No, not "what ifs". Simply - if the Nexus tablets are good, why do they not compete, in terms of sales, with the iPad, irrespective of their "stated" purpose?
Limited distribution, largely thru Google themselves? No advertising or promotion? Additional and useful consumer features reserved for the licensee version of that same general Nexus model, ie LG G3 is the enhanced Nexus 5? That's three I can come up with off the top of my head. Again it's not about whether a Nexus model is better both feature and hardware-wise than the followup licensee models that build on/improve the reference design and OS version.
The Nexus program has a specific stated purpose and competing with licensees, a requisite and harmful side-effect if they were intended as commercial successes, is not it. I'm very surprised it's not as obvious to you.
Limited distribution? I bought my Nexus 7 on Amazon. There was no shortage of them and they were easy to buy, and cheap, which is why I chose it. Agreed on the promotional issue, but it's not as if they were unknown, niche items.
Plenty of successful companies don't post sales figures. Do you think that Rolex's watches have been a commercial flop because they don't post sales figures?
You're right. You do need more than not releasing sales figures, like the $7 billion and fact that MS made Office for the iPad before Android tablets.
Apple could really piss off the competition by offering superior web functionality and performance -- only on Apple hardware running Apple browsers (and Apple apps to access web content).
Nonsense!
Web developers aren't going to buy into that. Things are just now getting standardized to the point where you can write one code base using the existing evolving standards. If they wanted to submit Swift to W3C as a proposed standard then that is a different situation, but I suspect Swift is just intended as a replacement for Obj-C which was well overdue. Apple has years of work ahead of them just translating all the API and libraries into Swift. They are not going waste time picking a fight with W3C.
Plenty of successful companies don't post sales figures. Do you think that Rolex's watches have been a commercial flop because they don't post sales figures?
And it's quite possible that Apple won't give out sales figures for ?Watch (at least not initially) as they've chosen to report it in the same bucket as ?TV and accessories. Will that make ?Watch a failure?
Intel will close the gap eventually. Chip design is not magic and they are not stupid. And while they're playing catch up, they have to keep an x86 ecosystem alive in that space, hence the subsidies.
closing the gap is a race term...
"Intel can close the gap in the race, even with the x86 boat anchor firmly attached to one ankle, and it's relay partners using a generic OS and "race to the bottom" chipsets running on top of their HW.... competing against teams that can cut a runner and put in a new one every year, because they control the selection of the team, heck they control the breeding of the team.
I don't think so.
My guess is Intel doesn't feel it's playing catchup, it's that PC/tablet makers are failing to differentiate "intel inside" I think they are confused as to why the 'integrators' can't sell Intel.
Intel's problem is that they haven't done an Apple and forked their product line, one with no 8/16/32 bit x86 emulation, one optimized for mobile activity, not one for generic computing. It's like saying you want a 3 cylinder LPG engine that gets 120miles per gallon, yet, make sure if the driver puts diesel into it, it can switch ignition plans and 'just' run, oh, and it can do it every gear shift (context switch).
And, if Atom is the engine and Android the transmission, and the transmission is designed to run generically on any engine, you've now added yet another layer of cruft. That takes time and effort (money and more money) to tune and remove before pushing it out the door.
Finally, you've built a power train (HW and OS) and then you integrate it into parts cobbled together for brakes, dashboard, wheels, headlights, gas tank, because designing uniquely for the product is time and effort (see above), you will get a poor handling vehicle.
In all, Intel is suffering in that whereas Windows was optimized for x86, Android is not, and the mobile market doesn't tolerate failures in user experience.
And in the end, there will be 2 types of computers in the world: <span style="line-height:1.4em;">DataCenter/Cloud based (intel can make money there), and mobile (Intel failing misrably). </span>
<span style="line-height:1.4em;">The desktop (where a 200W power supply and lots of slots can paper over any integrations issues), won't be a cash cow to Intel. Because in 5 years, the desktop will be a mobile device docking station (a PoE GbEthernet to Lightning connector).</span>
Microsoft got it half right... You need to control the integration and construction of the end device, the user experience, to sell in mobile.
Where MS got it wrong... they haven't learned how to say 'no' (No mouse, no stylus, no x86, no ARM), even in their own product.
Apple, now going on 8 years ago, made the decision that they would control the entire vehicle. Built a new OS based on the best parts of their OS, and removed everything that didn't have to do with driving a motorcycle. Used a generic ARM chip at first, but had plans to marry a new ARM design that was optimized to the chassis and transmission and from what they learned how people 'rode' their machine.
