Your points are valid and well thought out. But I guess what jfanning is trying to point out is that iPhones are expensive for a large number of earth's population.
Apple have simply gone after one segment of the market. The top.
As a strategy, it has not brought communication technology to the peoples of Africa.
Instead, all they have succeeded in doing is going from zero sales to becoming the most profitable handset manufacturer on the planet in three years. So I think they can live with that decision.
The iPhone retail cost *is* high, but its manufacturing cost is no higher, (and perhaps lower) than many of the would-be rival products. The lack of competition means there's no need for a price war yet. But if there were a price war, there's no evidence that Apple would lose it.
Apple have simply gone after one segment of the market. The top.
...
The lack of competition means there's no need for a price war yet. But if there were a price war, there's no evidence that Apple would lose it.
Yep. And the big question is, will they be able to maintain the big advantage (differentiator) that they currently have at the top or will it erode as others catch up. If it erodes, will Apple drop their price to compete or will the others increase their price to get a better profit.
So the question isn't really "will Apple lose a price war" rather than will they engage in one? To my knowledge (admittedly can be wrong) they never have. If so, they have to reinvent and innovate hard if the competition manages to catch up or even surpass Apple in the categories it is strong now (User experience, Ecosystem and 'sexyness'). The further we go, the more commodotised even the good UI phones become (assuming competition works). BTW, look at what made Nokia's market share grow so rapidly in the nineties->2000s and maintain customer satisfaction. Hint: It wasn't technical superiority (Ericsson had that).
The trouble with that line of reasoning is that the initial cost of a handset is just the smallest fraction of the cost of actually owning and operating a handset. Unless Nokia or Google or MS create their own wireless network or gett some kind of preferential deal with an existing wireless carrier (and why would they?), it's actually not possible for them to substantially undercut the iPhone's TCO.
Add to that the ever shifting subsidy picture (with iPhones being free with contract in some markets) and the "Apple doesn't compete on price" thing doesn't really apply.
And the big question is, will they be able to maintain the big advantage (differentiator) that they currently have at the top or will it erode as others catch up.
If it erodes, will Apple drop their price to compete or will the others increase their price to get a better profit.
I am not sure that argument is valid.
Microsoft's products have weakened in recent years. But the infrastructure associated with Windows made it unattractive for people to move to other platforms. Price and feature competition does not work very well with large infrastructures are in place.
The iTunes platform means that if a better phone comes along, current users may not be motivated to shift, if that means losing all the apps and music.
I'd argue that the Nokia, Samsung, HTC lock-ins don't work nearly so well in the opposite direction.
I am also not convinced that catching-up is a trivial and inevitable as you suggest. Apple's lead is nothing to do with hardware. The iPhone hardware is something anyone can build.
The real advantage is Cocoa,(previously known as NextStep). A lot of Apple's competitors look at the iPhone and simply see a Unix OS with a GUI on top. And declare, "we can do that". And they can! HTC made a very fancy GUI indeed.
But unless they create something as powerful as Cocoa - they (and their developers) remain at a disadvantage.
You know, I'm not sure if anyone has mentioned it before in this thread...
This news is extremely interesting, coming about a week after Sony-Ericsson announced a return to profitability.
Obviously, Nokia cannot blame their loss on Apple alone.
Personaly, I prefer SE phones ove Nokia for a number of reasons. And SE's "Greenheart" campaign seems to be a commercial as well as an environmental win.
The phone I currently have my eye on (waiting until it's further subsidized by my carrier) is the J10 Elm. WiFi, a 5MP camera and active noise cancellation in an inexpensive, slim, environmentally conscious candy-bar phone? Count me in!
I am also not convinced that catching-up is a trivial and inevitable as you suggest. Apple's lead is nothing to do with hardware. The iPhone hardware is something anyone can build.
...
But unless they create something as powerful as Cocoa - they (and their developers) remain at a disadvantage.
I didn't try to make it sound trivial. Far from it but I don't want to make it sound as if it were impossible either.
Now that you mentioned Cocoa, Nokia does have something similar -- Qt with a much broader target platform mix than Cocoa (at least: Windows, OSX, Symbian, Meego, WinMo). The developers of Angry Birds (a popular game on the iPhone) said that porting from iPhone to Maemo and Qt took all of three days! IF the majority of apps are that easy to convert to Nokia's development framework (coming in Symbian ^3, ^4 and Meego as the preferred development framework), why wouldn't Nokia and any other Meego or Symbian device have just as broad an application portfolio than the App Store?
