I don't think that iPhone OS will ever gain a dominant share because it is and will always be limited to one phone. I have plenty of friends who refuse to get an iPhone because everyone else has one. With Android, different manufacturers will develop different devices tailored to different tastes. .
Was it Dimaggio who said "no one ever goes there because it's too crowded"? Or was that Yogi Berra (not to be confused with Yogi Bear for you pre-teens).
The problem with your analogy, though, is that a thousand different varieties all running different versions makes it difficult for everyone. Developers never learn to use the full capabilities since they have to create lowest-common-denomenator versions. Users get confused when getting a new phone. Nothing works the same way. Apple has focused on one design and consistent UI - and seems to be doing very well. Will it ever be dominant? Depends on what you mean. It certainly has changed the way the entire industry thinks, though.
Quote:
Originally Posted by applestockholder
So, the motto of Google is said to be "Do no evil"
- Google has scanned and made available copyrighted content without even attempting to pay proper royalties
- Google collect TONS of personal information about users, without their consent or knowledge
- Googles security has been compromised, exposing the TONS of personal information - and if any company has the resources to do security "right" it is Google
- Google's Eric Schmidt has stolen ideas and strategies form the Apple Board. He should have resigned form the board when it occurred to him that Google might go inthe direction of being an Apple competitor, instead he resigned only fairly recently after absorbing (stealing) as much from Apple as he could
Google's mode of business is SCARY, and exploitive.
You're 100% right. In reality, they seem to be operating more along the lines of "do whatever you want, just try not to get caught doing evil".
Quote:
Originally Posted by Josh.B.
But in the past, There were major updates in June. This year will be different - Apple is catching up to where Android was a while ago, rather than surpassing it with innovative new stuffs.
Bwaaahaaaaaa. Is it April Fools' Day already?
You apparently never get it. Apple is not in the game of 'my phone offers more features than your phone'. Rather, Apple is by far the leader in usability, reliability, and functionality, NOT features. Android has many, many miles to go to catch up in that regard.
Quote:
Originally Posted by oxygenhose
Competition is not blatant duplication of another's idea. Where did you pick up such a warped philosophy?
Net neutrality is happy little phrase to make people feel good about a really bad concept.
As in all things in life, you should pay your own tab. You get charged for the phone minutes you use, why should the internet be any different? Hippies? Rainbows? Because you file share illegal stuff (the ONLY real world use for anonymous peer-to-peer swap protocols) and want everyone else to pay for it?.
Well said. If I use more medical services, I pay for it. If I eat more food, I pay for it. If I drive farther, I buy more gas.
Now, I'm not arguing that anyone should be forced to have different prices for different users. Nor should they be forbidden to do so. It should be just like any offering - the supplier should be free to offer whatever terms they wish and the consumer can choose to buy it or not to buy. If someone else comes out with something that the consumer likes better, the consumer will switch. No need for the government to decide what is best for me as a consumer. Personally, I don't like that fact that my cable bills keep going up every month because Cox has to keep spending more and more money to build enough infrastructure to satisfy the bittorrent crowd.
Quote:
Originally Posted by extremeskater
Funny how well Flash works when using hardware acceleration. Something I have been talking about for weeks now. Steve Jobs simply wants to control content, Flash isn't the issue. It was in the past and I admit Adobe didn't do much to help make Flash run better under OSX but that isn't the case now.
SJ is pushing his luck. Adobe could simply stop making the Create Suite to run under OSX.
I wondered how long it would take for this inane suggestion to hit this thread. Adobe would be committing suicide - and they know it.
As for Flash, of course Flash would work better with hardware acceleration. Why didn't Adobe use it? Apple's APIs would have allowed Adobe to use hardware acceleration, but Adobe stubbornly refused to use them. Just more of the same Adobe we've seen for a decade now - ignore the Mac (even when it accounted for 50% or more of revenues) and drive customers to Windows. Their actions over the last 10 years are coming back to haunt them. Time for them to grow up.
That's nice. So they've gotten around to creating a demo of their vaporware.
It MIGHT be out some day. But even when it does, there are several problems:
1. It's far too little, too late. Most major sites are already switching to html 5, css, and so on.
2. 10.1 is stil limited - and won't work with all Flash pages. So you have the worst of both worlds - suffer from all the instability and battery drain of Flash and still not be able to load your sites.