In 3 iterations (iPhone 2G iPhone 3G iPhone 3Gs - what 3 years), the iPhone 4 came out and set this path down in stone. The HW would be optimized for the perceived use of this device, not for backwards compatibility of infinite generations.
At this point, the chipset is not the end-user purchasing decision point. The OS barely is. It's the interaction experience, the apps and the ecosystem, and Intel is so far removed from that, they must learn to refactor and build a better mobile chip and get used to competing with Qualcomm and Nvidia at mobile margins.
Or get out of the market and focus on the challenges in the Data Center, where the HW is even more virtualized away from the user.
Web developers aren't going to buy into that. Things are just now getting standardized to the point where you can write one code base using the existing evolving standards. If they wanted to submit Swift to W3C as a proposed standard then that is a different situation, but I suspect Swift is just intended as a replacement for Obj-C which was well overdue. Apple has years of work ahead of them just translating all the API and libraries into Swift. They are not going waste time picking a fight with W3C.
Very true considering that PHP and now .NET Server Core are open source.
... Because in 5 years, the desktop will be a mobile device docking station...
Sad commentary on the future of computing, really. So long as Macs are required for developing iOS apps, I'll still be able to use my platform of preference.
Apple creates components like the A8 and A8X to separate itself from the pack. It already lived in a world where it used common components and found itself out-cheapened by competition. Instead, it develops a product that the competition can't match at any price, while apple reaps the profits of the ecosystem it 100% developed in-house.
I think Apples has learned some great lessons over the 40 years. Don't develop a product with a partner whose end game is to sell it to everyone in 1 to 2 years.
On Apple's use of Intel processors: It's for Macs and Macs make them money, too. However, that doesn't mean they don't want to find a way to bring the CPUs in-house. An ARM that can run Intel software is coming, mark my words. It won't be used in the Mac Pro, but it will be used in a Macbook Air product or other device.
Why buy a company like when Apple can beat Intel at their own game? With billions in the bank, Apple can vertically integrate their entire business and control every aspect of hardware and software from the chips to the code. Any company out there would love to be in their place.
Imagine if Microsoft did this with their billions from 1995 to 2005? Twenty years of profits wasted selling Office and Windows when they could have been adding hardware to the mix.
The thing Intel refuses to understand is that there is no need for x86 compatibility on an iOS or Android tablet. I see x86 as a liability not a benefit. Intel and its defenders claim that less than 10% of the CPU die is devoted to the x86 CISC instruction set to which I say that it would be better used to make the cache size larger. The x86 instruction set is obsolete. We don't need backwards compatibility for Windows apps if we are not running Windows. Unfortunately, Intel will have to lose many more billions of dollars before they realize that they should have licensed the ARM design and built better, cheaper, faster ARM processors with their advanced fabs while they still had the advantage. By the time they wake up to this it will be too late given Apple's investments in chip technology.
Since it's been explained to you several times that Nexus devices are not meant to be market-leading commercial successes, and which you acknowledged as true at least once recently (and as Google themselves has oft-explained in blogs), continuing the same line of spin reeks of FUD-raking. This is probably where you pull out your venerable "but...but...but... Nexus One!"
A flop would be a device that doesn't serve its intended purpose. Since Google's stated purpose for Nexus models is to define a hardware platform for new the OS version as well as introduce features of the new Android build to the public I'd say they've been pretty darn successful with 'em. They're doing just what Google says they're intended for.
Question for anyone who still has doubts: If Google really meant for Nexus models to be profit-making, licensee-competing commercial successes why don't they go directly to Foxconn or Pegatron or Quanta directly for the builds rather than using a licensee like LG or HTC or Motorola or Samsung who doesn't even manufacture the device themselves?
'nuff said.
OMG, the good ol' "i didn't get my butt kicked because ... i wasn't really trying!" rationalization.
sure, Google's PR is that the Nexus line are just "pure Android" prototypes, or "flagship" products, and so their success is not measured by sales. and it rotates them among its so-called Open Handset Alliance OEM's to share that prestige among them without favoritism.
but if strong consumer demand for the Nexus tabs were really there, it's horseshit to claim the OEM wouldn't manufacture as many as they could sell. or if Google prohibited that somehow, that such supply scarcity would not then command a sustained premium price - instead of the almost instant discounting we actually see.
and exactly what great Android-ness do these prototypes embody that can't be found on other OEM's leading new droid products within weeks?
so Google + OEM release Nexus tablets that sell poorly compared to not just the iPad but also the other OEM's "flagship" Android tablets, like the latest Samsung Galaxy, even after big price mark-downs. which unequivocally means that the consumer demand for them is simply not there.
that's not a "flop"? ok, how about "dud"? or "dog"? shall we quibble over words?