Of course the App Store itself is another story.
This is the thing I haven't fully understood (even though some have pointed me to invormation on Coca) due to my lack of being a developer. Of all the apps in the App store, how many use features available in Cocoa that are not available in Qt. Or is Qt so similar feature wise that most apps can be ported directly. Or is it even a valid comparison? Nokia is clearly pushing for Qt and there's a lot of positive commentary on Qt. Is it "good enough"?
I didn't try to make it sound trivial. Far from it but I don't want to make it sound as if it were impossible either.
Now that you mentioned Cocoa, Nokia does have something similar -- Qt with a much broader target platform mix than Cocoa (at least: Windows, OSX, Symbian, Meego, WinMo). The developers of Angry Birds (a popular game on the iPhone) said that porting from iPhone to Maemo and Qt took all of three days! IF the majority of apps are that easy to convert to Nokia's development framework (coming in Symbian ^3, ^4 and Meego as the preferred development framework), why wouldn't Nokia and any other Meego or Symbian device have just as broad an application portfolio than the App Store?
The breadth of Nokia's hardware devices, and growing list of OSes creates a headache that demands a cross-platform solution. Apple don't face that problem. And so Cocoa and QT have quite different objectives.
A game is not a good example for looking at the power of Cocoa. I doubt if Angry Birds uses Cocoa at all. Cocoa solves issues relating to model/view/controller apps. Where users create and manipulate documents, or lists. A Twitter app might be a better example.
A valid comparison might be looking at a good twitter app on the iPhone and comparing it with a good twitter app on another platform.
Quote:
Originally Posted by jahonen
Of course the App Store itself is another story.
This is the thing I haven't fully understood (even though some have pointed me to invormation on Coca) due to my lack of being a developer. Of all the apps in the App store, how many use features available in Cocoa that are not available in Qt. Or is Qt so similar feature wise that most apps can be ported directly. Or is it even a valid comparison? Nokia is clearly pushing for Qt and there's a lot of positive commentary on Qt. Is it "good enough"?
I am not familiar enough with Qt to comment - but I am sceptical than any cross-platform software delivers the same quality of experience as software finely-tuned for a specific platform.
And so Cocoa and QT have quite different objectives.
Naturally that is true. Sort of Windows Vs. MacOS type of thing, but with a wider target OS selection.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Carniphage
A game is not a good example for looking at the power of Cocoa. I doubt if Angry Birds uses Cocoa at all. Cocoa solves issues relating to model/view/controller apps.
Like I said, I'm no developer. That's the only example I knew of at the moment.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Carniphage
A valid comparison might be looking at a good twitter app on the iPhone and comparing it with a good twitter app on another platform.
Or maybe one and the same app on iPhone and Qt?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Carniphage
I am not familiar enough with Qt to comment - but I am sceptical than any cross-platform software delivers the same quality of experience as software finely-tuned for a specific platform.
Wouldn't that be a matter of the compiler rather than the higher level APIs? Or am I totally lost?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Carniphage
What would you say best demonstrates Qt?
Sorry, I don't know what would be a "good" example (as I don't know what makes one good). I do know that for example Google Earth , Skype, VLC and Opera use it and Opera for example is pretty good at performance. How much of it is Qt, I've got no idea. But would be interesting to understand more.
Naturally that is true. Sort of Windows Vs. MacOS type of thing, but with a wider target OS selection.
The purpose of Cocoa is not to provide a single programming interface across differing devices. It is simply, as far as I know, to accelerate the development of software. For instance, Cocoa Touch apps don't work on Mac OS X or vice versa.
The purpose of QT, as far as I can tell, is to offer a single development surface, which targets all manner of different devices.
Apple are markedly hostile to such tools. There's a philosophical belief that the software has to be engineered for the device. Hence the seemingly arbitrary ban on interpreters and multi-platform tools.
Quote:
Originally Posted by jahonen
(on comparing outcomes)
Or maybe one and the same app on iPhone and Qt?
I don't know any, but there must be some.
Quote:
Originally Posted by jahonen
(on quality of software)Wouldn't that be a matter of the compiler rather than the higher level APIs? Or am I totally lost?
