Remember this is an Apple site, the definition of an invention is who made it popular, not who developed it.
LOL, this made me laugh so hard. It's much the same as how no one in the world would ever want a certain feature until Apple puts in it one of their devices, and suddenly it's the most desirable feature
No one would ever want to:
*Run Windows on a Mac
*Play games on a Mac
*Send MMS on an iPhone
*Record video on an iPhone
etc etc etc etc etc etc the list is probably endless.
12 megapixel camera? Er. So what? With a sensor that small in a smartphone...
Except you'd be wrong. This one's got a bigger sensor than the Nikon and Canon P&Ss. Also take a look at the services on offer and development environment (Qt).
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lemon Bon Bon.
(Noticed the pinch to make photos bigger...yeesh, let's copy Apple, eh?)
Just like everyone else -- Yes. Much like Apple copying the multitasking UI from Symbian?
All people are trying to say is that the competition is toughening up. Does Apple have enough of a head start or can it innovate quickly enough to retain the price difference? That's where the interesting stuff is (how will they do it). Hardware wise competition has surpassed Apple, UX wise they are catching up. Development environment wise (big player in the ecosystem) same story. Multitasking wise, been ahead for a long time. So what next from Apple to keep the big lead?
Why do people keep looking at Verizon to continue the iPhone's growth? The US is 5% of the world's population. And while the largest economy today, that won't be true in a decade or two. And given the state of the US economy and their public finances, you can bet that disposable incomes are going anywhere but up. Meanwhile, the rest of the world has far more experience with smartphones, a faster growing smartphone market and rising disposable income. Apple would be wise to look outside the US for its future. Verizon is nothing compared to the long term potential of an Indian or Chinese telco. And these are places where Nokia has had first mover advantage and lots of name recognition. Apple's got their work cut out for them there.
It's terrible. Clunky. It has the elegance of a farmer's daughter doing a cat walk.
12 megapixel camera? Er. So what? With a sensor that small in a smartphone, I doubt you'll notice that much difference between it and a 5 megapixel camera for casual photograph taking. I dunno. Get a Nikon if you want to do 12 megapixels? (Noticed the pinch to make photos bigger...yeesh, let's copy Apple, eh?)
200K apps. A great browser. An elegant UI. The best mobile OS on the planet. Superior hardware design. All the things Apple's iPhone has.
N8? *Shrugs. Is that all they've got?
Not impressed.
I await the iPhone HD with great interest.
Lemon Bon Bon.
You should actually check out the actual shots from the camera, they are stunning. It is easy to get carried away with the number of Mpix, which of course says nothing about quality. The sensor in the N8 is on par with compact cameras. You will definitely notice a difference between a 5Mpix and 12MPix especially if you put it out over the HDMI connector to you HD TV. You need a good 8Mpix + for it to look really crisp on a HD TV. And the price of the N8 is about E380 before taxes and subsidies.
Of course if you have your Nixon on you then this will take better pictures, however, you do not always have that or your HD camcorder. You are likely to have your phone, so you don't miss the moment and can re-live it in great quality.
As a developer myself, I'd rather develop for Qt (the application framework used by the new version of Symbian) than Cocoa. It's less quirky and more powerful.
And let's not forget that Symbian invented the term 'smartphone'. If you've got a problem with them defining a smartphone as any phone running Symbian, then the problem is with you, not them.
As a developer I prefer Cocoa.
I won't debate quirky between C++ and ObjC. C++, by definition, is the epitome of over engineering.
Qt tries to make development for MVC straight forward, by actually mimicking much of the NeXT/Apple Cocoa design patterns.
All people are trying to say is that the competition is toughening up. Does Apple have enough of a head start or can it innovate quickly enough to retain the price difference? That's where the interesting stuff is (how will they do it). Hardware wise competition has surpassed Apple, UX wise they are catching up. Development environment wise (big player in the ecosystem) same story. Multitasking wise, been ahead for a long time. So what next from Apple to keep the big lead?
Apple changed this game when they introduced an SDK and Apps that people download and use by the billions; they've already passed 200K Apps in the Store, and will be passing 5 billion downloads sometime this month. Thus, Apple only has to add a few foundational type things to the OS and hardware every year, while their App developers add lots more functionality faster than for any other family of devices out there. (Some people say that 30-40K apps is all you need, but that's because they lack imagination and think everyone in the world lives lives that are just as narrow as theirs.)
For all its models, iPhone has lacked features compared to the best-featured phones out there. But iPhone competed with them with its super-responsive multi-touch, a complete simplification of the already-existing touch UI, and easy-to-use PC/Mac syncing (which was natural to iPod users). With the help of AT&T, Apple also changed the relationship of handset manufacturers with the carriers. Then, Apple added the one-click super-easy-to-use App Store (alongside the familiar iTunes Store). iPhone doesn't claim to be the first in including features, and yet it still has turned the industry upside-down.
