desktop stats do now. and in advertising it is how many ad views and what audience share you can deliver that in turn determines the rates you can charge multiplied by the number of hits. which totals your revenue! this is what it's all about.
Also bear in mind the other upcoming head-to-head battle between Google and MS for all kinds of cloud services. MS has been slow to get its act together, but certainly intends to try and match Google's comprehensiveness in the near future. but again, if WinMo is relegated to a tiny market share by Android et al. and MS has no significant presence on mobile devices it will fail in that ambition too. the provider you use for mobile cloud services will undoubtedly wind up being the one you use on your desktop too. no one is going to juggle two of them. (MS is incredibly stupid not to be porting its cloud services to iPhone apps).
despite the delay of Google Voice, Google will port nearly all its cloud services to the iPhone eventually for the same reasons. there is some competition with Apple's MobileMe here, but Apple focuses MM on its own hardware ecosystem which Google can't completely match (like Back to My Mac) because of course Apple makes its money selling hardware (why they charge so much for MM i can't fathom). now if Google launched its own media store to compete with iTunes, then there would be a real head-to-head showdown with Apple, because iTunes is the heart of the Mac ecosystem. but not until then.
I am getting you. I know Google wants to dominate mobile search. But it also want to dominate all cloud usage as well. That's just as important to them, and it can't be satisfied without a device that will pretty much REQUIRE using Google's cloud software and services, because it will get Ad dollars out of that as well. Possible more than from search alone.
It's not that complicated to understand.
It is the publishers duty to print the truth. Factual information should be referenced.
Opposing views should be supported with references. Otherwise they should be deleted or if proven incorrect, retracted.
Articles in question should be sent back to the author for comment and/or corrected accordingly. Authors who refuse to do so, should have their articles or contentious materials noted and/or deleted.
It doesn't do us readers any good if the editorial staff publishes everything that is submitted knowing that they are inaccurate to start with. We wouldn't do it in the peer reviewed scientific community, why do we have to accept it here?
Unfortunately, online sites such as this one, and many others, don't have the funds for editors, fact checkers, and a staff that can vet what goes up.
Even major newspapers and Network Tv news gets caught with articles with incorrect facts. Indeed, some have had writers make up entire long running columns.
It's impossible to keep the really intentional "errors" out of major publications. How can places like this do so?
The fact is that none of the writers here are doing anything intentionally deceptive. Some errors creep in, and occasional barbs at the competition, but it's not that bad.
And we catch it ourselves.
I'd like to see the authors do a better job of fact checking, but the problem here, it seems to me, is that if they feel sure about a "fact" they aren't likely to check it out.
But that brings us back to the beginning of my post.
Yet when I tried to say that all phones compete against each other I was rubbished.
Well, we are talking about smartphones. It's not likely that someone who wants a simple, and free phone will consider a several hundred dollar phone with an expensive plan.
nothing is perfect, so they will always be some very small number who will, but it's just a very small number.
Really, people who are likely to buy a Hyundai are not going to consider a MD Maybach, except as a fantasy.
While the difference in phones isn't nearly that great, there is still a stratified buying public.
But, over time, smartphones are going to get cheaper, and so, almost all phones will be smartphones of one kind or another, and then you will be correct. Even now, O2 is going to off the not very popular Pre free with a two year contract.
Believe it or not, but right now it is just ONE hardware setup for Android (despite they look very different, it is the same device from the developers perspective), while iPhone has three different ones (original + GPS + compass) so you have to face this on iPhone, too. Plus nobody knows about the plans of Apple, so if they ever introduce iPhone Nano or Tablet, you'll be in the same situation but without any previous knowledge. At least you get the info about the future direction on Android.
You're really missing the point here. It doesn't matter that now, the setup is the same. Many apps won't work on many phones because they lack the hardware to do so.
The advantage to Apple's scheme is that there are very few models, and they supersede one another in a timely, and predictable fashion. Everyone knows what generation is what, and what they can do. Apple has made that very easy.
Not so with other phones, and certainly not so with Android phones.
There will be a bewildering number of different models selling with small differences with different names all over the place, as will be true of the Droid, which will be sold under differing names, depending on where it will be sold.
In addition, there is no naming convention at all. So the "big" Droid is made by Motorola, but the "small" Droid Eris (formally known in an earlier model as the "Hero") with different features, is made by HTC.
Talk about confusing!
no, what he meant is what he said, otherwise he would have said differently.
We had this discussion before. We are talking about smartphones here. Only smartphones.
Well, we are talking about smartphones. It's not likely that someone who wants a simple, and free phone will consider a several hundred dollar phone with an expensive plan.
