Actually, I think your last sentence nails it. Competition isn't breeding innovation here. What's breeding it is one company producing a vastly superior product and then a bunch of companies are copying it trying to catch up and cash in on its success. I think the ability of competition, as a force in isolation, to produce innovation, is highly overrated and that it's an idea more strongly grounded in ideology and "the common wisdom" than in empirical evidence.
Of course Android is pushing Apple to make the iPhone better. Apple is too smart to ignore the competition. They've freely borrowed OS ideas from MS whenever MS has innovated. Apple will borrow whatever innovations Google (or the hardware manufacturers) come up with. I'm sure knowing that Android will get better with time, they're pre-emptively innovating, too.
The reviews I've read of the EVO have either loved it or would-have-loved-it-except-the-size (and maybe Sense UI). But all of them have recommended against buying it because the battery life is unacceptable for real use. That's one of those things that an in-store demo can't tell you, alas.
If the battery lasts less then a full day of heavy use, that is a deal-killer for me.
Actually, Apple has been outspoken against jail braking an iPhone and said that it voids the warranty. Sounds like Micro$oft speak to me.
As a developer, I would never develop software for a client only to have an intermediary step in and say "sorry, we don't allow that software."
If you mean outspoken as in "no. don't. stop. We can't fix your phone for you if you do that." Yeah that's like screamingly outspoken.
Seriously? Do you have a persecution complex or something? And you know Microsoft never made a statement like now did they - or were you just looking for a convenient negative handle to hang it? Finally I would theoretically be curious as to how successful you are as a developer. Obviously you don't have to volunteer that info, and I really don't expect you to. But it seems just a TAD disengenuous to use the
Quote:
As a developer
claim to "expertise" or whatever that is supposed to represent, to then make a statement as silly as I would never develop software for a client only to have an intermediary step in and say
Quote:
"sorry, we don't allow that software"
.
This really causes me to call in to question what manner of developer you are - because every device/OS maker out there is by YOUR use of the term, an intermediary" on their own devices/Oses. That speaks of an ego so large for a dev that not even the Moscone Center could encompass it.
And every device/OS maker defines the terms by which you develop for that device/OS - even Google.
I love a good debate, even a good back-and-forth between ardent opponents - and there are a few on these threads, but your commentary is sadly lacking in originality, validity or even enough passion to make a decent argument from it. Please - there is still time go back and edit your response! Try again - you will respect yourself more and the effort will be worth it.
I'm surprised that no one has commented on the statistic that 70% of current Android OS users would remain loyal to that OS. No surprising but it does imply that the longer Apple leaves the Verizon market open to the Android OS, the harder it will be to penetrate. Do you guys think they will stay out of it for another 2-3 years as the 5 year contract would imply?
Maybe we'll find out tomorrow how rock solid that AT&T exclusivity agreement. It seems to me though that is exactly where Android becomes a threat to everybody else. For all the complaining about fragmentation and crappy phones, that 70% would stick with the platform is a telling statistic. It means Android is entrenching itself in the market with Verizon as the banner bearer.
Ultimately though, at least for the US, Apple has to deal with these numbers:
Verizon + Sprint = ~153 million subscribers
AT&T = 85 million subscribers
T-Mobile = 35 million subscribers
If Apple simply leaves the CDMA market alone, that will get plenty of time for Android to entrench itself to the point that Apple will have a tougher time competing even when all the networks move to 4g.
Of course Android is pushing Apple to make the iPhone better. Apple is too smart to ignore the competition. They've freely borrowed OS ideas from MS whenever MS has innovated. Apple will borrow whatever innovations Google (or the hardware manufacturers) come up with. I'm sure knowing that Android will get better with time, they're pre-emptively innovating, too.
o.k. I'll bite. I am an avowed apple fan girl and have been so since 2003 when I gave up on my crappy windows/me windows/2000 computers. What ARE the innovations that Apple has copied from MS?
While some of the points you make are correct, they do not have the same growth. A 2% increase in market share for Apple does not equal the same growth as android. If if your phone is at 4% market share and goes to 6% thats a lot more growth than going from 76 to 78%. Obviously there are many caveats to the analysis. For example, for years OS X fanboys have said oh look at this tremendous growth in market share year over year it must mean something. It sounds tremendous but only because they were at 4 or 5%
And actually you can't assume that androids not gaining at apple's expense because there are additional phones looked at.