And so now it's a platform game, not just a handset game. It's not just about the hardware and OS, but also the software apps and SDK. It's not just about the manufacturer creating capabilities for the device, but also the developers creating many more capabilities. When someone buys a smartphone, they're also buying into a platform.
This platform is what Microsoft used to surge to dominance and profit in PCs. Apple has altered the MS model a bit by also selling the hardware for the platform. Why will this difference not hurt Apple? Because although there were many PC hardware makers building PCs, few of them (Sony, Intel) innovated under Windows, rather it was Microsoft and software developers (and Apple) that drove most of the possible innovations for the PC. All the PC makers other than Apple have reaped ever smaller profits as commoditization drove their PC business into losses - only Microsoft consistently has profited. History is littered with PC makers - Olivetti, AT&T, Packard Bell, Gateway, eMachines, Compaq, IBM, etc - that either went kaput or sold out just before. HP and Dell avoided this fate by making sure PCs were just a low-profit component of their higher-profit enterprise services/sales (and Dell not so successfully); Sony downsized its PC operations into a few laptops and focused on other consumer electronics. And that's likely what will happen to most handset makers that don't own their platform.
What does this have to do with Apple and phones? Apple, the master of misdirection, has the dumber analysts, bloggers, and companies all focused on the next phone's hardware features and using that as the measuring stick with other handsets, while it quietly but in broad daylight (what's the focus of every iPhone ad?) builds its platform, and provides more and more tools and basic functionality to its still-growing cast of software and peripheral developers.
Unlike the others, Nokia, HP (as we have seen this week), Google and Adobe have looked at history and know what Apple is doing. Nokia is focused for now on selling lower-end/cost smartphones into developing markets while it tries to get its high-end handset and platforms (including Ovi Store) into competitive shape. HP just bought Palm because they know they need to own an OS and platform. Google owns a platform, but in exchange for eyeballs, looks to have ceded all control over it to handset makers and carriers, who would rather momentarily lock users into their sub-par offerings that are layered on top of Android until its time to sell the next expensive phone or two-year contract. Seeing the importance of platform control, Adobe just fought tooth and nail for control via an intermediate layer on the iPhone platform, but had to concede and turn to Google. And even Amazon and Samsung are building platforms.
One more clue. What are the two most important events in the iPhone universe? The iPhone SDK upgrade event in March, and WWDC. Who are those for primarily? The developers.
You want to know where the Apple lead is? Look first as to what's in the OS and SDK, including the quality of the implementation (because it's a foundation for other developers, so once it's out there, it's not so easy to change - see MS Windows for lessons of what not to do). Measure the lead by not only handset sales, but Apps available worldwide, and Apps downloaded (and to a lesser degree, by iTunes content and peripheral/accessories sales).
You want to know where the Apple lead is? Look first as to what's in the OS and SDK, including the quality of the implementation (because it's a foundation for other developers, so once it's out there, it's not so easy to change - see MS Windows for lessons of what not to do). Measure the lead by not only handset sales, but Apps available worldwide, and Apps downloaded (and to a lesser degree, by iTunes content and peripheral/accessories sales).
Thanks for the good post. That's precisely what I think as well and that seems to be precisely what Nokia is aiming at as well. I see a lot of people either critisizing Nokia for the UI, being hardware centric or having multiple OSs (fragmentation). Almost no-one seemts to take a look at the plans for the ecosystem or they dismiss it with comments like "Symbian is a pile of..." or "Multiple target is inferior to Apple" etc.
If you look at what they have stated and just now starting to ship is an ecosystem that potentially makes the underlying OS relatively irrelevant. That's the Qt environment, where development system seems to be on par with Apple's cocoa, Xcode and interface builder (judging on the positive statements about Qt and developers using both and not making their collective minds as to which one is best).
If Nokia can tap into even some tens of percent of it's existing 1.3B user base into this ecosystem, you'll have tons of developers on board. It'll likely be even bigger than that since Maemo is now Meego (Intels Moblin folded in). So you'll not only have Nokia phones (smart and dumb) to develop for. You'll also have different kinds of appliances from car systems to home automation etc. On top of that, reports of porting an App from iPhone to Qt is very straigtforward (A popular game took three days). So taking these and doing the math: the number of apps for the Qt ecosystem could easily skyrocket and match Apple's very quickly.
That's why I'm so interested in this. Looks like the Apple ecosystem may have a real competitor or two in the works (Qt and Microsoft) that look promising on paper. If they deliver, what will Apple do to counter?
Like I said: HW wise: competition is ahead. User base: ahead. UX, behind but catching. Ecosystem: Loads of potential to catch up, looks promising. Mindshare: Apple reins (at least for now).