If you think it was not a flop, then who commercially benefitted from Nexus sales?
Once Nexus got into the hands of millions of people, everyone could see, compared to iPad, what Nexus could and could not do well.
Who benefitted from that?
Let's look at a recent review of iPad 2 and Nexus 9. It concludes:
As things stand now, my Air 2 isn't going anywhere. I don't feel I got fantastic value for money out of that $600 I dropped (I couldn't resist the 64GB model), but there's no way I'd put down $480, or even $400, for a Nexus 9. In my opinion, that's just throwing money away if all you're really looking for is an Android tablet running Lollipop. It's simply not worth it, not even close. There are a gaggle of refurbished Nexus 7 2013s out there that still look and run just fine on Android 5.0, and with totally comparable (if not better) build quality. If what you want is an iPad-ish (4:3, larger, high-end) Android tablet, then yes, the Nexus 9 is the only remotely respectable one available at the moment.
The ambition it takes to bring a good tablet into being is difficult to even imagine. Apple targeted the cluster of impossible tasks required to do everything, from hardware to software to design and all the rest, that it takes to make a tablet exist in a way that is a delight to use. And it remains such an impossible dream that the competition is still far behind.
The result is the sentiment quoted above: You can rummage around looking at refurbs from 2013 to get by with something that's not really very good, but at least it's cheap; you can pay more for the latest Nexus and get something that's okay, but still not worth it; or you can pay even more, and get an iPad, which while expensive, is actually worth having.
Who benefitted from Nexus sales? Ultimately, Apple.
Web developers aren't going to buy into that. Things are just now getting standardized to the point where you can write one code base using the existing evolving standards. If they wanted to submit Swift to W3C as a proposed standard then that is a different situation, but I suspect Swift is just intended as a replacement for Obj-C which was well overdue. Apple has years of work ahead of them just translating all the API and libraries into Swift. They are not going waste time picking a fight with W3C.
Very true considering that PHP and now .NET Server Core are open source.
All developers don't need to buy in ...
But, say, Apple developers ... or Apple/IBM developers targeting Apple mobile devices ... or IT developers targeting Apple Mobile Devices ...
If you look at it, most web server-side application programs are written in Java, PHP, Perl, ColdFusion.JavaScript (or equivalent scripting language), etc. ...
These programs are mingled with and generate markup (HTML, CSS, JavaScript, XML, JSON) that is sent to the client.
The client doesn't see or [need to] know what generated the markup.
But, If you have an IBM or Apple server communicating with Apple mobile devices -- Swift is a powerful and efficient alternative in this situation!
ah, i just read the Nexus 9 tab review at Android Police from the link posted here. here is its summary:
Nexus 9: Pros
It runs Android 5.0 and will receive timely OS updates from Google. Lollipop is nice, it's pretty, and it adds a lot of cool new features to Android for users and developers alike.
For a Nexus device, the screen is pretty good. Not amazing, but totally respectable.
It's just the right size to type on. I think 8.9" is the sweet spot for software keyboards, at least for my hands.
A better Gmail experience, better notification handling, multi-user support, better sharing between apps, and always-on voice commands that work extremely well. Basically, Android - it has the advantages Android has.
Did I mention multi-user? Multi-user is great. Apple can't ignore this on the iPad forever.
Nexus 9: Cons
Build quality / quality control issues that border on embarrassing. Light bleed, back flex, snapping noises, and a general feeling of low-cost hardware. It's not just me, either, complaints are increasingly common.
K1 Denver just does not seem to be shaping up as the performance powerhouse we hoped it would be, the Nexus 9 stutters and lags at times, and generally is just kind of rough around the edges.
Battery life isn't fantastic. My Nexus 9 seems to have particularly bad issues with longevity, but standby drain is still an issue Android can't seem to nail down.
Tablet content is still spotty at times, even in Google's own apps - look at Hangouts on a Nexus 9. Yeesh.
