Well, you know. It's kind of like when a special-needs kid manages to tie his shoes for the first time. It might not seem like much to you and me, but to him, with all his disadvantages, it's a real accomplishment.
After so many years of doing such appallingly bad work, Microsoft has carved out a reputation as being the special-needs kid of the industry. People's expectations are so low, anything that's not an obvious flail looks like a triumphant success by comparison.
"Way to go, Microsoft. You tried harder than any of the other kids out there."
The other funny thing is those on Windows Mobile 6.5 cannot upgrade to Windows Phone 7 ?Because we have very specific requirements for Windows Phone 7 Series the current phones we have right now will not be upgradable.?... aka Bing button!!
So now that MS has cut WinMo (which everyone here had been making fun of) and started fresh and adopted a more Apple-esque model of hardware/software integration, you're making fun of them for doing that?
I would have to agree. Microsoft and BB are getting a run for their money. What I hate is that the iPhone doesn't support multiple exchagne accounts and tasks. I rely on these two features. Hopefully they will listen to all of our gripes.
I'm not sure how many of you had issues getting the iphone to setup properly with exchange, but I did. Spent many weeks with my tech guy ---(and many sleepless nights!!). He kept on wanting me to upgrade my server to 2008. Yet, we just purchased this system. Finally came across these flat rate iphone exchange guys. Boy, worth every penny. I think from start to payment it was only about 20 minutes. Check them out. By the way we tried the godaddy cert. not much help either.
I'm always amazed at the credit Microsoft gets. We're still at the start of the year and WM7 debuts near the end, an age in the smartphone world and almost 4 years after the iPhone debut. And it could still be delayed even further.
Microsoft always gets credit just for trying, and often gets credit for saying they will be trying at some time possibly in the near or not so distant future.
So now that MS has cut WinMo (which everyone here had been making fun of) and started fresh and adopted a more Apple-esque model of hardware/software integration, you're making fun of them for doing that?
No, it's funny that the HW criteria for Windows Phone 7 is that it must have specific number of buttons (three buttons including one for Bing) and not better processor or more memory
I'm always amazed at the credit Microsoft gets. We're still at the start of the year and WM7 debuts near the end, an age in the smartphone world and almost 4 years after the iPhone debut. And it could still be delayed even further.
What evidence is there that this will be in the same league as the fast maturing Android nevermind iPhone 4.0? All we've seen so far is some computer generated demos, not even a proper working prototype if I'm not mistaken (same with Courier, real artists ship and all that...).
It's because MS has incredible sway over corporate IT. You just can't ignore or underestimate that. IT *loves* MS. All MS has to do is create a phone that won't cause users to revolt, and they'll sell a ton of them to corporations. My company's IT group had to be dragged kicking and screaming by the president of the company and several VPs to accept employees using their personal iPhones for work e-mail, and that was only because those top guys flat out refused to use a WinMo Phone. But if the WinMo phones weren't such disasters -- if they were halfway credible -- then the IT guys probably would have won the argument.
The company that gets way too much credit is Google. Their Android "strategy" is so typically googlish in nature -- totally naive and lacking in serious commitment. Google just isn't up to the hard work of making a platform work. Apple and MS are.
So the first battle will be MS beating Google for the right to challenge Apple as the leader in the smartphone market.
It's because MS has incredible sway over corporate IT. You just can't ignore or underestimate that. IT *loves* MS.
The obvious question is, why does corporate IT still love Microsoft? The obvious answer of a few years ago at least was that their lousy buggy products created full employment for IT professionals. The other was most IT people were MCPs who really didn't know anything else. Is that still true?
The obvious question is, why does corporate IT still love Microsoft? The obvious answer of a few years ago at least was that their lousy buggy products created full employment for IT professionals. The other was most IT people were MCPs who really didn't know anything else. Is that still true?