Can they then keep the price premium if these things do happen in the next year or two?
It's only now that it's getting really interesting. Competition drives innovation, which improves our lives. I don't really care who gives me a phone with the UX and ecosystem of the iPhone as long as I don't have to pay 800€ to get it. Even better if I don't have to be locked in.
Are you aware that you are wrong? HDMI 1.3 can deliver more than 2Mpix, and HDMI 1.4 can deliver around 8Mpix
True, HDMI 1.3 has a max. resolution of 2560×1600 (over 4.0 Mpix) and HDMI 1.4 goes upto 4096×2160 (over 8.8 Mpix)
But I think the poster means to say that a HDMI device connected to a HD TV will display a little over 2.0 Mpix. This is true since HD TV's have a resolution of 1920x1080.
I think kevin.mcintyre's 'Too easy to get caught on the Mpix' post is wrong about the better picture from a 12MP picture than a 5MP picture displayed on a HDTV; since it's only able displaying 2MP. Then again, I also think he is right in saying that the best way to take a picture is to use whatever camera you have with you. I fully believe photographer Chase Darvis statement that the best camera is the one you have with you (http://www.amazon.com/Best-Camera-On.../dp/0321684788)
Personally I could care less about megapixels. The quality of a picture has nothing to do with the amount of pixels. My 3 year old Nikon D40 is a 5MP camera which gives fantastic results. Also in 3 feet prints. Then again, I might be influenced by Ken Rockwell. If you like, read the Megapixel Myth over at http://www.kenrockwell.com/tech/mpmyth.htm.
I will get the new iPhone because of the better camera however, since I still use the 2MP camera in my 3G. And those pics are not so good in poor light.
Over here we use a thing called google, well actaully there are ther options as well, bing, yahoo, doing a search for 4k displays, returns some results
The issue you have is there isn't the video media available to utilitise it yet, and short of some rich people, or theatres there isn't the market yet. But still, HDMI supports it.
Over here we use a thing called google, well actaully there are ther options as well, bing, yahoo, doing a search for 4k displays, returns some results
The issue you have is there isn't the video media available to utilitise it yet, and short of some rich people, or theatres there isn't the market yet. But still, HDMI supports it.
Let's get this straight. Someone is going to get a 4K projector costing $150K - which will let them look at the really great stills from their cellphone camera? Although I think if you check, neither projector uses a HDMI - which is a consumer standard. So I ask again. Which display?
Most movies are mastered at 2K even if they are captured at 4K. Perhaps in 3 or 4 years time we will see 4K projectors rolled out into mainstream cinemas. And more movies being mastered using 4K at the intermediate stage.
To go back to my original point. The idea that a consumer will buy a camera theoretically capable of shooting a 12MPix image and "We would really be able to see the difference over HDMI" is a statement so full of horse poop that it could provide fertiliser for a rose-garden the size of Anglesey.
The consumer combination of HDMI and a regular HDTV is capable of reproducing images of slightly less than 2 Megapixels.
So to my mind, a laudable goal would be to make cellphone cameras capable of delivering good-quality 2K images. That means a low noise floor, good low-light performance, and okay optics. But that would be difficult. So instead manufacturers wow unsophisticated consumers with ever higher megapixel counts.
I think you overstate where Nokia is, and understate where Apple is. There is a huge huge difference between "delivered with high customer satisfaction", and "promising potential coming soon."
Quote:
Originally Posted by jahonen
If you look at what they have stated and just now starting to ship is an ecosystem that potentially makes the underlying OS relatively irrelevant. That's the Qt environment, where development system seems to be on par with Apple's cocoa, Xcode and interface builder (judging on the positive statements about Qt and developers using both and not making their collective minds as to which one is best).
If Nokia can tap into even some tens of percent of it's existing 1.3B user base into this ecosystem, you'll have tons of developers on board. It'll likely be even bigger than that since Maemo is now Meego (Intels Moblin folded in). So you'll not only have Nokia phones (smart and dumb) to develop for. You'll also have different kinds of appliances from car systems to home automation etc. On top of that, reports of porting an App from iPhone to Qt is very straigtforward (A popular game took three days). So taking these and doing the math: the number of apps for the Qt ecosystem could easily skyrocket and match Apple's very quickly.
That's why I'm so interested in this. Looks like the Apple ecosystem may have a real competitor or two in the works (Qt and Microsoft) that look promising on paper. If they deliver, what will Apple do to counter?