A 2% market share gain means that the company's percent of the total market is 2% greater than it was the previous measuring period. Nothing else. Growing from 4 to 6% means you add exactly the same number of customers as if you go from 10 to 12% or 98 to 100%. The relative growth for the smaller company (4 to 6 = 50%; 98 to 100 = 2%) isn't significant when comparing two competitors. It of course means a lot to a small company, since the relative growth means a huge increase in revenues. But it doesn't tell you anything about the performance of the two companies relative to each other.
Based on the data the article presented, we know that both Android and Apple users are highly loyal and they both gained market share. From that, we know their market share growth was not in a significant way taken from each other.
If the battery lasts less then a full day of heavy use, that is a deal-killer for me.
IRC, it was around 6 hours based on non-video/game use. Unfortunately, I don't know which review it was. Probably Engadget or Gizmodo. Frankly, the battery was so poor, it was almost baffling. The reviewer even speculated that the only way it could have been brought to market is if the engineers had never used a competing phone.
While some of the points you make are correct, they do not have the same growth. A 2% increase in market share for Apple does not equal the same growth as android. If if your phone is at 4% market share and goes to 6% thats a lot more growth than going from 76 to 78%. Obviously there are many caveats to the analysis. For example, for years OS X fanboys have said oh look at this tremendous growth in market share year over year it must mean something. It sounds tremendous but only because they were at 4 or 5%
And actually you can't assume that androids not gaining at apple's expense because there are additional phones looked at.
Apple (as has been stated previously) has a quarter or so of the market. There is no indication that Android is making inroads into the iPhone market - that is, taking away iPhone users from the iPhone installed base (which incidentally has something on the order of an 80-90% user satisfaction rating among iPhone owners). More likely the increases come as a combination of smartphone segment growth, erosion of one or more of the current market leaders (RIM/Win) and other minority platforms. If you you use real numbers instead of comparative numbers your logic fails obviously: while an increase from 4% to 6% represents a 50% increase of marketshare over the lower number, point in fact is that if the entire market shifted up that 2% - it is a net 0% growth. Alternatively, you can also argue that if 2% of a given market is 1000, then regardless of the 4% or the 76% the net gain in real numbers is still only 1000 for each. So you see your examples fail to encompass all possible interpretations of the data.
o.k. I'll bite. I am an avowed apple fan girl and have been so since 2003 when I gave up on my crappy windows/me windows/2000 computers. What ARE the innovations that Apple has copied from MS?
There are some, I swear! I just can't think of any. But some of them were actually good, useful ideas. Really.
Quadra the only spot is the softspot that is directly between your ears. Yet again you have never even touch these phones yet commenting on hardware and software you don't even have a clue about.
Its actually about all of the above. And every pretty much agrees that the Android market will pass the iPhone.
For you its all about fanboyism, about being #1 or having the #1 product.
No it is NOT all about the specs. It IS all about the phone that best suits your needs. The iPhone best fits my life and my needs. I DON'T expect it to fit everyone... Especially those who only look at specs.
A 2% market share gain means that the company's percent of the total market is 2% greater than it was the previous measuring period. Nothing else. Growing from 4 to 6% means you add exactly the same number of customers as if you go from 10 to 12% or 98 to 100%. The relative growth for the smaller company (4 to 6 = 50%; 98 to 100 = 2%) isn't significant when comparing two competitors. It of course means a lot to a small company, since the relative growth means a huge increase in revenues. But it doesn't tell you anything about the performance of the two companies relative to each other.
Based on the data the article presented, we know that both Android and Apple users are highly loyal and they both gained market share. From that, we know their market share growth was not in a significant way taken from each other.
With the data shown you can't say with certainty that android isn't taking market share from apple, I'm not saying they are, just saying that you can't make that statement. Why? Because who is to say that android isn't taking share from apple and apple is taking share from windows and rim. apple and android will both show increases in market share.
If you you use real numbers instead of comparative numbers your logic fails obviously: while an increase from 4% to 6% represents a 50% increase of marketshare over the lower number, point in fact is that if the entire market shifted up that 2% - it is a net 0% growth.
The figures presented were market share, so a 2% share gain would only be zero or negative unit growth (decline) in a shrinking market. And in a shrinking market, marketshare gains would still be an important metric of company/sales health. In fact, it could be arguably even more significant in that situation.