I would not think so. Programmers using Cocoa, for example, will get their scrolling handled by a graphics system which exploits the GPU in the phone. This is why the iPhone scrolling is so fast and smooth. The GPU is doing all the heavy lifting. This is for free. The programmer does not have to do anything to make use of it. The handling of keyboard input, error correction, auto-capitalisation, cut and paste - all come for free when using the Cocoa user interface elements. The programmer gets a lot of this, just by dragging the Cocoa widget onto a screen in Interface Builder.
Quote:
Originally Posted by jahonen
Sorry, I don't know what would be a "good" example (as I don't know what makes one good). I do know that for example Google Earth , Skype, VLC and Opera use it and Opera for example is pretty good at performance. How much of it is Qt, I've got no idea. But would be interesting to understand more.
I agree. A fair test would be finding a programmer who has invested a similar amount of time in a Cocoa Touch app - and a QT app. And then comparing the performance and usability of both applications. Of course we'd need a programmer who was equally proficient in both technologies.
In the past, I have heard some tales of woe from Symbian developers, who had to cope with variations in screen-size, variations in input method, and variations in Symbian's OS.
In the past, I have heard some tales of woe from Symbian developers, who had to cope with variations in screen-size, variations in input method, and variations in Symbian's OS.
Perhaps QT solves those issues.
C.
Symbian is a steaming pile...
The only reason they have not got rid of it, was the existing app ecosystem.
Having Qt and a half-decent browser on Symbian now should pave the way to finally put it down and switch to a Unix-based OS, which they already have in place..
So, crappy Symbian has some apps, Maemo (superb IMHO) has hardly any. I hope three years would be enough to make the switch.
AFAIK, Symbian is mostly used on their business phones, so they can't be flexible about the OS there, until the problems are solved
UI wise, OS wise or development wise? Most of the complaints I've seen are about the app development environment (fixed with Qt) and UI (fixed with ^3 and ^4). What's wrong with the actual OS (here I am truly ignorant and thus asking)? It's had multitasking for I guess a decade, supports all current phone tech (including touch nowdays) and many (possibly falsely) claim that it's the best mobile OS. It's just that I haven't seen any proper comparison on the matter (other than UI or App development related). Nokia is not going to ditch Symbian quite yet.
Maemo (now meego) on the other hand is still a beta version. Nokia didn't believe their "geek toy" N900 would sell so well and did hardly any marketing. It was never meant as a volume device for the masses, mainly just a tech test platform for geeks and Nokia themselves. They've been public about this plan for a long time. They have a 5 step plan with increasing feature sets per version. N900 is the 4th Maemo device. The 5th device (this year) has been planned as the 1st mass-market device and after that a normal mass-market roadmap and support map.
With your other points, I agree.
Regs, Jarkko
P.S. I do not work for Nokia, never have. All this data is from public sources.
Still desperate attempts to use semantics to try to obfuscate the point. I don't need to give a list for us to know its true from perusing the tech blogs (not Nokia fan sites). The N900 is half baked, E72 is mired in early 2008, the N8 looks to be off to a bad start... I could go on.
Quote:
Originally Posted by jfanning
you talk about profit, as a consumer the last thing on my mind when purchasing something is which item will gain the greatest profit for the manufacturer. My decisions are based on what provides the best value for money for me, and me alone. My defense of Nokia is no different than my defense of the Apple products that I have purchased. Nokia's pricing structure is an indication that their market share will continue to stay at the high levels that they are currently are. Remember, the majority of the worlds population cannot afford a phone with a average selling price of US$600
I was never talking about consumers, just the viability of Apple and Nokia as companies. Again you try to change the debate because answering directly is impossible without conceding the point.
Anyway to your wandering point, consumers don't pay the $600 ASP since most phones are subsidized by carriers. Since most Nokia phones aren't even on US carriers, the irony is that many Nokia models are more expensive in cash terms than subsidized iPhones (starting at $99).
I don't debate Nokia's role in the market, or right to exist, just its relative economic weakness despite the posturing of Nokia management. Let Nokia make cheap phones just don't pretend they yet truly compete in the economically and technologically important end of the market.
UI wise, OS wise or development wise? Most of the complaints I've seen are about the app development environment (fixed with Qt) and UI (fixed with ^3 and ^4).
Maemo (now meego) on the other hand is still a beta version. Nokia didn't believe their "geek toy" N900 would sell so well and did hardly any marketing.