What Qt hopes to do is very very very hard, especially if they plan to support hundreds of models with varying physical characteristics and components. This concept is the Holy Grail of software and in almost thirty years of software engineering, I've yet to see it done successfully anywhere on a base that is over ten models. Android is already struggling with it. Apple kills off products to ensure it can keep moving forward. Microsoft deals poorly with it and really doesn't move forward very much any more, as it struggles to carry all the old baggage around. Some believe Nokia is already struggling with it, thus the recent rumors that the CEO's job could be sent packing if a high-end product/platform doesn't ship soon. (And by the way, the OS is still very relevant as it will deliver low-level optimization and layering from the processing hardware. Screw this up and you're at the mercy of the CPU chip supplier.)
So you have quite a few big IFs in there. In the past, Nokia developers have usually had fairly positive comments, though the consumer response has not been as positive (though certainly better than many other consumer electronics and cellphone companies).
Quote:
Like I said: HW wise: competition is ahead. User base: ahead. UX, behind but catching. Ecosystem: Loads of potential to catch up, looks promising. Mindshare: Apple reins (at least for now).
Can they then keep the price premium if these things do happen in the next year or two?
HW wise: competition is ahead but much of what they tout isn't important to users without matching quality software. As I said before, those competitors have been ahead since 2007, and yet iPhone has eaten their lunch in the US, UK, Australia, etc. As an example, the next iPhone looks like it will have videoconferencing. Clearly user-facing cameras have been done already on cellphones and it hasn't taken off - do you hear much of it? But let's see what happens when iPhone adds this thing called iChat and it easily ties in with all Macs (and Windows PCs - I think even PCs will get iChat within their iTunes), and Apple starts advertising the many ways it will be used by real people in real life situations.
User base: if I have a Nokia N-series or E-series today, will I replace it with a future Nokia? It hasn't happened with N-series phones over the last 3-5 years. And if most people aren't apt to stay, user base advantage is rendered irrelevant. (Remember we are talking about high-end smartphone, not the low-end.) Even though there have been multiple iPhone models, people see all of them as a single entity - they have a common UI, common apps, common syncing, common content, common aesthetic/style/design. Over 90% of iPhone owners say they will replace with another iPhone. I think Nokia was down in the 30s-40s. Blackberry may have a larger user base, but 40% of those owners say they are apt to switch. So don't overrate user base unless you have customer satisfaction and branding that leads to loyalty.
UX: "Catching" on the surface, but not really in the little things like accuracy and responsiveness, because those companies have never cared to invest in these little things. Too many of these companies just implement things to fill the features checkbox that they can put on their marketing materials. So will people think these copies are good-enough (like Windows 95 was good enough), when the subsidized price differential is less than $100 (unlike PCs in 1995 that were $1000 cheaper than Macs)? (In non-subsidized countries, it may be a different story, but we don't know yet what Apple will do in those countries.)
Ecosystem: There is a huge huge huge difference between "potential/promising" and "already being sold on the market". It's been almost a decade and Amazon has the only content store mentioned as a competitor to iTunes (even though iTunes has become bloated, Amazon still has a sloppier and more complex UI). There were plenty of supposedly promising stores that came and quickly went under. Looks like the same thing is happening with many of the burgeoning list of announced App Stores. Again, is it just a features/marketing checkbox with no real care and nurturing. Will Nokia and Google really shepherd their stores?
I separate platform from ecosystem. And it's the platform (heavily software-based, though of course dependent on hardware) where Apple's lead is the largest. Android has 150K less apps and Google never mentions how many app downloads (can you guess why?) for its platform. Apple is launching iAds (a much more pleasing way to do ads) and GameCenter. Nokia, RIM, and Palm/HP are really just out of the gate (based on actual platform results, not just promise), while Apple has already gone around the track twice. (Yes, I know Nokia already had the Symbian platform but its redoing so much of it to handle what's expected of high-end smartphones (as well as going to MeeGo) that it's like restarting. Like Mac OS X was restarting Mac all over again.)
And the iPhone platform has iPod touch and iPad benefits. Android might have something usable for Christmas. The others maybe in 2011 when iPad is on version 2. And who knows how Apple might build on this three-headed platform monster?
Let's get this straight. Someone is going to get a 4K projector costing $150K - which will let them look at the really great stills from their cellphone camera? Although I think if you check, neither projector uses a HDMI - which is a consumer standard. So I ask again. Which display?
C.
No, the answer is, and you seem to be sidestepping this after being proved wrong, you claimed HDMI couldn't drive 2Mpix, you are wrong, the spec allows up to a 4k video, much larger than your claim.
It doesn't matter if the displays cost so much, it doesn't matter if they are hard to come by, it doesn't matter if you can't get video as a consumer in that format, what matters is you were wrong, you made a claim and that claim was incorrect, get over it.
Comments
Remember this is an Apple site, the definition of an invention is who made it popular, not who developed it.
LOL, this made me laugh so hard. It's much the same as how no one in the world would ever want a certain feature until Apple puts in it one of their devices, and suddenly it's the most desirable feature
No one would ever want to:
*Run Windows on a Mac
*Play games on a Mac
*Send MMS on an iPhone
*Record video on an iPhone
etc etc etc etc etc etc the list is probably endless.