Chrome is an utter and complete dog compared to Mobile Safari in terms of smoothness, web browsing on the Nexus 9 is just lamentable.
all the positive items are really just about generic Lollipop. oh wait - the screen is "pretty good." while the negatives excoriate the hardware.
yeah, i think it will be accurate to call the N9 a "flop." it's certainly already a "dog."
check out the review, it's very interesting including the disillusioned comments:
OMG, the good ol' "i didn't get my butt kicked because ... i wasn't really trying!" rationalization.
sure, Google's PR is that the Nexus line are just "pure Android" prototypes, or "flagship" products, and so their success is not measured by sales. and it rotates them among its so-called Open Handset Alliance OEM's to share that prestige among them without favoritism.
but if strong consumer demand for the Nexus tabs were really there, it's horseshit to claim the OEM wouldn't manufacture as many as they could sell. or if Google prohibited that somehow, that such supply scarcity would not then command a sustained premium price - instead of the almost instant discounting we actually see.
and exactly what great Android-ness do these prototypes embody that can't be found on other OEM's leading new droid products within weeks?
so Google + OEM release Nexus tablets that sell poorly compared to not just the iPad but also the other OEM's "flagship" Android tablets, like the latest Samsung Galaxy, even after big price mark-downs. which unequivocally means that the consumer demand for them is simply not there.
that's not a "flop"? ok, how about "dud"? or "dog"? shall we quibble over words?
No, you simply fail to comprehend what's been said. You insist on defining flop as a revenue failure. Nexus models are intended as reference hardware platforms, and designed to highlight/promote new OS features, which they very successfully do. Revenue drivers in and of themselves is not the purpose.
Of course the Nexus models don't attract strong consumer demand. They aren't designed to. They appeal to a small but vocal subset of Android users.: Those that think having the latest OS version is worth the user feature trade-offs provided by Google Android licensees.
The OEM's provide the better storage options, the improved batteries, more intriguing designs, the different display options, the better camera's and the hardware promotion, but still based on the new OS features/integration and base hardware reference that Google provided as an outline thru the current Nexus product. That's the way it's supposed to work instead of Google stealing away their hardware sales with incredible hardware, lots of storage options, and creative design. So yeah the Nexus models are pretty successful, providing just what they're supposed to.
Your inability to understand it so far doesn't make it less factual. If you go back again and read some of my comments again with a more open mind you might still get it.
The thing Intel refuses to understand is that there is no need for x86 compatibility on an iOS or Android tablet. I see x86 as a liability not a benefit. Intel and its defenders claim that less than 10% of the CPU die is devoted to the x86 CISC instruction set to which I say that it would be better used to make the cache size larger. The x86 instruction set is obsolete. We don't need backwards compatibility for Windows apps if we are not running Windows. Unfortunately, Intel will have to lose many more billions of dollars before they realize that they should have licensed the ARM design and built better, cheaper, faster ARM processors with their advanced fabs while they still had the advantage. By the time they wake up to this it will be too late given Apple's investments in chip technology.
Intel's chips aren't even a true CISC chip, they've had hardware designed to translate the instructions into something closer to RISC so that the processor can understand. Been that way since the Pentium Pro.
No, you simply fail to comprehend what's been said. You insist on defining flop as a revenue failure. Nexus models are intended as reference hardware platforms, and designed to highlight/promote new OS features, which they very successfully do. Revenue drivers in and of themselves is not the purpose.
The OEM's then bring the better storage options, the improved batteries, more intriguing designs, the different display options, the better camera's and the hardware promotion, but still based on the new OS features/integration and base hardware reference that Google provided as an outline thru the current Nexus product.
You're inability to understand it doesn't make it less factual. If you go back again and read some of my comments again with a more open mind you might still get it.
If everyone else is supposed to take those and make a better product, why don't they? Because most diehard Android fans tout the Nexus devices as the end-all, be-all option.
We've seen this with MS as well, the Surface is supposed to be a reference device yet none of their partners actually come close to matching it (the Surface line is actually made up of quality products, unlike most cheap Nexus junk).
But, say, Apple developers ... or Apple/IBM developers targeting Apple mobile devices ... or IT developers targeting Apple Mobile Devices ...
If you look at it, most web server-side application programs are written in Java, PHP, Perl, ColdFusion.JavaScript (or equivalent scripting language), etc. ...
These programs are mingled with and generate markup (HTML, CSS, JavaScript, XML, JSON) that is sent to the client.
The client doesn't see or [need to] know what generated the markup.
But, If you have an IBM or Apple server communicating with Apple mobile devices -- Swift is a powerful and efficient alternative in this situation!