3. 10.1 on mobiles requires something like a Cortex 8 processor - which means that only about 0.1% of the smart phones on the market will be able to use it. 99.9% of smart phones will not be running Flash.
4. Even on a Cortex 8, performance is still sluggish and choppy.
5. Even if they get around those problems, that assumes that Adobe gets around to shipping it some time soon. They're already very late and have a history full of delays and missed promises.
I was on the fence about waiting for v2 of the iPad - but if competition is ramping up sooner than expected, I will definitely wait a year or so to see what new hardware is being created for an Android-based device.
The trouble is, that by then some new Apple/Google/MS/??? hardware will be nearly ready for release and so you'll just hang on a bit longer to see what it's about. And just when you've made your mind up, you'll hear of the next killer product that will be released "real soon now".
I wonder if Schmidt recused himself from iPad-related discussions while serving on Apple's board...?
Does anyone know the legal guidelines that bind a corporate board member, in terms of "firewalling" secrets revealed to them during their board tenure, lest they are liable for some type of confidentiality breach?
I feel that this issue of Schmidt/Apple board is overblown. Frankly, even if they waited to start their copiers until a formal announcement from Apple, Google could do the same thing with just a few months' lag.
My post was in response to someone who spouted off about socialism and hippies. I just don't think idealogical absolutes encourage thoughtful debate. Capitalism is the best economic system in existance. It is not a form of government. The op claims there is a cosmic link to the two. I would have responded to him but but he made so many assumptions and accusations about me that it seems pointless. Police, firefighters, military are not capitalist structures. They are funded and run pretty well, thanks in no small part to our capitalist economic system. Which brings me back to my point of idealogical absolutes harming thoughtful debate.I realize my statement "capitalism destroyed communism and now it's doing a number on democracy" is being seen as an attack on capitalism but I think it's more to just keep perspective. I guess some people do think we should privatize police firefighters and the military and I welcome thoughtful debate on those. But calling people socialists and hippies at the outset is lame in my opinion.
... I have plenty of friends who refuse to get an iPhone because everyone else has one.
It's a funny old world eh? I'd not imagined that people would actually reject a best product in any category (and I'm not specifically referring to the iPhone here) simply because it was too popular. Imagine, you spend your money on an inferior product so that less of your friends have one and you feel more special. Curiously, the reason that less of your friends and others I'd imagine own one is because it's inferior and they don't want to spend their money on it. How very circular.
The WePad, with its 11.6-inch screen, is powered by an Intel chip and relies on a Linux software basis which is compatible with Google's Android and all Flash applications, Ankershoffen said.
Android doesn't need to make money for a long, long time. All it needs in the short term is to show that it has more pull. Android-compatibility is as good as Android for Google right now.
What next from Apple? Multi-tasking in iPhone OS? Surely not!
To say Google are copying Apple because they are making phones and tablets is absurd. Unless you've been living in a cave for 10 years, tablets have been around for a LONG, LONG time. And I suspect phones even a tiny bit longer than that.
Computers called tablets have existed for a long time, but they have little in common with the tablets that are coming out now. The concept of the tablet running an OS and programs specifically designed for the tablet form factor is what Apple will popularize. Google did copy Apple to an extent with Android. Go look up what early Android concepts looked like, and then compare it to what exists now.
This article is talking about something that might be progressing beyond the conceptual stages. It could take two years before we ever see a Tablet from Google if ever.
The initiative appears to be progressing beyond the conceptual stages, with chief executive Eric Schmidt reportedly talking up the device to his friends during a recent party out in Los Angeles.
What follows the "talking it up to friends at parties" stage -- the doodles on the backs of envelopes stage?
BTW, when did Los Angeles turn into an "out" place? Last I checked, it was still part of the US.
Eric Schmidt, CEO of Google, was on the Apple Board. It seems to me that what they are doing is corporate espionage. He learned about these products (iPhone, iPad) while on Apple's Board, and then proceeded to expand Google's business form Search and web based/cloud software to hardware (indirectly, and perhaps now more directly) by promoting the Android OS and encouraging/working with hardware manufacturers (HTC and otheres, now Nokia).