Pretty much. If you do too good a job and commission bulletproof systems your going to put yourself out of a job
Thats why I have started to put some customers onto windows 7 systems now. Been pretty busy so far this year
On a side note, let's face it... Palm is being a bit childish here. They do NOT have a superior platform compared to the iPhone. They designed their phone not around general use, but rather social networking. And to be honest, I think I'd prefer general use than specifically tailored interfaces to social networking and media. Having notifications of up to the minute info is great and all, but it's not necessary. And it just clutters up my life. I might just want a simple phone that's easy to use and powerful, not one that constantly says a friend did this on Facebook or Twitter. And it's not like Palm had a PR disaster with the iTunes sync thing... and then there's their lousy commercials. Whoever hired these clowns for those terrible commercials? They look (and sound) slightly worse than Blackberry commercials, because I can only assume they intended to copy the Blackberry commercials.
OMG..... So it was the analyst who said Palm had the superior platform, not Palm. So how is Palm being childish?
You clearly have never use a Pre or Pre Plus. The platform is built around multitasking, not social media. Where do you get that? There are no Facebook or Twitter notifications popping up unless you ad an app and turn that feature on. You must be confused with "Moto Blur" on Android or something.
True their commercials have stunk so I guess you must have seen those - just not a phone. There are things I like about both the iPhone and WebOS and each has some advantages over the other. Clearly the ease of multitasking and notifications is driving Apple to "innovate" on the iPhone. See the story about that today.
It isn't Windows or Android multitasking pushing Apple. It is WebOS.
Palm needs some better hardware big time to compete.
Android worldwide market share went from 0.5% in 2008 to 3.9% in 2009. I will repeat to you what few here have been saying when the iPhone experienced such fast growth in first year "it is not much growth if you started from zero"
The obvious question is, why does corporate IT still love Microsoft? The obvious answer of a few years ago at least was that their lousy buggy products created full employment for IT professionals. The other was most IT people were MCPs who really didn't know anything else. Is that still true?
I think IT loves MS because IT is MS's primary customer, and so MS treats IT much better than they treat you and me. Seems to me that it breaks down like this -- Google's primary customer is advertisers (with Google, you and I are not the customer -- we're the product). Microsoft has two main clients: OEMs and corporate IT. Apple has one client: consumers (aka, "end-users").
So you see, MS only needs to make a product that is just good enough for consumers to be willing to accept it for free (because their company provides it to them). Google has to make a product just barely good enough for consumers to accept it for free (because advertisers pay for it). Only Apple has to make a product good enough that people would actually buy it with their own money.
So if WinMo7 is good enough that end-users will tolerate it if they don't have to pay for it, then MS has crossed the bar with end-users. At that point, all they have to do is convince IT to spring for it, and that won't take much.
Google's problem is that phones aren't free. Either the consumer or an employer is going to have to pay for it. But Google isn't really targeting either one -- Google is focused on advertisers. I think that means that ultimately neither corporate IT nor consumers will be happy with Google phones.
The obvious question is, why does corporate IT still love Microsoft?
Simple, because nobody else loves the corporate market, their needs are too variable.
Phil Schiller said that the consumer market for computers is over 50%.
Apple makes a limited set of highly profitable devices with not a whole lot of profit destroying configurations like those who cater to the corporate market have to do.
Apple will take corporate orders of course, but they don't go out of their way to cater to their needs, it's just extra gravy.
So why bother with the less than 50% of the market that wants the cheapest machines possible and needs configurations without optical drives, or hard drives, or RAM, or the OS, or even keyboards because they got a deal elsewhere and use their cheap labor already at their disposal to put the machines together in house? Also they need a IT staff anyway, because the employees by and large are not computer savvy users. So this gives them something to do in addition to training.
Two different markets, two different needs for computers. One open and the other closed.
In small businesses that the employees are computer savvy enough along with their present jobs can Mac's work exceptionally well without a IT staff it has been my experience.
It's also comparing year-over-year figures to the three-month period that includes two flagship product releases and a massive marketing blitz.
But let's break it down by numbers. Apple has sold something on the order of 20 million iPhones, give or take. That data for January 2010 says that about 10 million of those are in the US. So let's estimate that half of Apple's iPhone sales are in the US.