Your infatuation with Swift has apparently clouded your objectivity. A proprietary IBM/Apple corporate environment is certainly not a ubiquitous web browser platform. Your first remarks seemed to infer that Swift could be a general purpose replacement for all standard client browser implementations which of course is ridiculous. Not in Apple's best interest, not in the consumer's best interest and not in W3C standards best interest. In a proprietary corporate network, who cares, it is inconsequential to the Internet at large.
ah, i just read the Nexus 9 tab review at Android Police from the link posted here. here is its summary:
Nexus 9: Pros
It runs Android 5.0 and will receive timely OS updates from Google. Lollipop is nice, it's pretty, and it adds a lot of cool new features to Android for users and developers alike.
For a Nexus device, the screen is pretty good. Not amazing, but totally respectable.
It's just the right size to type on. I think 8.9" is the sweet spot for software keyboards, at least for my hands.
A better Gmail experience, better notification handling, multi-user support, better sharing between apps, and always-on voice commands that work extremely well. Basically, Android - it has the advantages Android has.
Did I mention multi-user? Multi-user is great. Apple can't ignore this on the iPad forever.
Nexus 9: Cons
Build quality / quality control issues that border on embarrassing. Light bleed, back flex, snapping noises, and a general feeling of low-cost hardware.
It's not just me, either, complaints are K1 Denver just does not seem to be shaping up as the performance powerhouse we hoped it would be, the Nexus 9 stutters and lags at times, and generally is just kind of rough around the edges.</li>
Battery life isn't fantastic. My Nexus 9 seems to have particularly bad issues with longevity, but standby drain is still an issue Android can't seem to nail down.
Tablet content is still spotty at times, even in Google's own apps - look at Hangouts on a Nexus 9. Yeesh.
Chrome is an utter and complete dog compared to Mobile Safari in terms of smoothness, web browsing on the Nexus 9 is just lamentable.
all the positive items are really just about generic Lollipop. oh wait - the screen is "pretty good." while the negatives excoriate the hardware.
yeah, i think it will be accurate to call the N9 a "flop." it's certainly already a "dog."
check out the review, it's very interesting including the disillusioned comments:
ooops, sorry about the bad formatting. droids out of control!
The first "con" of Apple iPad Air 2
"Is an iPad, will result in some people thinking you're an Apple sycophant / the kind of person who lingers at coffee shops for 8 hours a day."
That is the worst Android Police have to say about Apple iPad Air 2.
It runs Android 5.0 and will receive timely OS updates from Google. Lollipop is nice, it's pretty, and it adds a lot of cool new features to Android for users and developers alike.
For a Nexus device, the screen is pretty good. Not amazing, but totally respectable.
It's just the right size to type on. I think 8.9" is the sweet spot for software keyboards, at least for my hands.
A better Gmail experience, better notification handling, multi-user support, better sharing between apps, and always-on voice commands that work extremely well. Basically, Android - it has the advantages Android has.
Did I mention multi-user? Multi-user is great. Apple can't ignore this on the iPad forever.
Nexus 9: Cons
Build quality / quality control issues that border on embarrassing. Light bleed, back flex, snapping noises, and a general feeling of low-cost hardware. It's not just me, either, complaints are increasingly common.
K1 Denver just does not seem to be shaping up as the performance powerhouse we hoped it would be, the Nexus 9 stutters and lags at times, and generally is just kind of rough around the edges.
Battery life isn't fantastic. My Nexus 9 seems to have particularly bad issues with longevity, but standby drain is still an issue Android can't seem to nail down.
Tablet content is still spotty at times, even in Google's own apps - look at Hangouts on a Nexus 9. Yeesh.
Chrome is an utter and complete dog compared to Mobile Safari in terms of smoothness, web browsing on the Nexus 9 is just lamentable.
No, you simply fail to comprehend what's been said. You insist on defining flop as a revenue failure. Nexus models are intended as reference hardware platforms, and designed to highlight/promote new OS features, which they very successfully do. Revenue drivers in and of themselves is not the purpose.
The OEM's then bring the better storage options, the improved batteries, more intriguing designs, the different display options, the better camera's and the hardware promotion, but still based on the new OS features/integration and base hardware reference that Google provided as an outline thru the current Nexus product.