^3 does not seem to be "fixed" according to early reviews and certainly not against the future competing OS that will be released and on devices before ^3 devices ever see the light of day (Q3). iPhone 4.0, Android 2.2 Froyo (maybe even BB6.0) all seem to do a better job of UI than ^3. By the time ^4 arrives, it may be terminal for Symbian.
We'll see about Meego - it truly is Nokia's last chance before it becomes an OS purchaser (Palm) or a licensee (Android). All their competition either has lower costs because Google or MS do all the work or do OS dev and support better (Apple). That sounds like a rock and a hard place to me.
^3 does not seem to be "fixed" according to early reviews and certainly not against the future competing OS that will be released and on devices before ^3 devices ever see the light of day (Q3). iPhone 4.0, Android 2.2 Froyo (maybe even BB6.0) all seem to do a better job of UI than ^3. By the time ^4 arrives, it may be terminal for Symbian.
Was that the early review of a pre-released "misplaced" phone?
Still desperate attempts to use semantics to try to obfuscate the point. I don't need to give a list for us to know its true from perusing the tech blogs (not Nokia fan sites). The N900 is half baked, E72 is mired in early 2008, the N8 looks to be off to a bad start... I could go on.
I wouldn't really take that "review" of the N8 at face value.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Capnbob
I was never talking about consumers, just the viability of Apple and Nokia as companies. Again you try to change the debate because answering directly is impossible without conceding the point.
I didn't change the debate, I stated an opinion, and opinion that just happens to be correct. Apple may be more profitable, do I care, no, I don't own shares in them, so my point of view is that of a consumer.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Capnbob
Anyway to your wandering point, consumers don't pay the $600 ASP since most phones are subsidized by carriers. Since most Nokia phones aren't even on US carriers, the irony is that many Nokia models are more expensive in cash terms than subsidized iPhones (starting at $99).
Oh yes, the "I don't pay for the phone" thought, it must be nice that AT&T doesn't make you pay a monthly fee, or fix you into a termed agreement...
As I don't live in the US, the fact that Nokia phones are not on the US carriers doesn't concern me one bit, if you wanted one they are very easy to come by.
And I am confused by your statement that "many" Nokia phones are more expensive than an iPhone, yet on this site we are constantly told that most of Nokia's phones are "throwaway", so which is it? Or are you comparing the full price of one phone to the subsidised price of another?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Capnbob
I don't debate Nokia's role in the market, or right to exist, just its relative economic weakness despite the posturing of Nokia management. Let Nokia make cheap phones just don't pretend they yet truly compete in the economically and technologically important end of the market.
As I don't live in the US, the fact that Nokia phones are not on the US carriers doesn't concern me one bit, if you wanted one they are very easy to come by.
I live in the UK, and here Nokia phones are available alongside iPhones.
The high-end N-series are comparably priced.
If you look at Nokia's own numbers the picture is clear. They are selling a lot of low-end smartphones. (and that number is increasing all the time driving up the marketshare number)
But the N-series phones ( the ones pitched in the same market as the iPhone) are collapsing in sales.
It's this problem that people are picking up on. Nokia does not commercially seem to be offering a competitive product in this segment of the market. Repeatedly Nokia's management have made broad swipes at the iPhone, and have suggesting that they would soon introduce some change which would allow them to recapture this market sector.
But there's a difference between words and actions.
I live in the UK, and here Nokia phones are available alongside iPhones.
The high-end N-series are comparably priced.
If you look at Nokia's own numbers the picture is clear. They are selling a lot of low-end smartphones. (and that number is increasing all the time driving up the marketshare number)
But the N-series phones ( the ones pitched in the same market as the iPhone) are collapsing in sales.
It's this problem that people are picking up on. Nokia does not commercially seem to be offering a competitive product in this segment of the market. Repeatedly Nokia's management have made broad swipes at the iPhone, and have suggesting that they would soon introduce some change which would allow them to recapture this market sector.
But there's a difference between words and actions.
C.
That's a nice speech, probably all true, but I'm not sure how it relates to my statement that Nokia phones are available to people in the US if they wished to purchase one.
That's a nice speech, probably all true, but I'm not sure how it relates to my statement that Nokia phones are available to people in the US if they wished to purchase one.
They certainly are available.