While the difference in phones isn't nearly that great, there is still a stratified buying public.
But, over time, smartphones are going to get cheaper, and so, almost all phones will be smartphones of one kind or another, and then you will be correct. Even now, O2 is going to off the not very popular Pre free with a two year contract.
The problem is you are assuming that all people purchase subsidised phones (ie the ones you say are free, the iPhone is free in some countries). There are people that purchase smartphones, but don't purchase expensive plans, there are people who get cheap phones and get expensive plans.
My phone is starting to die (I should stop dropping it so much), I have choice of several phones, the iPhone 3GS 32GB $1349, a Nokia N97 $1800, a Nokia E63 $400 (all unsubsidised) etc. All of them will do what I want, are you saying they are not all in competition with each other?
We had this discussion before. We are talking about smartphones here. Only smartphones.
What what definds a smartphone?
You're really missing the point here. It doesn't matter that now, the setup is the same. Many apps won't work on many phones because they lack the hardware to do so.
The advantage to Apple's scheme is that there are very few models, and they supersede one another in a timely, and predictable fashion. Everyone knows what generation is what, and what they can do. Apple has made that very easy.
Not so with other phones, and certainly not so with Android phones.
There will be a bewildering number of different models selling with small differences with different names all over the place, as will be true of the Droid, which will be sold under differing names, depending on where it will be sold.
In addition, there is no naming convention at all. So the "big" Droid is made by Motorola, but the "small" Droid Eris (formally known in an earlier model as the "Hero") with different features, is made by HTC.
Talk about confusing!
Yes, there are many Android devices. Some of them looking strange. Some of them with confusing names. Some of them with custom home screens. So what ? From the developers perspective, they are all quite the same. Google is very strict about who will get the Android Market and other "with Google" features, so it is not that easy for third parties to screw this up, so I guess it will stay this way for a while.
You mentioned "Apple" and "predictable" in the same sentence ? This was supposed to be a joke ?
Yes, there are many Android devices. Some of them looking strange. Some of them with confusing names. Some of them with custom home screens. So what ? From the developers perspective, they are all quite the same. Google is very strict about who will get the Android Market and other "with Google" features, so it is not that easy for third parties to screw this up, so I guess it will stay this way for a while.
That?ll be fun to have to explain to people that not all Android-based phones will have the same Ui for a given timeframe, then have to explain that Android is Google?s mobile OS but without the cryptic ?with Google? addition they won?t get certain features. Sounds like a great business model Apple should follow.
You mentioned "Apple" and "predictable" in the same sentence ? This was supposed to be a joke ?
Let?s see. Next Summer we?ll get iPhone OS v4.0, my 3GS will also get v4.0 for free, and we?ll get a new revision to the iPhone HW. I?d call that predictable.
The problem is you are assuming that all people purchase subsidised phones (ie the ones you say are free, the iPhone is free in some countries). There are people that purchase smartphones, but don't purchase expensive plans, there are people who get cheap phones and get expensive plans.
My phone is starting to die (I should stop dropping it so much), I have choice of several phones, the iPhone 3GS 32GB $1349, a Nokia N97 $1800, a Nokia E63 $400 (all unsubsidised) etc. All of them will do what I want, are you saying they are not all in competition with each other?
Those are all smartphones, and so meet the test of what we're talking about here. You also admit that they all do what you want.
You are contradicting your own statements with that. According to you, ALL phones are competing with each other. In that case, you would include the Nokia 1208 for your consideration, as well as the Pantech C3B, the LG CG180 and others.
I mean, after all, again, you say that ALL cellphones are in competition with each other for the same customer. As you are a customer, I wonder why you didn't include those or others.
Is it because ALL phones are NOT competing with all others?
I mean, after all, again, you say that ALL cellphones are in competition with each other for the same customer. As you are a customer, I wonder why you didn't include those or others.
Because I couldn't be bothered finding the price of them out, but they are just as likely to be looked at as every alternative, and since I will only be purchasing one phone, they are in competition with each other.
So because of ideas like this I see my next phone....
- Saving me Money (don't waste mine)
--- A phone with a webcam that has the physical capability to perform video recording but doesn't make me buy new hardware to receive the feature (3G vs 3Gs); provide it now
--- A mic that can perform voice phone calls and with a software upgrade also perform a desktop search feature, nope have to pay for that (3G vs 3Gs)
--- What Android can do to help - Install Google Voice App and use it on the carries cellular lines, save my minutes (thanks for the money) - Want turn by turn directions install Google Maps Navigation app, how much is that? Free / Apple $50+ (thanks for the money back)
-Control
--- I want tethering, I can enable it with simple xml hack, but there goes my SW/HW support.