Of course Android is pushing Apple to make the iPhone better. Apple is too smart to ignore the competition. They've freely borrowed OS ideas from MS whenever MS has innovated. Apple will borrow whatever innovations Google (or the hardware manufacturers) come up with. I'm sure knowing that Android will get better with time, they're pre-emptively innovating, too.
My point was that the process you are describing, the gradual advancement and refinement, and adding on, of features isn't "innovation" and may actually interfere with innovation. What Microsoft is doing with WP7 is actually more "innovative" than the arms race we see between the iPhone and (copycat) Android platform. (Although, I don't think it will be successful (in the market) innovation.) Competition itself doesn't result in innovation. In fact, it can just as easily be a destructive process. At its best, by itself, it may lead to gradual improvements, but it does not generate the creative spark that produces innovation.
The figures presented were market share, so a 2% share gain would only be zero or negative unit growth (decline) in a shrinking market. And in a shrinking market, marketshare gains would still be an important metric of company/sales health. In fact, it could be arguably even more significant in that situation.
With the data shown you can't say with certainty that android isn't taking market share from apple, I'm not saying they are, just saying that you can't make that statement. Why? Because who is to say that android isn't taking share from apple and apple is taking share from windows and rim. apple and android will both show increases in market share.
Surely, some Android users are ex-iPhone users. In fact, I'd wager there are more iPhone-to-Android switcher than the reverse, just because Android phones haven't been around in large enough numbers for long enough for anybody who doesn't loathe their phone to switch (e.g., pay large ETFs/change networks). But as a percent of Android's total market share, it's unlikely to be a significant number (especially if only 7% of iPhone users are considering Android phones). Moreso, from a market share perspective, it doesn't really matter. You can only take share from a competitor that loses share.
Apple (as has been stated previously) has a quarter or so of the market. There is no indication that Android is making inroads into the iPhone market - that is, taking away iPhone users from the iPhone installed base (which incidentally has something on the order of an 80-90% user satisfaction rating among iPhone owners). More likely the increases come as a combination of smartphone segment growth, erosion of one or more of the current market leaders (RIM/Win) and other minority platforms. If you you use real numbers instead of comparative numbers your logic fails obviously: while an increase from 4% to 6% represents a 50% increase of marketshare over the lower number, point in fact is that if the entire market shifted up that 2% - it is a net 0% growth. Alternatively, you can also argue that if 2% of a given market is 1000, then regardless of the 4% or the 76% the net gain in real numbers is still only 1000 for each. So you see your examples fail to encompass all possible interpretations of the data.
When did I ever say that it encompassed all possible interpretations? And saying that it has net 0% growth is only applicable here if you're just considering it against the iphone which the survey does not do, or if there is a decrease in overall number of phones. The iphone is not the "entire market"
I've never even framed this into an android vs. iphone debate. The only opinion I have is that these surveys don't really tell you anything.
IRC, it was around 6 hours based on non-video/game use. Unfortunately, I don't know which review it was. Probably Engadget or Gizmodo. Frankly, the battery was so poor, it was almost baffling. The reviewer even speculated that the only way it could have been brought to market is if the engineers had never used a competing phone.
I can't find the review I was reading on Friday, but the guy testing it barely talked on the phone, did some pretty casual to mid-level usage and had the phone last 2 days between charges. He did highly recommend people snag one of the several apps in the droid store that help you manage leftover programs. He also turns gps, bluetooth and wi-fi off, puts a button on the home screen for them and turns them on as needed.
Good tips all around really, but I do wish that it seemed like other companies gave a shit about battery life (in phones, laptops or tablets). Generally it has seemed like products have awful battery life, then Apple comes along with a new product and decimates the battery life of competing products. Then the companies start talking about their commitment to battery life. Having something that is top-end is nice and all, but if the battery dies in no time flat, how does that keep me portable and not chained to a wall or computer via USB?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Robin Huber
Tomorrow the entire world's media will be covering the new iPhone. Another Android phone? Few would know unless the maker buys ads. Mindshare.
Proof that HTC learned the lesson shown to the market with the Palm Pre.
Comments
Actually, I think your last sentence nails it. Competition isn't breeding innovation here. What's breeding it is one company producing a vastly superior product and then a bunch of companies are copying it trying to catch up and cash in on its success. I think the ability of competition, as a force in isolation, to produce innovation, is highly overrated and that it's an idea more strongly grounded in ideology and "the common wisdom" than in empirical evidence.