According to that data, a total of about 1.8 million Android-platform phones were sold in the US during the period in question. Impressive growth, to be sure. But Apple sold 8.7 million iPhones over the same period, and we can guesstimate that half of those were in the US.
So total sales of 1.8 million phones during the platform's biggest launch period to date … versus 4.3 million phones sold during what should be a relatively slack period leading up to an anticipated new-product rollout.
The Android platform's growth is impressive, but when you look at it in context it really doesn't say anything definitive either way.
It's also comparing year-over-year figures to the three-month period that includes two flagship product releases and a massive marketing blitz.
Comparing short periods growth is meaningless. You need to look at the big picture (year-over-year).
Quote:
But let's break it down by numbers. Apple has sold something on the order of 20 million iPhones, give or take. That data for January 2010 says that about 10 million of those are in the US. So let's estimate that half of Apple's iPhone sales are in the US.
Actually Apple sold 24.9 million iPhones in 2009 and more than half of those are sold internationally. You can tell exactly how much iPhones were sold in the US by looking into AT&T quarterly press releases.
Quote:
According to that data, a total of about 1.8 million Android-platform phones were sold in the US during the period in question. Impressive growth, to be sure. But Apple sold 8.7 million iPhones over the same period, and we can guesstimate that half of those were in the US.
So total sales of 1.8 million phones during the platform's biggest launch period to date ? versus 4.3 million phones sold during what should be a relatively slack period leading up to an anticipated new-product rollout.
The Android platform's growth is impressive, but when you look at it in context it really doesn't say anything definitive either way.
I supplied a link in the previous post. The Android phones will grow at fast pace as well because it is replacing other platforms (WinMo and others) not the iPhone.
Comments
I'm always amazed at the credit Microsoft gets.
Well, you know. It's kind of like when a special-needs kid manages to tie his shoes for the first time. It might not seem like much to you and me, but to him, with all his disadvantages, it's a real accomplishment.
After so many years of doing such appallingly bad work, Microsoft has carved out a reputation as being the special-needs kid of the industry. People's expectations are so low, anything that's not an obvious flail looks like a triumphant success by comparison.
"Way to go, Microsoft. You tried harder than any of the other kids out there."
The other funny thing is those on Windows Mobile 6.5 cannot upgrade to Windows Phone 7 ?Because we have very specific requirements for Windows Phone 7 Series the current phones we have right now will not be upgradable.?... aka Bing button!!
So now that MS has cut WinMo (which everyone here had been making fun of) and started fresh and adopted a more Apple-esque model of hardware/software integration, you're making fun of them for doing that?
All they did was copy the iPhone for the most part.
i agree partially...android did, winmo7 maybe not so much
they should put even more money into copying the iphone faster to catch up with apple, before apple gains more market share
I'm not sure how many of you had issues getting the iphone to setup properly with exchange, but I did. Spent many weeks with my tech guy ---(and many sleepless nights!!). He kept on wanting me to upgrade my server to 2008. Yet, we just purchased this system. Finally came across these flat rate iphone exchange guys. Boy, worth every penny. I think from start to payment it was only about 20 minutes. Check them out. By the way we tried the godaddy cert. not much help either.
I'm always amazed at the credit Microsoft gets. We're still at the start of the year and WM7 debuts near the end, an age in the smartphone world and almost 4 years after the iPhone debut. And it could still be delayed even further.
Microsoft always gets credit just for trying, and often gets credit for saying they will be trying at some time possibly in the near or not so distant future.
So now that MS has cut WinMo (which everyone here had been making fun of) and started fresh and adopted a more Apple-esque model of hardware/software integration, you're making fun of them for doing that?
No, it's funny that the HW criteria for Windows Phone 7 is that it must have specific number of buttons (three buttons including one for Bing) and not better processor or more memory
I'm always amazed at the credit Microsoft gets. We're still at the start of the year and WM7 debuts near the end, an age in the smartphone world and almost 4 years after the iPhone debut. And it could still be delayed even further.