--- What Android can do to help - Install Android Proxy App, can I still get HW support? of course (also thanks for the money savings)
Hmm. Seem to be several misunderstandings here about 3G vs 3GS:
- The 3G mic works fine for voice calls. (I made the assuption you meant VoIP calls.) I use Skype on it all the time on my 3G and it works pretty well. There is the issue of not being able to use Skype on cellular network, but that is purely policy/software and now that ATT has relented, we should see a version that runs there also with nothing more than SW upgrade.
- The Google Voice app was not VoIP and would not save you from using carrier minutes. It was to do the usual hack of GV dialing your cell, then the called party and splicing the two calls together. That being said, I am not happy with Apple in blocking the app. The web app in the works is likely to be fine, however.
- My 3G is now running "desktop" search after just a SW upgrade. Did not need to upgrade to a 3GS. [Edit: I guess you meant voice-based desktop search. Well, hard to see how a HW upgrade is unavoidable. The 3G CPU is kind of gutless for this sort of thing. Would have been nice to see voice dialing in the the 3G tho, so you have me there...]
- Re free nav: Certainly room for competitive pressure on Apple and the navigation industry on this issue. Personally, I feel that a navigation app that does not work when not connected to the network is a lose, but that is just me. But, is there any reason why Google could not offer this same navigation function at the free price point on the iPhone? Turn-by-turn directions are a different use-case than Google Maps so if TomTom can offer it on the iPhone, don't see why Goggle can't also.
- Pricing for supported tethering on other platforms are more or less the same as for iPhone. Sure there are hacks that allow a few geeks to do it in an unsupported and TOS-volating basis, but for mass-market, support tethering I don't see any difference. Now you and I may be geeks and do this, but it has little bearing on the market in general. If more than a few users try the former, don't delude yourself in thinking that the carriers will not come down heavy on this. Verizon is certainly no different that the other in this regard. (I know this from personal experience :-))
All the above being said, I am glad Android is there to keep the pressure on Apple.
Because I couldn't be bothered finding the price of them out, but they are just as likely to be looked at as every alternative, and since I will only be purchasing one phone, they are in competition with each other.
Of course they are.
What what definds a smartphone?
The definition we use, which admittedly is loose, is that it has to have e-mail, a large high color screen, supported third party apps, an alphanumeric keyboard of some kind, and 3G. That's pretty much the base today.
If we look at the expanding technology coming out all the time, and that is now standard on so many phones, smartphones and others, I suppose we would also need to include GPS. In another year, likely accelerometers would need to be included, and possibly the compass.
Specs are constantly being upgraded. What was considered a smartphone five years ago, isn't necessarily one today.
Yes, there are many Android devices. Some of them looking strange. Some of them with confusing names. Some of them with custom home screens. So what ? From the developers perspective, they are all quite the same. Google is very strict about who will get the Android Market and other "with Google" features, so it is not that easy for third parties to screw this up, so I guess it will stay this way for a while.
You mentioned "Apple" and "predictable" in the same sentence ? This was supposed to be a joke ?
So what? If they are different, one program won't fit all.
As you attempt to show that the different generations of iPhone are different, you can't act s thought the widely differing Android phones aren't different.
A developer here said that he would need to be carful of the differences, and would have to assume certain standards. That's ok for now, but won't be a year or two from now.
Yes, Apple has been very predictable in upgrading their phones in the way I SAID they are. One phone upgrade a year at the same time the OS is upgraded. That's very predictable.
Moving forward, I would hope that Apple would at some point un-tether the iPhone from iTunes, and make it a more web-centric device as far as contacts, calendar events and the like are concerned. I shouldn't need to connect my phone to my Mac for these things, and I shouldn't have to pay $99 a year either. There should be an "open sync" spec for the iPhone that lets google, yahoo, microsoft and others host iPhone data in the cloud. This is the one area where the iPhone's competitors are looking attractive to me.
I am starting to think they are mostly there. ActiveSync seems to form the basis for this. I am dumping MobileMe for using either Google+ActiveSync or Google+NuevaSync+ActiveSync as the basis for my cloud. For music sync, iTunes still seems the only usable current scenario, but if something like a LaLa iphone app shows up, I might give it a try.
I have several other non-PIM apps that use other mechanisms like WebDav or Bonjour as the basis for their cloud sync (e.g., OmniFocus, 1Password).. Only problem here is that each app uses something different. Perhaps this is a reflection of the different semantic requirements of sync for different app data-sets, but a bit more communality on this would be great.