So, the motto of Google is said to be "Do no evil"
- Google has scanned and made available copyrighted content without even attempting to pay proper royalties
- Google collect TONS of personal information about users, without their consent or knowledge
- Googles security has been compromised, exposing the TONS of personal information - and if any company has the resources to do security "right" it is Google
- Google's Eric Schmidt has stolen ideas and strategies form the Apple Board. He should have resigned form the board when it occurred to him that Google might go inthe direction of being an Apple competitor, instead he resigned only fairly recently after absorbing (stealing) as much from Apple as he could
Now the "Do no evil" company is fighting for control of the smartphone (Android), desktop (Chrome OS), and tablet business (Android).
Google's mode of business is SCARY, and exploitive.
I will and would take a little quality control, often referred to as censorship, at Apple's App store and in the allowable programming for the iPhone and iPad any day. At least there is at least some aspect and reason that is good for the consumer.
Google is the devil incarnate. I think when the phrase "Do no evil" was introduced, it was meant as a suggestion to others, so Google could proceed without competition in the execution of evil.
...see this story about Google's disrespect and evilness....
If open source meant success, the market share of Linux would have been more than Windows by now.
depends on the market you're talking about. In HPC, particularly the pieces of scientific computing I work a lot in, Linux is the rule of thumb and everything else is the exception.
Second off, you are telling me that Google doesn't know how to do anything other than a desktop search. So you don't think Gmail is very successful, or that Google Calendar is either? What about Google Docs? Google Voice?
Gmail, google docs, google voice, google calendar are all given free. People use because they are free. How many people actually pay for the paid version of google doc?
Google is successful not because it is innovative, but because it is giving everything free.
Comments
I don't think that iPhone OS will ever gain a dominant share because it is and will always be limited to one phone. I have plenty of friends who refuse to get an iPhone because everyone else has one. With Android, different manufacturers will develop different devices tailored to different tastes. .
Was it Dimaggio who said "no one ever goes there because it's too crowded"? Or was that Yogi Berra (not to be confused with Yogi Bear for you pre-teens).
The problem with your analogy, though, is that a thousand different varieties all running different versions makes it difficult for everyone. Developers never learn to use the full capabilities since they have to create lowest-common-denomenator versions. Users get confused when getting a new phone. Nothing works the same way. Apple has focused on one design and consistent UI - and seems to be doing very well. Will it ever be dominant? Depends on what you mean. It certainly has changed the way the entire industry thinks, though.
So, the motto of Google is said to be "Do no evil"
- Google has scanned and made available copyrighted content without even attempting to pay proper royalties
- Google collect TONS of personal information about users, without their consent or knowledge
- Googles security has been compromised, exposing the TONS of personal information - and if any company has the resources to do security "right" it is Google
- Google's Eric Schmidt has stolen ideas and strategies form the Apple Board. He should have resigned form the board when it occurred to him that Google might go inthe direction of being an Apple competitor, instead he resigned only fairly recently after absorbing (stealing) as much from Apple as he could
Google's mode of business is SCARY, and exploitive.
You're 100% right. In reality, they seem to be operating more along the lines of "do whatever you want, just try not to get caught doing evil".
But in the past, There were major updates in June. This year will be different - Apple is catching up to where Android was a while ago, rather than surpassing it with innovative new stuffs.
Bwaaahaaaaaa. Is it April Fools' Day already?
You apparently never get it. Apple is not in the game of 'my phone offers more features than your phone'. Rather, Apple is by far the leader in usability, reliability, and functionality, NOT features. Android has many, many miles to go to catch up in that regard.
Competition is not blatant duplication of another's idea. Where did you pick up such a warped philosophy?
Net neutrality is happy little phrase to make people feel good about a really bad concept.
As in all things in life, you should pay your own tab. You get charged for the phone minutes you use, why should the internet be any different? Hippies? Rainbows? Because you file share illegal stuff (the ONLY real world use for anonymous peer-to-peer swap protocols) and want everyone else to pay for it?.
Well said. If I use more medical services, I pay for it. If I eat more food, I pay for it. If I drive farther, I buy more gas.
Now, I'm not arguing that anyone should be forced to have different prices for different users. Nor should they be forbidden to do so. It should be just like any offering - the supplier should be free to offer whatever terms they wish and the consumer can choose to buy it or not to buy. If someone else comes out with something that the consumer likes better, the consumer will switch. No need for the government to decide what is best for me as a consumer. Personally, I don't like that fact that my cable bills keep going up every month because Cox has to keep spending more and more money to build enough infrastructure to satisfy the bittorrent crowd.