And people certainly don't seem to wish to purchase them.
Comments
Your points are valid and well thought out. But I guess what jfanning is trying to point out is that iPhones are expensive for a large number of earth's population.
Apple have simply gone after one segment of the market. The top.
As a strategy, it has not brought communication technology to the peoples of Africa.
Instead, all they have succeeded in doing is going from zero sales to becoming the most profitable handset manufacturer on the planet in three years. So I think they can live with that decision.
The iPhone retail cost *is* high, but its manufacturing cost is no higher, (and perhaps lower) than many of the would-be rival products. The lack of competition means there's no need for a price war yet. But if there were a price war, there's no evidence that Apple would lose it.
C.
Apple have simply gone after one segment of the market. The top.
...
The lack of competition means there's no need for a price war yet. But if there were a price war, there's no evidence that Apple would lose it.
Yep. And the big question is, will they be able to maintain the big advantage (differentiator) that they currently have at the top or will it erode as others catch up. If it erodes, will Apple drop their price to compete or will the others increase their price to get a better profit.
So the question isn't really "will Apple lose a price war" rather than will they engage in one? To my knowledge (admittedly can be wrong) they never have. If so, they have to reinvent and innovate hard if the competition manages to catch up or even surpass Apple in the categories it is strong now (User experience, Ecosystem and 'sexyness'). The further we go, the more commodotised even the good UI phones become (assuming competition works). BTW, look at what made Nokia's market share grow so rapidly in the nineties->2000s and maintain customer satisfaction. Hint: It wasn't technical superiority (Ericsson had that).
Regs, Jarkko
Regs, Jarkko
Add to that the ever shifting subsidy picture (with iPhones being free with contract in some markets) and the "Apple doesn't compete on price" thing doesn't really apply.
And the big question is, will they be able to maintain the big advantage (differentiator) that they currently have at the top or will it erode as others catch up.
If it erodes, will Apple drop their price to compete or will the others increase their price to get a better profit.
I am not sure that argument is valid.
Microsoft's products have weakened in recent years. But the infrastructure associated with Windows made it unattractive for people to move to other platforms. Price and feature competition does not work very well with large infrastructures are in place.
The iTunes platform means that if a better phone comes along, current users may not be motivated to shift, if that means losing all the apps and music.
I'd argue that the Nokia, Samsung, HTC lock-ins don't work nearly so well in the opposite direction.
I am also not convinced that catching-up is a trivial and inevitable as you suggest. Apple's lead is nothing to do with hardware. The iPhone hardware is something anyone can build.
The real advantage is Cocoa,(previously known as NextStep). A lot of Apple's competitors look at the iPhone and simply see a Unix OS with a GUI on top. And declare, "we can do that". And they can! HTC made a very fancy GUI indeed.
But unless they create something as powerful as Cocoa - they (and their developers) remain at a disadvantage.
C.
This news is extremely interesting, coming about a week after Sony-Ericsson announced a return to profitability.
Obviously, Nokia cannot blame their loss on Apple alone.
Personaly, I prefer SE phones ove Nokia for a number of reasons. And SE's "Greenheart" campaign seems to be a commercial as well as an environmental win.
The phone I currently have my eye on (waiting until it's further subsidized by my carrier) is the J10 Elm. WiFi, a 5MP camera and active noise cancellation in an inexpensive, slim, environmentally conscious candy-bar phone? Count me in!
I am also not convinced that catching-up is a trivial and inevitable as you suggest. Apple's lead is nothing to do with hardware. The iPhone hardware is something anyone can build.
...
But unless they create something as powerful as Cocoa - they (and their developers) remain at a disadvantage.
I didn't try to make it sound trivial. Far from it but I don't want to make it sound as if it were impossible either.
Now that you mentioned Cocoa, Nokia does have something similar -- Qt with a much broader target platform mix than Cocoa (at least: Windows, OSX, Symbian, Meego, WinMo). The developers of Angry Birds (a popular game on the iPhone) said that porting from iPhone to Maemo and Qt took all of three days! IF the majority of apps are that easy to convert to Nokia's development framework (coming in Symbian ^3, ^4 and Meego as the preferred development framework), why wouldn't Nokia and any other Meego or Symbian device have just as broad an application portfolio than the App Store?
Of course the App Store itself is another story.