You're inability to understand it doesn't make it less factual. If you go back again and read some of my comments again with a more open mind you might still get it.
actually i define "flop" as a sales failure. that is, lack of meaningful consumer support AT ANY PRICE! even when discounted.
the rest of your apologia might make some sense IF the latest HTC Nexus 9 tablet wasn't such an utter dog, as outlined by no less than Android Police in my post above. if that is "reference hardware," boy, Google really is in deep do-do. its only advantage is to be first with Lollipop until Samsung and the rest have it for their tablets in a few months. but "highlighting" its new OS on a piece of shit hardware is just about the worst way in the world for Google to do that. if that were their intent, it surely has "flopped" in that regard already.
Comments
No, not "what ifs". Simply - if the Nexus tablets are good, why do they not compete, in terms of sales, with the iPad, irrespective of their "stated" purpose?
Limited distribution, largely thru Google themselves? No advertising or promotion? Additional and useful consumer features reserved for the licensee version of that same general Nexus model, ie LG G3 is the enhanced Nexus 5? That's three I can come up with off the top of my head. Again it's not about whether a Nexus model is better both feature and hardware-wise than the followup licensee models that build on/improve the reference design and OS version.
The Nexus program has a specific stated purpose and competing with licensees, a requisite and harmful side-effect if they were intended as commercial successes, is not it. I'm very surprised it's not as obvious to you.
Limited distribution? I bought my Nexus 7 on Amazon. There was no shortage of them and they were easy to buy, and cheap, which is why I chose it. Agreed on the promotional issue, but it's not as if they were unknown, niche items.
Plenty of successful companies don't post sales figures. Do you think that Rolex's watches have been a commercial flop because they don't post sales figures?
You're right. You do need more than not releasing sales figures, like the $7 billion and fact that MS made Office for the iPad before Android tablets.
Apple could really piss off the competition by offering superior web functionality and performance -- only on Apple hardware running Apple browsers (and Apple apps to access web content).
Nonsense!
Web developers aren't going to buy into that. Things are just now getting standardized to the point where you can write one code base using the existing evolving standards. If they wanted to submit Swift to W3C as a proposed standard then that is a different situation, but I suspect Swift is just intended as a replacement for Obj-C which was well overdue. Apple has years of work ahead of them just translating all the API and libraries into Swift. They are not going waste time picking a fight with W3C.
And it's quite possible that Apple won't give out sales figures for ?Watch (at least not initially) as they've chosen to report it in the same bucket as ?TV and accessories. Will that make ?Watch a failure?
^^^ Very well reasoned and said!
Nonsense!
Web developers aren't going to buy into that. Things are just now getting standardized to the point where you can write one code base using the existing evolving standards. If they wanted to submit Swift to W3C as a proposed standard then that is a different situation, but I suspect Swift is just intended as a replacement for Obj-C which was well overdue. Apple has years of work ahead of them just translating all the API and libraries into Swift. They are not going waste time picking a fight with W3C.
Very true considering that PHP and now .NET Server Core are open source.
... Because in 5 years, the desktop will be a mobile device docking station...
Sad commentary on the future of computing, really. So long as Macs are required for developing iOS apps, I'll still be able to use my platform of preference.
Apple creates components like the A8 and A8X to separate itself from the pack. It already lived in a world where it used common components and found itself out-cheapened by competition. Instead, it develops a product that the competition can't match at any price, while apple reaps the profits of the ecosystem it 100% developed in-house.
I think Apples has learned some great lessons over the 40 years. Don't develop a product with a partner whose end game is to sell it to everyone in 1 to 2 years.
On Apple's use of Intel processors: It's for Macs and Macs make them money, too. However, that doesn't mean they don't want to find a way to bring the CPUs in-house. An ARM that can run Intel software is coming, mark my words. It won't be used in the Mac Pro, but it will be used in a Macbook Air product or other device.
Why buy a company like when Apple can beat Intel at their own game? With billions in the bank, Apple can vertically integrate their entire business and control every aspect of hardware and software from the chips to the code. Any company out there would love to be in their place.
Imagine if Microsoft did this with their billions from 1995 to 2005? Twenty years of profits wasted selling Office and Windows when they could have been adding hardware to the mix.
The thing Intel refuses to understand is that there is no need for x86 compatibility on an iOS or Android tablet. I see x86 as a liability not a benefit. Intel and its defenders claim that less than 10% of the CPU die is devoted to the x86 CISC instruction set to which I say that it would be better used to make the cache size larger. The x86 instruction set is obsolete. We don't need backwards compatibility for Windows apps if we are not running Windows. Unfortunately, Intel will have to lose many more billions of dollars before they realize that they should have licensed the ARM design and built better, cheaper, faster ARM processors with their advanced fabs while they still had the advantage. By the time they wake up to this it will be too late given Apple's investments in chip technology.