12 megapixel camera? Er. So what? With a sensor that small in a smartphone...
Except you'd be wrong. This one's got a bigger sensor than the Nikon and Canon P&Ss. Also take a look at the services on offer and development environment (Qt).
(Noticed the pinch to make photos bigger...yeesh, let's copy Apple, eh?)
Just like everyone else -- Yes. Much like Apple copying the multitasking UI from Symbian?
http://cool900.blogspot.com/2010/04/...okia-n900.html
All people are trying to say is that the competition is toughening up. Does Apple have enough of a head start or can it innovate quickly enough to retain the price difference? That's where the interesting stuff is (how will they do it). Hardware wise competition has surpassed Apple, UX wise they are catching up. Development environment wise (big player in the ecosystem) same story. Multitasking wise, been ahead for a long time. So what next from Apple to keep the big lead?
Ballmer might want to rethink that now.
It's terrible. Clunky. It has the elegance of a farmer's daughter doing a cat walk.
12 megapixel camera? Er. So what? With a sensor that small in a smartphone, I doubt you'll notice that much difference between it and a 5 megapixel camera for casual photograph taking. I dunno. Get a Nikon if you want to do 12 megapixels? (Noticed the pinch to make photos bigger...yeesh, let's copy Apple, eh?)
200K apps. A great browser. An elegant UI. The best mobile OS on the planet. Superior hardware design. All the things Apple's iPhone has.
N8? *Shrugs. Is that all they've got?
Not impressed.
I await the iPhone HD with great interest.
Lemon Bon Bon.
You should actually check out the actual shots from the camera, they are stunning. It is easy to get carried away with the number of Mpix, which of course says nothing about quality. The sensor in the N8 is on par with compact cameras. You will definitely notice a difference between a 5Mpix and 12MPix especially if you put it out over the HDMI connector to you HD TV. You need a good 8Mpix + for it to look really crisp on a HD TV. And the price of the N8 is about E380 before taxes and subsidies.
Of course if you have your Nixon on you then this will take better pictures, however, you do not always have that or your HD camcorder. You are likely to have your phone, so you don't miss the moment and can re-live it in great quality.
Really? Are you a developer?
As a developer myself, I'd rather develop for Qt (the application framework used by the new version of Symbian) than Cocoa. It's less quirky and more powerful.
And let's not forget that Symbian invented the term 'smartphone'. If you've got a problem with them defining a smartphone as any phone running Symbian, then the problem is with you, not them.
As a developer I prefer Cocoa.
I won't debate quirky between C++ and ObjC. C++, by definition, is the epitome of over engineering.
Qt tries to make development for MVC straight forward, by actually mimicking much of the NeXT/Apple Cocoa design patterns.
You will definitely notice a difference between a 5Mpix and 12MPix especially if you put it out over the HDMI connector to you HD TV.
You are aware that HDMI delivers less than 2M pixels?
C.
Lou
VPN Anonymity
You are aware that HDMI delivers less than 2M pixels?
C.
Are you aware that you are wrong? HDMI 1.3 can deliver more than 2Mpix, and HDMI 1.4 can deliver around 8Mpix
All people are trying to say is that the competition is toughening up. Does Apple have enough of a head start or can it innovate quickly enough to retain the price difference? That's where the interesting stuff is (how will they do it). Hardware wise competition has surpassed Apple, UX wise they are catching up. Development environment wise (big player in the ecosystem) same story. Multitasking wise, been ahead for a long time. So what next from Apple to keep the big lead?
Apple changed this game when they introduced an SDK and Apps that people download and use by the billions; they've already passed 200K Apps in the Store, and will be passing 5 billion downloads sometime this month. Thus, Apple only has to add a few foundational type things to the OS and hardware every year, while their App developers add lots more functionality faster than for any other family of devices out there. (Some people say that 30-40K apps is all you need, but that's because they lack imagination and think everyone in the world lives lives that are just as narrow as theirs.)
For all its models, iPhone has lacked features compared to the best-featured phones out there. But iPhone competed with them with its super-responsive multi-touch, a complete simplification of the already-existing touch UI, and easy-to-use PC/Mac syncing (which was natural to iPod users). With the help of AT&T, Apple also changed the relationship of handset manufacturers with the carriers. Then, Apple added the one-click super-easy-to-use App Store (alongside the familiar iTunes Store). iPhone doesn't claim to be the first in including features, and yet it still has turned the industry upside-down.
And so now it's a platform game, not just a handset game. It's not just about the hardware and OS, but also the software apps and SDK. It's not just about the manufacturer creating capabilities for the device, but also the developers creating many more capabilities. When someone buys a smartphone, they're also buying into a platform.