This is the thing I haven't fully understood (even though some have pointed me to invormation on Coca) due to my lack of being a developer. Of all the apps in the App store, how many use features available in Cocoa that are not available in Qt. Or is Qt so similar feature wise that most apps can be ported directly. Or is it even a valid comparison? Nokia is clearly pushing for Qt and there's a lot of positive commentary on Qt. Is it "good enough"?
Regs, Jarkko
I didn't try to make it sound trivial. Far from it but I don't want to make it sound as if it were impossible either.
Now that you mentioned Cocoa, Nokia does have something similar -- Qt with a much broader target platform mix than Cocoa (at least: Windows, OSX, Symbian, Meego, WinMo). The developers of Angry Birds (a popular game on the iPhone) said that porting from iPhone to Maemo and Qt took all of three days! IF the majority of apps are that easy to convert to Nokia's development framework (coming in Symbian ^3, ^4 and Meego as the preferred development framework), why wouldn't Nokia and any other Meego or Symbian device have just as broad an application portfolio than the App Store?
The breadth of Nokia's hardware devices, and growing list of OSes creates a headache that demands a cross-platform solution. Apple don't face that problem. And so Cocoa and QT have quite different objectives.
A game is not a good example for looking at the power of Cocoa. I doubt if Angry Birds uses Cocoa at all. Cocoa solves issues relating to model/view/controller apps. Where users create and manipulate documents, or lists. A Twitter app might be a better example.
A valid comparison might be looking at a good twitter app on the iPhone and comparing it with a good twitter app on another platform.
Of course the App Store itself is another story.
This is the thing I haven't fully understood (even though some have pointed me to invormation on Coca) due to my lack of being a developer. Of all the apps in the App store, how many use features available in Cocoa that are not available in Qt. Or is Qt so similar feature wise that most apps can be ported directly. Or is it even a valid comparison? Nokia is clearly pushing for Qt and there's a lot of positive commentary on Qt. Is it "good enough"?
I am not familiar enough with Qt to comment - but I am sceptical than any cross-platform software delivers the same quality of experience as software finely-tuned for a specific platform.
What would you say best demonstrates Qt?
C.
And so Cocoa and QT have quite different objectives.
Naturally that is true. Sort of Windows Vs. MacOS type of thing, but with a wider target OS selection.
A game is not a good example for looking at the power of Cocoa. I doubt if Angry Birds uses Cocoa at all. Cocoa solves issues relating to model/view/controller apps.
Like I said, I'm no developer. That's the only example I knew of at the moment.
A valid comparison might be looking at a good twitter app on the iPhone and comparing it with a good twitter app on another platform.
Or maybe one and the same app on iPhone and Qt?
I am not familiar enough with Qt to comment - but I am sceptical than any cross-platform software delivers the same quality of experience as software finely-tuned for a specific platform.
Wouldn't that be a matter of the compiler rather than the higher level APIs? Or am I totally lost?
What would you say best demonstrates Qt?
Sorry, I don't know what would be a "good" example (as I don't know what makes one good). I do know that for example Google Earth , Skype, VLC and Opera use it and Opera for example is pretty good at performance. How much of it is Qt, I've got no idea. But would be interesting to understand more.
Regs, Jarkko
Naturally that is true. Sort of Windows Vs. MacOS type of thing, but with a wider target OS selection.
The purpose of Cocoa is not to provide a single programming interface across differing devices. It is simply, as far as I know, to accelerate the development of software. For instance, Cocoa Touch apps don't work on Mac OS X or vice versa.
The purpose of QT, as far as I can tell, is to offer a single development surface, which targets all manner of different devices.
Apple are markedly hostile to such tools. There's a philosophical belief that the software has to be engineered for the device. Hence the seemingly arbitrary ban on interpreters and multi-platform tools.
(on comparing outcomes)
Or maybe one and the same app on iPhone and Qt?
I don't know any, but there must be some.
(on quality of software)Wouldn't that be a matter of the compiler rather than the higher level APIs? Or am I totally lost?
I would not think so. Programmers using Cocoa, for example, will get their scrolling handled by a graphics system which exploits the GPU in the phone. This is why the iPhone scrolling is so fast and smooth. The GPU is doing all the heavy lifting. This is for free. The programmer does not have to do anything to make use of it. The handling of keyboard input, error correction, auto-capitalisation, cut and paste - all come for free when using the Cocoa user interface elements. The programmer gets a lot of this, just by dragging the Cocoa widget onto a screen in Interface Builder.