Since it's been explained to you several times that Nexus devices are not meant to be market-leading commercial successes, and which you acknowledged as true at least once recently (and as Google themselves has oft-explained in blogs), continuing the same line of spin reeks of FUD-raking. This is probably where you pull out your venerable "but...but...but... Nexus One!"
A flop would be a device that doesn't serve its intended purpose. Since Google's stated purpose for Nexus models is to define a hardware platform for new the OS version as well as introduce features of the new Android build to the public I'd say they've been pretty darn successful with 'em. They're doing just what Google says they're intended for.
Question for anyone who still has doubts: If Google really meant for Nexus models to be profit-making, licensee-competing commercial successes why don't they go directly to Foxconn or Pegatron or Quanta directly for the builds rather than using a licensee like LG or HTC or Motorola or Samsung who doesn't even manufacture the device themselves?
'nuff said.
OMG, the good ol' "i didn't get my butt kicked because ... i wasn't really trying!" rationalization.
sure, Google's PR is that the Nexus line are just "pure Android" prototypes, or "flagship" products, and so their success is not measured by sales. and it rotates them among its so-called Open Handset Alliance OEM's to share that prestige among them without favoritism.
but if strong consumer demand for the Nexus tabs were really there, it's horseshit to claim the OEM wouldn't manufacture as many as they could sell. or if Google prohibited that somehow, that such supply scarcity would not then command a sustained premium price - instead of the almost instant discounting we actually see.
and exactly what great Android-ness do these prototypes embody that can't be found on other OEM's leading new droid products within weeks?
so Google + OEM release Nexus tablets that sell poorly compared to not just the iPad but also the other OEM's "flagship" Android tablets, like the latest Samsung Galaxy, even after big price mark-downs. which unequivocally means that the consumer demand for them is simply not there.
that's not a "flop"? ok, how about "dud"? or "dog"? shall we quibble over words?
When did Intel make CPUs for iPads in order for them to lose this business?
If you think it was not a flop, then who commercially benefitted from Nexus sales?
Once Nexus got into the hands of millions of people, everyone could see, compared to iPad, what Nexus could and could not do well.
Who benefitted from that?
Let's look at a recent review of iPad 2 and Nexus 9. It concludes:
As things stand now, my Air 2 isn't going anywhere. I don't feel I got fantastic value for money out of that $600 I dropped (I couldn't resist the 64GB model), but there's no way I'd put down $480, or even $400, for a Nexus 9. In my opinion, that's just throwing money away if all you're really looking for is an Android tablet running Lollipop. It's simply not worth it, not even close. There are a gaggle of refurbished Nexus 7 2013s out there that still look and run just fine on Android 5.0, and with totally comparable (if not better) build quality. If what you want is an iPad-ish (4:3, larger, high-end) Android tablet, then yes, the Nexus 9 is the only remotely respectable one available at the moment.
http://www.androidpolice.com/2014/11/11/nexus-9-vs-ipad-air-2-a-mostly-subjective-comparison/
The ambition it takes to bring a good tablet into being is difficult to even imagine. Apple targeted the cluster of impossible tasks required to do everything, from hardware to software to design and all the rest, that it takes to make a tablet exist in a way that is a delight to use. And it remains such an impossible dream that the competition is still far behind.
The result is the sentiment quoted above: You can rummage around looking at refurbs from 2013 to get by with something that's not really very good, but at least it's cheap; you can pay more for the latest Nexus and get something that's okay, but still not worth it; or you can pay even more, and get an iPad, which while expensive, is actually worth having.
Who benefitted from Nexus sales? Ultimately, Apple.
All developers don't need to buy in ...
But, say, Apple developers ... or Apple/IBM developers targeting Apple mobile devices ... or IT developers targeting Apple Mobile Devices ...
If you look at it, most web server-side application programs are written in Java, PHP, Perl, ColdFusion.JavaScript (or equivalent scripting language), etc. ...
These programs are mingled with and generate markup (HTML, CSS, JavaScript, XML, JSON) that is sent to the client.
The client doesn't see or [need to] know what generated the markup.