This platform is what Microsoft used to surge to dominance and profit in PCs. Apple has altered the MS model a bit by also selling the hardware for the platform. Why will this difference not hurt Apple? Because although there were many PC hardware makers building PCs, few of them (Sony, Intel) innovated under Windows, rather it was Microsoft and software developers (and Apple) that drove most of the possible innovations for the PC. All the PC makers other than Apple have reaped ever smaller profits as commoditization drove their PC business into losses - only Microsoft consistently has profited. History is littered with PC makers - Olivetti, AT&T, Packard Bell, Gateway, eMachines, Compaq, IBM, etc - that either went kaput or sold out just before. HP and Dell avoided this fate by making sure PCs were just a low-profit component of their higher-profit enterprise services/sales (and Dell not so successfully); Sony downsized its PC operations into a few laptops and focused on other consumer electronics. And that's likely what will happen to most handset makers that don't own their platform.
What does this have to do with Apple and phones? Apple, the master of misdirection, has the dumber analysts, bloggers, and companies all focused on the next phone's hardware features and using that as the measuring stick with other handsets, while it quietly but in broad daylight (what's the focus of every iPhone ad?) builds its platform, and provides more and more tools and basic functionality to its still-growing cast of software and peripheral developers.
Unlike the others, Nokia, HP (as we have seen this week), Google and Adobe have looked at history and know what Apple is doing. Nokia is focused for now on selling lower-end/cost smartphones into developing markets while it tries to get its high-end handset and platforms (including Ovi Store) into competitive shape. HP just bought Palm because they know they need to own an OS and platform. Google owns a platform, but in exchange for eyeballs, looks to have ceded all control over it to handset makers and carriers, who would rather momentarily lock users into their sub-par offerings that are layered on top of Android until its time to sell the next expensive phone or two-year contract. Seeing the importance of platform control, Adobe just fought tooth and nail for control via an intermediate layer on the iPhone platform, but had to concede and turn to Google. And even Amazon and Samsung are building platforms.
One more clue. What are the two most important events in the iPhone universe? The iPhone SDK upgrade event in March, and WWDC. Who are those for primarily? The developers.
You want to know where the Apple lead is? Look first as to what's in the OS and SDK, including the quality of the implementation (because it's a foundation for other developers, so once it's out there, it's not so easy to change - see MS Windows for lessons of what not to do). Measure the lead by not only handset sales, but Apps available worldwide, and Apps downloaded (and to a lesser degree, by iTunes content and peripheral/accessories sales).
You want to know where the Apple lead is? Look first as to what's in the OS and SDK, including the quality of the implementation (because it's a foundation for other developers, so once it's out there, it's not so easy to change - see MS Windows for lessons of what not to do). Measure the lead by not only handset sales, but Apps available worldwide, and Apps downloaded (and to a lesser degree, by iTunes content and peripheral/accessories sales).
Thanks for the good post. That's precisely what I think as well and that seems to be precisely what Nokia is aiming at as well. I see a lot of people either critisizing Nokia for the UI, being hardware centric or having multiple OSs (fragmentation). Almost no-one seemts to take a look at the plans for the ecosystem or they dismiss it with comments like "Symbian is a pile of..." or "Multiple target is inferior to Apple" etc.
If you look at what they have stated and just now starting to ship is an ecosystem that potentially makes the underlying OS relatively irrelevant. That's the Qt environment, where development system seems to be on par with Apple's cocoa, Xcode and interface builder (judging on the positive statements about Qt and developers using both and not making their collective minds as to which one is best).
If Nokia can tap into even some tens of percent of it's existing 1.3B user base into this ecosystem, you'll have tons of developers on board. It'll likely be even bigger than that since Maemo is now Meego (Intels Moblin folded in). So you'll not only have Nokia phones (smart and dumb) to develop for. You'll also have different kinds of appliances from car systems to home automation etc. On top of that, reports of porting an App from iPhone to Qt is very straigtforward (A popular game took three days). So taking these and doing the math: the number of apps for the Qt ecosystem could easily skyrocket and match Apple's very quickly.
That's why I'm so interested in this. Looks like the Apple ecosystem may have a real competitor or two in the works (Qt and Microsoft) that look promising on paper. If they deliver, what will Apple do to counter?
Like I said: HW wise: competition is ahead. User base: ahead. UX, behind but catching. Ecosystem: Loads of potential to catch up, looks promising. Mindshare: Apple reins (at least for now).
Can they then keep the price premium if these things do happen in the next year or two?
It's only now that it's getting really interesting. Competition drives innovation, which improves our lives. I don't really care who gives me a phone with the UX and ecosystem of the iPhone as long as I don't have to pay 800€ to get it. Even better if I don't have to be locked in.