What evidence is there that this will be in the same league as the fast maturing Android nevermind iPhone 4.0? All we've seen so far is some computer generated demos, not even a proper working prototype if I'm not mistaken (same with Courier, real artists ship and all that...).
It's because MS has incredible sway over corporate IT. You just can't ignore or underestimate that. IT *loves* MS. All MS has to do is create a phone that won't cause users to revolt, and they'll sell a ton of them to corporations. My company's IT group had to be dragged kicking and screaming by the president of the company and several VPs to accept employees using their personal iPhones for work e-mail, and that was only because those top guys flat out refused to use a WinMo Phone. But if the WinMo phones weren't such disasters -- if they were halfway credible -- then the IT guys probably would have won the argument.
The company that gets way too much credit is Google. Their Android "strategy" is so typically googlish in nature -- totally naive and lacking in serious commitment. Google just isn't up to the hard work of making a platform work. Apple and MS are.
So the first battle will be MS beating Google for the right to challenge Apple as the leader in the smartphone market.
It's because MS has incredible sway over corporate IT. You just can't ignore or underestimate that. IT *loves* MS.
The obvious question is, why does corporate IT still love Microsoft? The obvious answer of a few years ago at least was that their lousy buggy products created full employment for IT professionals. The other was most IT people were MCPs who really didn't know anything else. Is that still true?
stagnant sales? Where's igenius?
LMAO Spot on.
Wow, 98% growth and all without multitasking either.
The obvious question is, why does corporate IT still love Microsoft? The obvious answer of a few years ago at least was that their lousy buggy products created full employment for IT professionals. The other was most IT people were MCPs who really didn't know anything else. Is that still true?
Pretty much. If you do too good a job and commission bulletproof systems your going to put yourself out of a job
Thats why I have started to put some customers onto windows 7 systems now. Been pretty busy so far this year
It seems Apple just continue to fail due to the lack of flash!
lol... I know right. Just look at Palm - leading the way!
On a side note, let's face it... Palm is being a bit childish here. They do NOT have a superior platform compared to the iPhone. They designed their phone not around general use, but rather social networking. And to be honest, I think I'd prefer general use than specifically tailored interfaces to social networking and media. Having notifications of up to the minute info is great and all, but it's not necessary. And it just clutters up my life. I might just want a simple phone that's easy to use and powerful, not one that constantly says a friend did this on Facebook or Twitter. And it's not like Palm had a PR disaster with the iTunes sync thing... and then there's their lousy commercials. Whoever hired these clowns for those terrible commercials? They look (and sound) slightly worse than Blackberry commercials, because I can only assume they intended to copy the Blackberry commercials.
OMG..... So it was the analyst who said Palm had the superior platform, not Palm. So how is Palm being childish?
You clearly have never use a Pre or Pre Plus. The platform is built around multitasking, not social media. Where do you get that? There are no Facebook or Twitter notifications popping up unless you ad an app and turn that feature on. You must be confused with "Moto Blur" on Android or something.
True their commercials have stunk so I guess you must have seen those - just not a phone. There are things I like about both the iPhone and WebOS and each has some advantages over the other. Clearly the ease of multitasking and notifications is driving Apple to "innovate" on the iPhone. See the story about that today.
It isn't Windows or Android multitasking pushing Apple. It is WebOS.
Palm needs some better hardware big time to compete.
Wow, 98% growth and all without multitasking either.
What is 98% growth in comparison with 150% growth, huh?
During last 3 months the market share of Android increased by 150%, from 2.8% to 7.1%
http://www.comscore.com/Press_Events...r_Market_Share
What is 98% growth in comparison with 150% growth, huh?
During last 3 months the market share of Android increased by 150%, from 2.8% to 7.1%
http://www.comscore.com/Press_Events...r_Market_Share
That's US only
Android worldwide market share went from 0.5% in 2008 to 3.9% in 2009. I will repeat to you what few here have been saying when the iPhone experienced such fast growth in first year "it is not much growth if you started from zero"
The obvious question is, why does corporate IT still love Microsoft? The obvious answer of a few years ago at least was that their lousy buggy products created full employment for IT professionals. The other was most IT people were MCPs who really didn't know anything else. Is that still true?
