I just wanted to say I just watched Hackers (1995). I've watched it before but it popped up on HBO HD recently so I thought, why not.
Of course a lot of it was quite ludicrous, like having better than Xbox360-quality graphics as a *file browser* on a Pentium laptop... over a public pay phone modem connection...
But it made me think.
The tech world as we know it now, in August 2011, would not exist without the invention of the iMac, OSX, iOS, iPod, iPhone and iPad.
Lion has some pretty interesting innovations. There are some bugs and annoyances but they really did put some thought into it. I take back what I said about it. It's been quite fun this past few weeks and rather productive too. I can't see using anything else as my main OS.
Windows and Office is pretty much 10 years too old, same old ancient history. Android is a wannabe. Ice Cream Sandwich at a loss what to copy. BlackBerry is dying and WebOS stillborn.
Apple, Inc. has defined at least 2 decades of not just personal computing but technology experience in general. Sure, there are so many involved but in terms of the user experience from mobile through to desktop for everyday Jane up to "elite" Joe... the role Apple has played in at least 20 years is simply... more immense than we'll ever imagine.
Android needs to die because Google is an evil company. Eric Schmidt sat on Apple's board of directors, privy to everything Apple was doing - as well as inside information on unannounced products. Then Schmidt leaves Apple's board and Google starts to compete with Apple. Hmmm...
I like competition, yet I'm thrilled that Android is going to implode and all of its children are going to eat each other. Google thinks it can do whatever it wants, infringe on anyone's patents, and steal ideas while calling it "competition". You don't compete by stealing other peoples' legally protected ideas. The single biggest threat to Android at the moment is Oracle's lawsuit. The question isn't if Oracle is going to win - it will - the question is whether Oracle will agree to settle or push for an injunction against Android. The lure of licensing fees is tempting. Either Android will be shut down entirely, or between Oracle's and Apple's suits the Android licensing fees will essentially kill it. Which will leave WP7. I think Apple would much rather compete against Microsoft than Google.
The only real tablet competitor in terms of quality and apps is HP's TouchPad. Actually, it currently sits at #2 in tablet market share behind Apple. I welcome competition between iOS and WebOS - both are extremely well designed and implemented. None of this ugly, complicated Android horse crap. In the end, we are going to see three major players in the tablet space - Microsoft, Apple and HP.
Yes, soon it will be Microsoft, Oracle, Apple, and welcome aboard Motorola. This mess will drive hardware manufacturers to look at alternatives like Windows Mobile, and possible WebOS (as HP has said it would consider licensing it).
By 30 dollar a phone to Microsoft or HP will seem cheap.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Aizmov
Good for Motorola, Microsoft shouldn't be the only company making money from Android.
I don't know about evil, but it certainly has become the new Microsoft. Like the Microsoft of old, it has to be in every market. If it sees somebody doing something innovative, it use the money it has from Search, to copy that product and give it away for free.
That kills innovation.
Quote:
Originally Posted by AZREOSpecialist
Android needs to die because Google is an evil company.
One of the most egregious oversights of trying to determine where Android gets the market from is the potent combination of carrier marketing (both media and Point of Sale *the other POS*) AND the drive down into the large feature phone segment. The "smartphone" segment is still a much smaller chunk of the marketplace, which is why technically Nokia still owns the mobile space today (but likely not tomorrow) - because they supplied most of the feature phone market worldwide.
The majority of Android's marketshare has come from the carriers converting feature phone users to an Android handset. And compared to a feature phone an Android handset is really nice (except for things like comparative battery life). THAT is what Android is used for by the carriers - get people on more expensive plans to generate more revenue - that was the key selling point that Google made to the carriers. That is why the carriers jumped on the Android train and that is why the handset makers were able to drive making Android handsets so successfully.
Most technically savvy folks who are Google proponents are so enamored of the geek toys Google throws out that they are completely oblivious to the actual business plan that drives Google - monetization of the internet. They sold the carriers on driving smartphone sales to monetize connectivity via upselling feature phones to smartphones and the handset makers by giving them a free OS to make smartphones with. All Google had to do was tell the handset makers "look, the carriers are panting to upsell their customers to smartphone contracts. Here take this OS for your devices, you don't have to worry about R&D for the OS - we'll do that for you. Just make the handsets that run this OS and you will sell millions of these." And they did.
The key problems remain as they have been (and hashed over countless times in these threads) IP ownership, moderating platforms, and original intent. Google isn't necessarily evil, just a large company driving it's business plan to its logical conclusion. The fact that it involves knowingly using other companies IP without license or permission means that Android was never meant to be an enduring project. It was meant to serve Google's purpose and then retired to be replaced with the next monetization tool - probably Chrome or its variant, and then its successor as well.