But, If you have an IBM or Apple server communicating with Apple mobile devices -- Swift is a powerful and efficient alternative in this situation!
ah, i just read the Nexus 9 tab review at Android Police from the link posted here. here is its summary:
Nexus 9: Pros
Nexus 9: Cons
all the positive items are really just about generic Lollipop. oh wait - the screen is "pretty good." while the negatives excoriate the hardware.
yeah, i think it will be accurate to call the N9 a "flop." it's certainly already a "dog."
check out the review, it's very interesting including the disillusioned comments:
http://www.androidpolice.com/2014/11/11/nexus-9-vs-ipad-air-2-a-mostly-subjective-comparison/#usability-app-content-storefront-and-purchasing-experience
ooops, sorry about the bad formatting. droids out of control!
Of course the Nexus models don't attract strong consumer demand. They aren't designed to. They appeal to a small but vocal subset of Android users.: Those that think having the latest OS version is worth the user feature trade-offs provided by Google Android licensees.
The OEM's provide the better storage options, the improved batteries, more intriguing designs, the different display options, the better camera's and the hardware promotion, but still based on the new OS features/integration and base hardware reference that Google provided as an outline thru the current Nexus product. That's the way it's supposed to work instead of Google stealing away their hardware sales with incredible hardware, lots of storage options, and creative design. So yeah the Nexus models are pretty successful, providing just what they're supposed to.
Your inability to understand it so far doesn't make it less factual. If you go back again and read some of my comments again with a more open mind you might still get it.
Intel's chips aren't even a true CISC chip, they've had hardware designed to translate the instructions into something closer to RISC so that the processor can understand. Been that way since the Pentium Pro.
If everyone else is supposed to take those and make a better product, why don't they? Because most diehard Android fans tout the Nexus devices as the end-all, be-all option.
We've seen this with MS as well, the Surface is supposed to be a reference device yet none of their partners actually come close to matching it (the Surface line is actually made up of quality products, unlike most cheap Nexus junk).
All developers don't need to buy in ...
But, say, Apple developers ... or Apple/IBM developers targeting Apple mobile devices ... or IT developers targeting Apple Mobile Devices ...
If you look at it, most web server-side application programs are written in Java, PHP, Perl, ColdFusion.JavaScript (or equivalent scripting language), etc. ...
These programs are mingled with and generate markup (HTML, CSS, JavaScript, XML, JSON) that is sent to the client.
The client doesn't see or [need to] know what generated the markup.
But, If you have an IBM or Apple server communicating with Apple mobile devices -- Swift is a powerful and efficient alternative in this situation!
Your infatuation with Swift has apparently clouded your objectivity. A proprietary IBM/Apple corporate environment is certainly not a ubiquitous web browser platform. Your first remarks seemed to infer that Swift could be a general purpose replacement for all standard client browser implementations which of course is ridiculous. Not in Apple's best interest, not in the consumer's best interest and not in W3C standards best interest. In a proprietary corporate network, who cares, it is inconsequential to the Internet at large.
The first "con" of Apple iPad Air 2
"Is an iPad, will result in some people thinking you're an Apple sycophant / the kind of person who lingers at coffee shops for 8 hours a day."
That is the worst Android Police have to say about Apple iPad Air 2.
ah -
Nexus 9: Pros
Nexus 9: Cons
http://www.androidpolice.com/2014/11/11/nexus-9-vs-ipad-air-2-a-mostly-subjective-comparison/#usability-app-content-storefront-and-purchasing-experience
No, you simply fail to comprehend what's been said. You insist on defining flop as a revenue failure. Nexus models are intended as reference hardware platforms, and designed to highlight/promote new OS features, which they very successfully do. Revenue drivers in and of themselves is not the purpose.
The OEM's then bring the better storage options, the improved batteries, more intriguing designs, the different display options, the better camera's and the hardware promotion, but still based on the new OS features/integration and base hardware reference that Google provided as an outline thru the current Nexus product.
You're inability to understand it doesn't make it less factual. If you go back again and read some of my comments again with a more open mind you might still get it.
actually i define "flop" as a sales failure. that is, lack of meaningful consumer support AT ANY PRICE! even when discounted.
the rest of your apologia might make some sense IF the latest HTC Nexus 9 tablet wasn't such an utter dog, as outlined by no less than Android Police in my post above. if that is "reference hardware," boy, Google really is in deep do-do. its only advantage is to be first with Lollipop until Samsung and the rest have it for their tablets in a few months. but "highlighting" its new OS on a piece of shit hardware is just about the worst way in the world for Google to do that. if that were their intent, it surely has "flopped" in that regard already.