I think IT loves MS because IT is MS's primary customer, and so MS treats IT much better than they treat you and me. Seems to me that it breaks down like this -- Google's primary customer is advertisers (with Google, you and I are not the customer -- we're the product). Microsoft has two main clients: OEMs and corporate IT. Apple has one client: consumers (aka, "end-users").
So you see, MS only needs to make a product that is just good enough for consumers to be willing to accept it for free (because their company provides it to them). Google has to make a product just barely good enough for consumers to accept it for free (because advertisers pay for it). Only Apple has to make a product good enough that people would actually buy it with their own money.
So if WinMo7 is good enough that end-users will tolerate it if they don't have to pay for it, then MS has crossed the bar with end-users. At that point, all they have to do is convince IT to spring for it, and that won't take much.
Google's problem is that phones aren't free. Either the consumer or an employer is going to have to pay for it. But Google isn't really targeting either one -- Google is focused on advertisers. I think that means that ultimately neither corporate IT nor consumers will be happy with Google phones.
Hopefully the Palm Elan is real, and it comes out REAL soon
The obvious question is, why does corporate IT still love Microsoft?
Simple, because nobody else loves the corporate market, their needs are too variable.
Phil Schiller said that the consumer market for computers is over 50%.
Apple makes a limited set of highly profitable devices with not a whole lot of profit destroying configurations like those who cater to the corporate market have to do.
Apple will take corporate orders of course, but they don't go out of their way to cater to their needs, it's just extra gravy.
So why bother with the less than 50% of the market that wants the cheapest machines possible and needs configurations without optical drives, or hard drives, or RAM, or the OS, or even keyboards because they got a deal elsewhere and use their cheap labor already at their disposal to put the machines together in house? Also they need a IT staff anyway, because the employees by and large are not computer savvy users. So this gives them something to do in addition to training.
Two different markets, two different needs for computers. One open and the other closed.
In small businesses that the employees are computer savvy enough along with their present jobs can Mac's work exceptionally well without a IT staff it has been my experience.
That's US only
It's also comparing year-over-year figures to the three-month period that includes two flagship product releases and a massive marketing blitz.
But let's break it down by numbers. Apple has sold something on the order of 20 million iPhones, give or take. That data for January 2010 says that about 10 million of those are in the US. So let's estimate that half of Apple's iPhone sales are in the US.
According to that data, a total of about 1.8 million Android-platform phones were sold in the US during the period in question. Impressive growth, to be sure. But Apple sold 8.7 million iPhones over the same period, and we can guesstimate that half of those were in the US.
So total sales of 1.8 million phones during the platform's biggest launch period to date … versus 4.3 million phones sold during what should be a relatively slack period leading up to an anticipated new-product rollout.
The Android platform's growth is impressive, but when you look at it in context it really doesn't say anything definitive either way.
It's also comparing year-over-year figures to the three-month period that includes two flagship product releases and a massive marketing blitz.
Comparing short periods growth is meaningless. You need to look at the big picture (year-over-year).
But let's break it down by numbers. Apple has sold something on the order of 20 million iPhones, give or take. That data for January 2010 says that about 10 million of those are in the US. So let's estimate that half of Apple's iPhone sales are in the US.
Actually Apple sold 24.9 million iPhones in 2009 and more than half of those are sold internationally. You can tell exactly how much iPhones were sold in the US by looking into AT&T quarterly press releases.
According to that data, a total of about 1.8 million Android-platform phones were sold in the US during the period in question. Impressive growth, to be sure. But Apple sold 8.7 million iPhones over the same period, and we can guesstimate that half of those were in the US.
So total sales of 1.8 million phones during the platform's biggest launch period to date ? versus 4.3 million phones sold during what should be a relatively slack period leading up to an anticipated new-product rollout.
The Android platform's growth is impressive, but when you look at it in context it really doesn't say anything definitive either way.
I supplied a link in the previous post. The Android phones will grow at fast pace as well because it is replacing other platforms (WinMo and others) not the iPhone.