Funny how well Flash works when using hardware acceleration. Something I have been talking about for weeks now. Steve Jobs simply wants to control content, Flash isn't the issue. It was in the past and I admit Adobe didn't do much to help make Flash run better under OSX but that isn't the case now.
SJ is pushing his luck. Adobe could simply stop making the Create Suite to run under OSX.
I wondered how long it would take for this inane suggestion to hit this thread. Adobe would be committing suicide - and they know it.
As for Flash, of course Flash would work better with hardware acceleration. Why didn't Adobe use it? Apple's APIs would have allowed Adobe to use hardware acceleration, but Adobe stubbornly refused to use them. Just more of the same Adobe we've seen for a decade now - ignore the Mac (even when it accounted for 50% or more of revenues) and drive customers to Windows. Their actions over the last 10 years are coming back to haunt them. Time for them to grow up.
Motorola Droid Running Adobe Flash 10.1 Demoed
http://www.infosyncworld.com/news/n/10822.html
That's nice. So they've gotten around to creating a demo of their vaporware.
It MIGHT be out some day. But even when it does, there are several problems:
1. It's far too little, too late. Most major sites are already switching to html 5, css, and so on.
2. 10.1 is stil limited - and won't work with all Flash pages. So you have the worst of both worlds - suffer from all the instability and battery drain of Flash and still not be able to load your sites.
3. 10.1 on mobiles requires something like a Cortex 8 processor - which means that only about 0.1% of the smart phones on the market will be able to use it. 99.9% of smart phones will not be running Flash.
4. Even on a Cortex 8, performance is still sluggish and choppy.
5. Even if they get around those problems, that assumes that Adobe gets around to shipping it some time soon. They're already very late and have a history full of delays and missed promises.
That cute little demo is meaningless.
I was on the fence about waiting for v2 of the iPad - but if competition is ramping up sooner than expected, I will definitely wait a year or so to see what new hardware is being created for an Android-based device.
The trouble is, that by then some new Apple/Google/MS/??? hardware will be nearly ready for release and so you'll just hang on a bit longer to see what it's about. And just when you've made your mind up, you'll hear of the next killer product that will be released "real soon now".
This way madness lies, grasshopper ...
Do you mean "wary" eye? As in not turning one's back on Google for fear of being knifed?
I was just tired.....
Good call.
I wonder if Schmidt recused himself from iPad-related discussions while serving on Apple's board...?
Does anyone know the legal guidelines that bind a corporate board member, in terms of "firewalling" secrets revealed to them during their board tenure, lest they are liable for some type of confidentiality breach?
I feel that this issue of Schmidt/Apple board is overblown. Frankly, even if they waited to start their copiers until a formal announcement from Apple, Google could do the same thing with just a few months' lag.
oh gosh! spare us your twisted ideologies doc.
What part of my post did you find twisted?
My post was in response to someone who spouted off about socialism and hippies. I just don't think idealogical absolutes encourage thoughtful debate. Capitalism is the best economic system in existance. It is not a form of government. The op claims there is a cosmic link to the two. I would have responded to him but but he made so many assumptions and accusations about me that it seems pointless. Police, firefighters, military are not capitalist structures. They are funded and run pretty well, thanks in no small part to our capitalist economic system. Which brings me back to my point of idealogical absolutes harming thoughtful debate.I realize my statement "capitalism destroyed communism and now it's doing a number on democracy" is being seen as an attack on capitalism but I think it's more to just keep perspective. I guess some people do think we should privatize police firefighters and the military and I welcome thoughtful debate on those. But calling people socialists and hippies at the outset is lame in my opinion.
... I have plenty of friends who refuse to get an iPhone because everyone else has one.
It's a funny old world eh? I'd not imagined that people would actually reject a best product in any category (and I'm not specifically referring to the iPhone here) simply because it was too popular. Imagine, you spend your money on an inferior product so that less of your friends have one and you feel more special. Curiously, the reason that less of your friends and others I'd imagine own one is because it's inferior and they don't want to spend their money on it. How very circular.
Try doing the marketing campaign for that one
I have plenty of friends who refuse to get an iPhone because everyone else has one.
I'm sure then I'll spot them driving their Edsel's on the highway while their partner is using an MS Courier tablet running Microsoft BOB.