Sorry, I don't know what would be a "good" example (as I don't know what makes one good). I do know that for example Google Earth , Skype, VLC and Opera use it and Opera for example is pretty good at performance. How much of it is Qt, I've got no idea. But would be interesting to understand more.
I agree. A fair test would be finding a programmer who has invested a similar amount of time in a Cocoa Touch app - and a QT app. And then comparing the performance and usability of both applications. Of course we'd need a programmer who was equally proficient in both technologies.
In the past, I have heard some tales of woe from Symbian developers, who had to cope with variations in screen-size, variations in input method, and variations in Symbian's OS.
Perhaps QT solves those issues.
C.
In the past, I have heard some tales of woe from Symbian developers, who had to cope with variations in screen-size, variations in input method, and variations in Symbian's OS.
Perhaps QT solves those issues.
C.
Symbian is a steaming pile...
The only reason they have not got rid of it, was the existing app ecosystem.
Having Qt and a half-decent browser on Symbian now should pave the way to finally put it down and switch to a Unix-based OS, which they already have in place..
So, crappy Symbian has some apps, Maemo (superb IMHO) has hardly any. I hope three years would be enough to make the switch.
AFAIK, Symbian is mostly used on their business phones, so they can't be flexible about the OS there, until the problems are solved
Dan
Symbian is a steaming pile...
UI wise, OS wise or development wise? Most of the complaints I've seen are about the app development environment (fixed with Qt) and UI (fixed with ^3 and ^4). What's wrong with the actual OS (here I am truly ignorant and thus asking)? It's had multitasking for I guess a decade, supports all current phone tech (including touch nowdays) and many (possibly falsely) claim that it's the best mobile OS. It's just that I haven't seen any proper comparison on the matter (other than UI or App development related). Nokia is not going to ditch Symbian quite yet.
Maemo (now meego) on the other hand is still a beta version. Nokia didn't believe their "geek toy" N900 would sell so well and did hardly any marketing. It was never meant as a volume device for the masses, mainly just a tech test platform for geeks and Nokia themselves. They've been public about this plan for a long time. They have a 5 step plan with increasing feature sets per version. N900 is the 4th Maemo device. The 5th device (this year) has been planned as the 1st mass-market device and after that a normal mass-market roadmap and support map.
With your other points, I agree.
Regs, Jarkko
P.S. I do not work for Nokia, never have. All this data is from public sources.
Most phones, yet you only list one.
Still desperate attempts to use semantics to try to obfuscate the point. I don't need to give a list for us to know its true from perusing the tech blogs (not Nokia fan sites). The N900 is half baked, E72 is mired in early 2008, the N8 looks to be off to a bad start... I could go on.
you talk about profit, as a consumer the last thing on my mind when purchasing something is which item will gain the greatest profit for the manufacturer. My decisions are based on what provides the best value for money for me, and me alone. My defense of Nokia is no different than my defense of the Apple products that I have purchased. Nokia's pricing structure is an indication that their market share will continue to stay at the high levels that they are currently are. Remember, the majority of the worlds population cannot afford a phone with a average selling price of US$600
I was never talking about consumers, just the viability of Apple and Nokia as companies. Again you try to change the debate because answering directly is impossible without conceding the point.
Anyway to your wandering point, consumers don't pay the $600 ASP since most phones are subsidized by carriers. Since most Nokia phones aren't even on US carriers, the irony is that many Nokia models are more expensive in cash terms than subsidized iPhones (starting at $99).
I don't debate Nokia's role in the market, or right to exist, just its relative economic weakness despite the posturing of Nokia management. Let Nokia make cheap phones just don't pretend they yet truly compete in the economically and technologically important end of the market.
UI wise, OS wise or development wise? Most of the complaints I've seen are about the app development environment (fixed with Qt) and UI (fixed with ^3 and ^4).
Maemo (now meego) on the other hand is still a beta version. Nokia didn't believe their "geek toy" N900 would sell so well and did hardly any marketing.
^3 does not seem to be "fixed" according to early reviews and certainly not against the future competing OS that will be released and on devices before ^3 devices ever see the light of day (Q3). iPhone 4.0, Android 2.2 Froyo (maybe even BB6.0) all seem to do a better job of UI than ^3. By the time ^4 arrives, it may be terminal for Symbian.