Regs, Jarkko
Are you aware that you are wrong? HDMI 1.3 can deliver more than 2Mpix, and HDMI 1.4 can deliver around 8Mpix
True, HDMI 1.3 has a max. resolution of 2560×1600 (over 4.0 Mpix) and HDMI 1.4 goes upto 4096×2160 (over 8.8 Mpix)
But I think the poster means to say that a HDMI device connected to a HD TV will display a little over 2.0 Mpix. This is true since HD TV's have a resolution of 1920x1080.
I think kevin.mcintyre's 'Too easy to get caught on the Mpix' post is wrong about the better picture from a 12MP picture than a 5MP picture displayed on a HDTV; since it's only able displaying 2MP. Then again, I also think he is right in saying that the best way to take a picture is to use whatever camera you have with you. I fully believe photographer Chase Darvis statement that the best camera is the one you have with you (http://www.amazon.com/Best-Camera-On.../dp/0321684788)
Personally I could care less about megapixels. The quality of a picture has nothing to do with the amount of pixels. My 3 year old Nikon D40 is a 5MP camera which gives fantastic results. Also in 3 feet prints. Then again, I might be influenced by Ken Rockwell. If you like, read the Megapixel Myth over at http://www.kenrockwell.com/tech/mpmyth.htm.
I will get the new iPhone because of the better camera however, since I still use the 2MP camera in my 3G. And those pics are not so good in poor light.
Cheers,
Phil
Are you aware that you are wrong? HDMI 1.3 can deliver more than 2Mpix, and HDMI 1.4 can deliver around 8Mpix
To what?
C.
To what?
C.
A display
A display
Which display exactly?
C.
Which display exactly?
C.
Over here we use a thing called google, well actaully there are ther options as well, bing, yahoo, doing a search for 4k displays, returns some results
Here is a 4k panel from four years ago
http://techon.nikkeibp.co.jp/english...061004/121902/
Here is a 4k projector
http://www.avrev.com/home-theater-ne...projector.html
The issue you have is there isn't the video media available to utilitise it yet, and short of some rich people, or theatres there isn't the market yet. But still, HDMI supports it.
Over here we use a thing called google, well actaully there are ther options as well, bing, yahoo, doing a search for 4k displays, returns some results
Here is a 4k panel from four years ago
http://techon.nikkeibp.co.jp/english...061004/121902/
Here is a 4k projector
http://www.avrev.com/home-theater-ne...projector.html
The issue you have is there isn't the video media available to utilitise it yet, and short of some rich people, or theatres there isn't the market yet. But still, HDMI supports it.
Let's get this straight. Someone is going to get a 4K projector costing $150K - which will let them look at the really great stills from their cellphone camera? Although I think if you check, neither projector uses a HDMI - which is a consumer standard. So I ask again. Which display?
Most movies are mastered at 2K even if they are captured at 4K. Perhaps in 3 or 4 years time we will see 4K projectors rolled out into mainstream cinemas. And more movies being mastered using 4K at the intermediate stage.
To go back to my original point. The idea that a consumer will buy a camera theoretically capable of shooting a 12MPix image and "We would really be able to see the difference over HDMI" is a statement so full of horse poop that it could provide fertiliser for a rose-garden the size of Anglesey.
The consumer combination of HDMI and a regular HDTV is capable of reproducing images of slightly less than 2 Megapixels.
So to my mind, a laudable goal would be to make cellphone cameras capable of delivering good-quality 2K images. That means a low noise floor, good low-light performance, and okay optics. But that would be difficult. So instead manufacturers wow unsophisticated consumers with ever higher megapixel counts.
C.
If you look at what they have stated and just now starting to ship is an ecosystem that potentially makes the underlying OS relatively irrelevant. That's the Qt environment, where development system seems to be on par with Apple's cocoa, Xcode and interface builder (judging on the positive statements about Qt and developers using both and not making their collective minds as to which one is best).
If Nokia can tap into even some tens of percent of it's existing 1.3B user base into this ecosystem, you'll have tons of developers on board. It'll likely be even bigger than that since Maemo is now Meego (Intels Moblin folded in). So you'll not only have Nokia phones (smart and dumb) to develop for. You'll also have different kinds of appliances from car systems to home automation etc. On top of that, reports of porting an App from iPhone to Qt is very straigtforward (A popular game took three days). So taking these and doing the math: the number of apps for the Qt ecosystem could easily skyrocket and match Apple's very quickly.
That's why I'm so interested in this. Looks like the Apple ecosystem may have a real competitor or two in the works (Qt and Microsoft) that look promising on paper. If they deliver, what will Apple do to counter?