Google may have a bigger hill to climb than they thought...
http://finance.yahoo.com/news/German...73130.html?x=0
From the article:
The WePad, with its 11.6-inch screen, is powered by an Intel chip and relies on a Linux software basis which is compatible with Google's Android and all Flash applications, Ankershoffen said.
Android doesn't need to make money for a long, long time. All it needs in the short term is to show that it has more pull. Android-compatibility is as good as Android for Google right now.
Try doing the marketing campaign for that one
'Laptop Hunter'?
What next from Apple? Multi-tasking in iPhone OS? Surely not!
To say Google are copying Apple because they are making phones and tablets is absurd. Unless you've been living in a cave for 10 years, tablets have been around for a LONG, LONG time. And I suspect phones even a tiny bit longer than that.
Computers called tablets have existed for a long time, but they have little in common with the tablets that are coming out now. The concept of the tablet running an OS and programs specifically designed for the tablet form factor is what Apple will popularize. Google did copy Apple to an extent with Android. Go look up what early Android concepts looked like, and then compare it to what exists now.
Try doing the marketing campaign for that one
"Think Different".
Naw, that would never work.
This article is talking about something that might be progressing beyond the conceptual stages. It could take two years before we ever see a Tablet from Google if ever.
FINALLY, a voice of reason.
the newton didn't die - it got steved!
I think his exact words were something like, "We had to take it out back and put a bullet in its head."
The initiative appears to be progressing beyond the conceptual stages, with chief executive Eric Schmidt reportedly talking up the device to his friends during a recent party out in Los Angeles.
What follows the "talking it up to friends at parties" stage -- the doodles on the backs of envelopes stage?
BTW, when did Los Angeles turn into an "out" place? Last I checked, it was still part of the US.
Is this why no one bought iPods?
That's right. And it's also why "no one goes to that club anymore; it's way too crowded!"
If Android is any indication, exponential growth is what happens.
If Google can match the processing power and 10 hour battery life, this device will take off.
Android is open source and the Android market is an open market. This all leads to higher competition, which leads to better products.
And yet with few apps and games worth buying.
Eric Schmidt, CEO of Google, was on the Apple Board. It seems to me that what they are doing is corporate espionage. He learned about these products (iPhone, iPad) while on Apple's Board, and then proceeded to expand Google's business form Search and web based/cloud software to hardware (indirectly, and perhaps now more directly) by promoting the Android OS and encouraging/working with hardware manufacturers (HTC and otheres, now Nokia).
So, the motto of Google is said to be "Do no evil"
- Google has scanned and made available copyrighted content without even attempting to pay proper royalties
- Google collect TONS of personal information about users, without their consent or knowledge
- Googles security has been compromised, exposing the TONS of personal information - and if any company has the resources to do security "right" it is Google
- Google's Eric Schmidt has stolen ideas and strategies form the Apple Board. He should have resigned form the board when it occurred to him that Google might go inthe direction of being an Apple competitor, instead he resigned only fairly recently after absorbing (stealing) as much from Apple as he could
Now the "Do no evil" company is fighting for control of the smartphone (Android), desktop (Chrome OS), and tablet business (Android).
Google's mode of business is SCARY, and exploitive.
I will and would take a little quality control, often referred to as censorship, at Apple's App store and in the allowable programming for the iPhone and iPad any day. At least there is at least some aspect and reason that is good for the consumer.
Google is the devil incarnate. I think when the phrase "Do no evil" was introduced, it was meant as a suggestion to others, so Google could proceed without competition in the execution of evil.
...see this story about Google's disrespect and evilness....
http://www.macworld.com/article/1505...e_privacy.html
If open source meant success, the market share of Linux would have been more than Windows by now.
depends on the market you're talking about. In HPC, particularly the pieces of scientific computing I work a lot in, Linux is the rule of thumb and everything else is the exception.
Or is that the Droid, Magic, Desire, Hero or whatever.
How many people do you think are willing to buy a new Android phone every few months?
Second off, you are telling me that Google doesn't know how to do anything other than a desktop search. So you don't think Gmail is very successful, or that Google Calendar is either? What about Google Docs? Google Voice?
Gmail, google docs, google voice, google calendar are all given free. People use because they are free. How many people actually pay for the paid version of google doc?
Google is successful not because it is innovative, but because it is giving everything free.