Of course Android is pushing Apple to make the iPhone better. Apple is too smart to ignore the competition. They've freely borrowed OS ideas from MS whenever MS has innovated. Apple will borrow whatever innovations Google (or the hardware manufacturers) come up with. I'm sure knowing that Android will get better with time, they're pre-emptively innovating, too.
It's the overall idea of creating an environment and basically saying that if you want to play, you'll play by my (Stevie's) rules.
I prefer the open source and open community that Google provides with its platform.
Having said all that, I still think Apple makes some of the best stuff out there.
Out of curiosity, do you also prefer the open data collection and open snooping into your data that is the business of Big Google Brother?
The reviews I've read of the EVO have either loved it or would-have-loved-it-except-the-size (and maybe Sense UI). But all of them have recommended against buying it because the battery life is unacceptable for real use. That's one of those things that an in-store demo can't tell you, alas.
If the battery lasts less then a full day of heavy use, that is a deal-killer for me.
Actually, Apple has been outspoken against jail braking an iPhone and said that it voids the warranty. Sounds like Micro$oft speak to me.
As a developer, I would never develop software for a client only to have an intermediary step in and say "sorry, we don't allow that software."
If you mean outspoken as in "no. don't. stop. We can't fix your phone for you if you do that." Yeah that's like screamingly outspoken.
Seriously? Do you have a persecution complex or something? And you know Microsoft never made a statement like now did they - or were you just looking for a convenient negative handle to hang it? Finally I would theoretically be curious as to how successful you are as a developer. Obviously you don't have to volunteer that info, and I really don't expect you to. But it seems just a TAD disengenuous to use the
As a developer
claim to "expertise" or whatever that is supposed to represent, to then make a statement as silly as I would never develop software for a client only to have an intermediary step in and say
"sorry, we don't allow that software"
.
This really causes me to call in to question what manner of developer you are - because every device/OS maker out there is by YOUR use of the term, an intermediary" on their own devices/Oses. That speaks of an ego so large for a dev that not even the Moscone Center could encompass it.
And every device/OS maker defines the terms by which you develop for that device/OS - even Google.
I love a good debate, even a good back-and-forth between ardent opponents - and there are a few on these threads, but your commentary is sadly lacking in originality, validity or even enough passion to make a decent argument from it. Please - there is still time go back and edit your response! Try again - you will respect yourself more and the effort will be worth it.
I'm surprised that no one has commented on the statistic that 70% of current Android OS users would remain loyal to that OS. No surprising but it does imply that the longer Apple leaves the Verizon market open to the Android OS, the harder it will be to penetrate. Do you guys think they will stay out of it for another 2-3 years as the 5 year contract would imply?
Maybe we'll find out tomorrow how rock solid that AT&T exclusivity agreement. It seems to me though that is exactly where Android becomes a threat to everybody else. For all the complaining about fragmentation and crappy phones, that 70% would stick with the platform is a telling statistic. It means Android is entrenching itself in the market with Verizon as the banner bearer.
Ultimately though, at least for the US, Apple has to deal with these numbers:
Verizon + Sprint = ~153 million subscribers
AT&T = 85 million subscribers
T-Mobile = 35 million subscribers
If Apple simply leaves the CDMA market alone, that will get plenty of time for Android to entrench itself to the point that Apple will have a tougher time competing even when all the networks move to 4g.
Of course Android is pushing Apple to make the iPhone better. Apple is too smart to ignore the competition. They've freely borrowed OS ideas from MS whenever MS has innovated. Apple will borrow whatever innovations Google (or the hardware manufacturers) come up with. I'm sure knowing that Android will get better with time, they're pre-emptively innovating, too.
o.k. I'll bite. I am an avowed apple fan girl and have been so since 2003 when I gave up on my crappy windows/me windows/2000 computers. What ARE the innovations that Apple has copied from MS?
While some of the points you make are correct, they do not have the same growth. A 2% increase in market share for Apple does not equal the same growth as android. If if your phone is at 4% market share and goes to 6% thats a lot more growth than going from 76 to 78%. Obviously there are many caveats to the analysis. For example, for years OS X fanboys have said oh look at this tremendous growth in market share year over year it must mean something. It sounds tremendous but only because they were at 4 or 5%
And actually you can't assume that androids not gaining at apple's expense because there are additional phones looked at.