What Qt hopes to do is very very very hard, especially if they plan to support hundreds of models with varying physical characteristics and components. This concept is the Holy Grail of software and in almost thirty years of software engineering, I've yet to see it done successfully anywhere on a base that is over ten models. Android is already struggling with it. Apple kills off products to ensure it can keep moving forward. Microsoft deals poorly with it and really doesn't move forward very much any more, as it struggles to carry all the old baggage around. Some believe Nokia is already struggling with it, thus the recent rumors that the CEO's job could be sent packing if a high-end product/platform doesn't ship soon. (And by the way, the OS is still very relevant as it will deliver low-level optimization and layering from the processing hardware. Screw this up and you're at the mercy of the CPU chip supplier.)
So you have quite a few big IFs in there. In the past, Nokia developers have usually had fairly positive comments, though the consumer response has not been as positive (though certainly better than many other consumer electronics and cellphone companies).
Like I said: HW wise: competition is ahead. User base: ahead. UX, behind but catching. Ecosystem: Loads of potential to catch up, looks promising. Mindshare: Apple reins (at least for now).
Can they then keep the price premium if these things do happen in the next year or two?
HW wise: competition is ahead but much of what they tout isn't important to users without matching quality software. As I said before, those competitors have been ahead since 2007, and yet iPhone has eaten their lunch in the US, UK, Australia, etc. As an example, the next iPhone looks like it will have videoconferencing. Clearly user-facing cameras have been done already on cellphones and it hasn't taken off - do you hear much of it? But let's see what happens when iPhone adds this thing called iChat and it easily ties in with all Macs (and Windows PCs - I think even PCs will get iChat within their iTunes), and Apple starts advertising the many ways it will be used by real people in real life situations.
User base: if I have a Nokia N-series or E-series today, will I replace it with a future Nokia? It hasn't happened with N-series phones over the last 3-5 years. And if most people aren't apt to stay, user base advantage is rendered irrelevant. (Remember we are talking about high-end smartphone, not the low-end.) Even though there have been multiple iPhone models, people see all of them as a single entity - they have a common UI, common apps, common syncing, common content, common aesthetic/style/design. Over 90% of iPhone owners say they will replace with another iPhone. I think Nokia was down in the 30s-40s. Blackberry may have a larger user base, but 40% of those owners say they are apt to switch. So don't overrate user base unless you have customer satisfaction and branding that leads to loyalty.
UX: "Catching" on the surface, but not really in the little things like accuracy and responsiveness, because those companies have never cared to invest in these little things. Too many of these companies just implement things to fill the features checkbox that they can put on their marketing materials. So will people think these copies are good-enough (like Windows 95 was good enough), when the subsidized price differential is less than $100 (unlike PCs in 1995 that were $1000 cheaper than Macs)? (In non-subsidized countries, it may be a different story, but we don't know yet what Apple will do in those countries.)
Ecosystem: There is a huge huge huge difference between "potential/promising" and "already being sold on the market". It's been almost a decade and Amazon has the only content store mentioned as a competitor to iTunes (even though iTunes has become bloated, Amazon still has a sloppier and more complex UI). There were plenty of supposedly promising stores that came and quickly went under. Looks like the same thing is happening with many of the burgeoning list of announced App Stores. Again, is it just a features/marketing checkbox with no real care and nurturing. Will Nokia and Google really shepherd their stores?
I separate platform from ecosystem. And it's the platform (heavily software-based, though of course dependent on hardware) where Apple's lead is the largest. Android has 150K less apps and Google never mentions how many app downloads (can you guess why?) for its platform. Apple is launching iAds (a much more pleasing way to do ads) and GameCenter. Nokia, RIM, and Palm/HP are really just out of the gate (based on actual platform results, not just promise), while Apple has already gone around the track twice. (Yes, I know Nokia already had the Symbian platform but its redoing so much of it to handle what's expected of high-end smartphones (as well as going to MeeGo) that it's like restarting. Like Mac OS X was restarting Mac all over again.)
And the iPhone platform has iPod touch and iPad benefits. Android might have something usable for Christmas. The others maybe in 2011 when iPad is on version 2. And who knows how Apple might build on this three-headed platform monster?
Let's get this straight. Someone is going to get a 4K projector costing $150K - which will let them look at the really great stills from their cellphone camera? Although I think if you check, neither projector uses a HDMI - which is a consumer standard. So I ask again. Which display?
C.
No, the answer is, and you seem to be sidestepping this after being proved wrong, you claimed HDMI couldn't drive 2Mpix, you are wrong, the spec allows up to a 4k video, much larger than your claim.
It doesn't matter if the displays cost so much, it doesn't matter if they are hard to come by, it doesn't matter if you can't get video as a consumer in that format, what matters is you were wrong, you made a claim and that claim was incorrect, get over it.
Unless Apple makes a cheap "disposable" phone, they will never beat Nokia.
Beat them at what exactly? Market share? Baseball? Scrabble?
Apple is not a low margin / high volume company.