We'll see about Meego - it truly is Nokia's last chance before it becomes an OS purchaser (Palm) or a licensee (Android). All their competition either has lower costs because Google or MS do all the work or do OS dev and support better (Apple). That sounds like a rock and a hard place to me.
^3 does not seem to be "fixed" according to early reviews and certainly not against the future competing OS that will be released and on devices before ^3 devices ever see the light of day (Q3). iPhone 4.0, Android 2.2 Froyo (maybe even BB6.0) all seem to do a better job of UI than ^3. By the time ^4 arrives, it may be terminal for Symbian.
Was that the early review of a pre-released "misplaced" phone?
Still desperate attempts to use semantics to try to obfuscate the point. I don't need to give a list for us to know its true from perusing the tech blogs (not Nokia fan sites). The N900 is half baked, E72 is mired in early 2008, the N8 looks to be off to a bad start... I could go on.
I wouldn't really take that "review" of the N8 at face value.
I was never talking about consumers, just the viability of Apple and Nokia as companies. Again you try to change the debate because answering directly is impossible without conceding the point.
I didn't change the debate, I stated an opinion, and opinion that just happens to be correct. Apple may be more profitable, do I care, no, I don't own shares in them, so my point of view is that of a consumer.
Anyway to your wandering point, consumers don't pay the $600 ASP since most phones are subsidized by carriers. Since most Nokia phones aren't even on US carriers, the irony is that many Nokia models are more expensive in cash terms than subsidized iPhones (starting at $99).
Oh yes, the "I don't pay for the phone" thought, it must be nice that AT&T doesn't make you pay a monthly fee, or fix you into a termed agreement...
As I don't live in the US, the fact that Nokia phones are not on the US carriers doesn't concern me one bit, if you wanted one they are very easy to come by.
And I am confused by your statement that "many" Nokia phones are more expensive than an iPhone, yet on this site we are constantly told that most of Nokia's phones are "throwaway", so which is it? Or are you comparing the full price of one phone to the subsidised price of another?
I don't debate Nokia's role in the market, or right to exist, just its relative economic weakness despite the posturing of Nokia management. Let Nokia make cheap phones just don't pretend they yet truly compete in the economically and technologically important end of the market.
ok...
As I don't live in the US, the fact that Nokia phones are not on the US carriers doesn't concern me one bit, if you wanted one they are very easy to come by.
I live in the UK, and here Nokia phones are available alongside iPhones.
The high-end N-series are comparably priced.
If you look at Nokia's own numbers the picture is clear. They are selling a lot of low-end smartphones. (and that number is increasing all the time driving up the marketshare number)
But the N-series phones ( the ones pitched in the same market as the iPhone) are collapsing in sales.
It's this problem that people are picking up on. Nokia does not commercially seem to be offering a competitive product in this segment of the market. Repeatedly Nokia's management have made broad swipes at the iPhone, and have suggesting that they would soon introduce some change which would allow them to recapture this market sector.
But there's a difference between words and actions.
C.
I live in the UK, and here Nokia phones are available alongside iPhones.
The high-end N-series are comparably priced.
If you look at Nokia's own numbers the picture is clear. They are selling a lot of low-end smartphones. (and that number is increasing all the time driving up the marketshare number)
But the N-series phones ( the ones pitched in the same market as the iPhone) are collapsing in sales.
It's this problem that people are picking up on. Nokia does not commercially seem to be offering a competitive product in this segment of the market. Repeatedly Nokia's management have made broad swipes at the iPhone, and have suggesting that they would soon introduce some change which would allow them to recapture this market sector.
But there's a difference between words and actions.
C.
That's a nice speech, probably all true, but I'm not sure how it relates to my statement that Nokia phones are available to people in the US if they wished to purchase one.
That's a nice speech, probably all true, but I'm not sure how it relates to my statement that Nokia phones are available to people in the US if they wished to purchase one.
They certainly are available.
And people certainly don't seem to wish to purchase them.
C.
They certainly are available.
And people certainly don't seem to wish to purchase them.
C.
So you are saying Nokia has zero sales in the high end market?
So you are saying Nokia has zero sales in the high end market?
This graph is interesting.
It shows Nokia's robust performance with converged devices (aka-Smartphones)
But look at the N-Series line.
C.