A 2% market share gain means that the company's percent of the total market is 2% greater than it was the previous measuring period. Nothing else. Growing from 4 to 6% means you add exactly the same number of customers as if you go from 10 to 12% or 98 to 100%. The relative growth for the smaller company (4 to 6 = 50%; 98 to 100 = 2%) isn't significant when comparing two competitors. It of course means a lot to a small company, since the relative growth means a huge increase in revenues. But it doesn't tell you anything about the performance of the two companies relative to each other.
Based on the data the article presented, we know that both Android and Apple users are highly loyal and they both gained market share. From that, we know their market share growth was not in a significant way taken from each other.
If the battery lasts less then a full day of heavy use, that is a deal-killer for me.
IRC, it was around 6 hours based on non-video/game use. Unfortunately, I don't know which review it was. Probably Engadget or Gizmodo. Frankly, the battery was so poor, it was almost baffling. The reviewer even speculated that the only way it could have been brought to market is if the engineers had never used a competing phone.
While some of the points you make are correct, they do not have the same growth. A 2% increase in market share for Apple does not equal the same growth as android. If if your phone is at 4% market share and goes to 6% thats a lot more growth than going from 76 to 78%. Obviously there are many caveats to the analysis. For example, for years OS X fanboys have said oh look at this tremendous growth in market share year over year it must mean something. It sounds tremendous but only because they were at 4 or 5%
And actually you can't assume that androids not gaining at apple's expense because there are additional phones looked at.
Apple (as has been stated previously) has a quarter or so of the market. There is no indication that Android is making inroads into the iPhone market - that is, taking away iPhone users from the iPhone installed base (which incidentally has something on the order of an 80-90% user satisfaction rating among iPhone owners). More likely the increases come as a combination of smartphone segment growth, erosion of one or more of the current market leaders (RIM/Win) and other minority platforms. If you you use real numbers instead of comparative numbers your logic fails obviously: while an increase from 4% to 6% represents a 50% increase of marketshare over the lower number, point in fact is that if the entire market shifted up that 2% - it is a net 0% growth. Alternatively, you can also argue that if 2% of a given market is 1000, then regardless of the 4% or the 76% the net gain in real numbers is still only 1000 for each. So you see your examples fail to encompass all possible interpretations of the data.
o.k. I'll bite. I am an avowed apple fan girl and have been so since 2003 when I gave up on my crappy windows/me windows/2000 computers. What ARE the innovations that Apple has copied from MS?
There are some, I swear! I just can't think of any. But some of them were actually good, useful ideas. Really.
Quadra the only spot is the softspot that is directly between your ears. Yet again you have never even touch these phones yet commenting on hardware and software you don't even have a clue about.
Its actually about all of the above. And every pretty much agrees that the Android market will pass the iPhone.
For you its all about fanboyism, about being #1 or having the #1 product.
No it is NOT all about the specs. It IS all about the phone that best suits your needs. The iPhone best fits my life and my needs. I DON'T expect it to fit everyone... Especially those who only look at specs.
There are some, I swear! I just can't think of any. But some of them were actually good, useful ideas. Really.
two-button mouse?? ermmmmmmm, monochrome display??? virus vulnerability???? No wait - I'll get it..... Intel processors?????
Shoot - I give up!
A 2% market share gain means that the company's percent of the total market is 2% greater than it was the previous measuring period. Nothing else. Growing from 4 to 6% means you add exactly the same number of customers as if you go from 10 to 12% or 98 to 100%. The relative growth for the smaller company (4 to 6 = 50%; 98 to 100 = 2%) isn't significant when comparing two competitors. It of course means a lot to a small company, since the relative growth means a huge increase in revenues. But it doesn't tell you anything about the performance of the two companies relative to each other.
Based on the data the article presented, we know that both Android and Apple users are highly loyal and they both gained market share. From that, we know their market share growth was not in a significant way taken from each other.
With the data shown you can't say with certainty that android isn't taking market share from apple, I'm not saying they are, just saying that you can't make that statement. Why? Because who is to say that android isn't taking share from apple and apple is taking share from windows and rim. apple and android will both show increases in market share.
If you you use real numbers instead of comparative numbers your logic fails obviously: while an increase from 4% to 6% represents a 50% increase of marketshare over the lower number, point in fact is that if the entire market shifted up that 2% - it is a net 0% growth.