Moto, Sammy, L(ucky)G(oldstar), SE, HTC all have business models of seizing whatever will sell handsets and riding it until it dies and then hopping on the next horse. Some hop better than others. The carriers all want consumers to pay as much as possible for as few services as possible. The only end game here is for the company that cannot hop horses fast enough (or in Nokia's case hopping on a tiger). This is far from over, there's just a lot of churn in what was once a sleepy cell services segment.
Motorola is a very old company as today's players go--back to the age of radios. God knows what a fat file of arcane patents they have. Most probably irrelevant today, but you never know.
They actually have the patent for the "portable phone"
Comments
Of course a lot of it was quite ludicrous, like having better than Xbox360-quality graphics as a *file browser* on a Pentium laptop... over a public pay phone modem connection...
But it made me think.
The tech world as we know it now, in August 2011, would not exist without the invention of the iMac, OSX, iOS, iPod, iPhone and iPad.
Lion has some pretty interesting innovations. There are some bugs and annoyances but they really did put some thought into it. I take back what I said about it. It's been quite fun this past few weeks and rather productive too. I can't see using anything else as my main OS.
Windows and Office is pretty much 10 years too old, same old ancient history. Android is a wannabe. Ice Cream Sandwich at a loss what to copy. BlackBerry is dying and WebOS stillborn.
Apple, Inc. has defined at least 2 decades of not just personal computing but technology experience in general. Sure, there are so many involved but in terms of the user experience from mobile through to desktop for everyday Jane up to "elite" Joe... the role Apple has played in at least 20 years is simply... more immense than we'll ever imagine.
I like competition, yet I'm thrilled that Android is going to implode and all of its children are going to eat each other. Google thinks it can do whatever it wants, infringe on anyone's patents, and steal ideas while calling it "competition". You don't compete by stealing other peoples' legally protected ideas. The single biggest threat to Android at the moment is Oracle's lawsuit. The question isn't if Oracle is going to win - it will - the question is whether Oracle will agree to settle or push for an injunction against Android. The lure of licensing fees is tempting. Either Android will be shut down entirely, or between Oracle's and Apple's suits the Android licensing fees will essentially kill it. Which will leave WP7. I think Apple would much rather compete against Microsoft than Google.
The only real tablet competitor in terms of quality and apps is HP's TouchPad. Actually, it currently sits at #2 in tablet market share behind Apple. I welcome competition between iOS and WebOS - both are extremely well designed and implemented. None of this ugly, complicated Android horse crap. In the end, we are going to see three major players in the tablet space - Microsoft, Apple and HP.
By 30 dollar a phone to Microsoft or HP will seem cheap.
Good for Motorola, Microsoft shouldn't be the only company making money from Android.
That kills innovation.
Android needs to die because Google is an evil company.
The majority of Android's marketshare has come from the carriers converting feature phone users to an Android handset. And compared to a feature phone an Android handset is really nice (except for things like comparative battery life). THAT is what Android is used for by the carriers - get people on more expensive plans to generate more revenue - that was the key selling point that Google made to the carriers. That is why the carriers jumped on the Android train and that is why the handset makers were able to drive making Android handsets so successfully.
Most technically savvy folks who are Google proponents are so enamored of the geek toys Google throws out that they are completely oblivious to the actual business plan that drives Google - monetization of the internet. They sold the carriers on driving smartphone sales to monetize connectivity via upselling feature phones to smartphones and the handset makers by giving them a free OS to make smartphones with. All Google had to do was tell the handset makers "look, the carriers are panting to upsell their customers to smartphone contracts. Here take this OS for your devices, you don't have to worry about R&D for the OS - we'll do that for you. Just make the handsets that run this OS and you will sell millions of these." And they did.
The key problems remain as they have been (and hashed over countless times in these threads) IP ownership, moderating platforms, and original intent. Google isn't necessarily evil, just a large company driving it's business plan to its logical conclusion. The fact that it involves knowingly using other companies IP without license or permission means that Android was never meant to be an enduring project. It was meant to serve Google's purpose and then retired to be replaced with the next monetization tool - probably Chrome or its variant, and then its successor as well.
Moto, Sammy, L(ucky)G(oldstar), SE, HTC all have business models of seizing whatever will sell handsets and riding it until it dies and then hopping on the next horse. Some hop better than others. The carriers all want consumers to pay as much as possible for as few services as possible. The only end game here is for the company that cannot hop horses fast enough (or in Nokia's case hopping on a tiger). This is far from over, there's just a lot of churn in what was once a sleepy cell services segment.
You'll love this patent dashboard.
http://www.uspto.gov/dashboards/patents/main.dashxml
Very interesting. I'd not seen this before.
Motorola is a very old company as today's players go--back to the age of radios. God knows what a fat file of arcane patents they have. Most probably irrelevant today, but you never know.
They actually have the patent for the "portable phone"