The figures presented were market share, so a 2% share gain would only be zero or negative unit growth (decline) in a shrinking market. And in a shrinking market, marketshare gains would still be an important metric of company/sales health. In fact, it could be arguably even more significant in that situation.
Of course Android is pushing Apple to make the iPhone better. Apple is too smart to ignore the competition. They've freely borrowed OS ideas from MS whenever MS has innovated. Apple will borrow whatever innovations Google (or the hardware manufacturers) come up with. I'm sure knowing that Android will get better with time, they're pre-emptively innovating, too.
My point was that the process you are describing, the gradual advancement and refinement, and adding on, of features isn't "innovation" and may actually interfere with innovation. What Microsoft is doing with WP7 is actually more "innovative" than the arms race we see between the iPhone and (copycat) Android platform. (Although, I don't think it will be successful (in the market) innovation.) Competition itself doesn't result in innovation. In fact, it can just as easily be a destructive process. At its best, by itself, it may lead to gradual improvements, but it does not generate the creative spark that produces innovation.
The figures presented were market share, so a 2% share gain would only be zero or negative unit growth (decline) in a shrinking market. And in a shrinking market, marketshare gains would still be an important metric of company/sales health. In fact, it could be arguably even more significant in that situation.
*You need to check out my edit line in the post*
With the data shown you can't say with certainty that android isn't taking market share from apple, I'm not saying they are, just saying that you can't make that statement. Why? Because who is to say that android isn't taking share from apple and apple is taking share from windows and rim. apple and android will both show increases in market share.
Surely, some Android users are ex-iPhone users. In fact, I'd wager there are more iPhone-to-Android switcher than the reverse, just because Android phones haven't been around in large enough numbers for long enough for anybody who doesn't loathe their phone to switch (e.g., pay large ETFs/change networks). But as a percent of Android's total market share, it's unlikely to be a significant number (especially if only 7% of iPhone users are considering Android phones). Moreso, from a market share perspective, it doesn't really matter. You can only take share from a competitor that loses share.
Apple (as has been stated previously) has a quarter or so of the market. There is no indication that Android is making inroads into the iPhone market - that is, taking away iPhone users from the iPhone installed base (which incidentally has something on the order of an 80-90% user satisfaction rating among iPhone owners). More likely the increases come as a combination of smartphone segment growth, erosion of one or more of the current market leaders (RIM/Win) and other minority platforms. If you you use real numbers instead of comparative numbers your logic fails obviously: while an increase from 4% to 6% represents a 50% increase of marketshare over the lower number, point in fact is that if the entire market shifted up that 2% - it is a net 0% growth. Alternatively, you can also argue that if 2% of a given market is 1000, then regardless of the 4% or the 76% the net gain in real numbers is still only 1000 for each. So you see your examples fail to encompass all possible interpretations of the data.
When did I ever say that it encompassed all possible interpretations? And saying that it has net 0% growth is only applicable here if you're just considering it against the iphone which the survey does not do, or if there is a decrease in overall number of phones. The iphone is not the "entire market"
I've never even framed this into an android vs. iphone debate. The only opinion I have is that these surveys don't really tell you anything.
IRC, it was around 6 hours based on non-video/game use. Unfortunately, I don't know which review it was. Probably Engadget or Gizmodo. Frankly, the battery was so poor, it was almost baffling. The reviewer even speculated that the only way it could have been brought to market is if the engineers had never used a competing phone.
I can't find the review I was reading on Friday, but the guy testing it barely talked on the phone, did some pretty casual to mid-level usage and had the phone last 2 days between charges. He did highly recommend people snag one of the several apps in the droid store that help you manage leftover programs. He also turns gps, bluetooth and wi-fi off, puts a button on the home screen for them and turns them on as needed.
Good tips all around really, but I do wish that it seemed like other companies gave a shit about battery life (in phones, laptops or tablets). Generally it has seemed like products have awful battery life, then Apple comes along with a new product and decimates the battery life of competing products. Then the companies start talking about their commitment to battery life. Having something that is top-end is nice and all, but if the battery dies in no time flat, how does that keep me portable and not chained to a wall or computer via USB?
Tomorrow the entire world's media will be covering the new iPhone. Another Android phone? Few would know unless the maker buys ads. Mindshare.
Proof that HTC learned the lesson shown to the market with the Palm Pre.