Customers expect more of a design change in a smartphone than they do in a laptop.
How did having their own OS work out for Palm? It's not the formula to success that you think it is.
Not seeing that Palm/Handspring had much going for them outside of PDA's originally, and HP surely didn't know what to do with the OS later, so now LG has it if I'm correct.
I think that both Apple and MS have enough depth to both their product lines and OS variants to survive, so maybe you're short a few parameter in your analysis of success. One wonders what Android will morph into when it is repurposed away from the OEM's back to Google.
You got it, bub. Don't you remember Cook saying it's unfair that Apple does the r and d for all the copycats? They spend the coin prototyping from scratch, whereas the copycats just clone.
Not a difficult concept if you're willing to stop being obtuse.
Ok if all these other companies are just copying Apple how come they're selling smart watches that are circular and not rounded recs? And since next to nothing leaked about ?Watch until it was revealed last September what exactly were they copying?
So? Nowhere did Jobs say anything about SCREEN size. He was talking about PHONE size. From Jobs position, with the technology available at the time (processor and GPU performance, battery technology) and Apples requirements for responsiveness and customer interaction, a large screen phone was stupid.
Why is it we get people who always take quotes from Jobs that are many years old and apply it to technology that's available today? At the time Jobs said it he was CORRECT. Especially in the context of Apples goals for ALL aspects of the device.
Apple made the iPhone 6 larger because their own internal documents about what customers want showed people are interested in larger screwed iPhones. This all came out in the Samsung trial.
So Apple responds to customers wishes for larger iPhones and they are somehow copying? Does anyone have any documentation to show Apple custoners wanted large screen phones back in 2010?
For one I never said Apple copied. Secondly regardless of the volume, a bigger screen means a bigger footprint which means it's harder to get your hands around. Thirdly, what indications were there that customers wanted a bigger screen? The smaller iPhone was kicking everyone's ass in sales.
Because it's an iPhone and it runs iOS. I'm sure anybody that owns a 6 or 6 Plus would love it as much if not more if it was slightly smaller with smaller bezels.
Sure, they will love it, and in the meantime, it doesn't seem to be much impediment to purchasing, which is, you know, the point.
Because they wanted to - the time was right. They could have at any point, as Ive mentioned somewhere.
As if Ive or Cook would say anything different. Ive also said in 2012 that they made the iPhone 5 taller but not wider so it could still be comfortably used with one hand. If that's the case how come the 6 and 6 Plus are wider? Or does Apple not care about one handed use any more. And if your answer is reachability, then how come Apple didn't make the iPhone 5 taller AND wider and introduce reachability then?
Not seeing that Palm/Handspring had much going for them outside of PDA's originally, and HP surely didn't know what to do with the OS later, so now LG has it if I'm correct.
I think that both Apple and MS have enough depth to both their product lines and OS variants to survive, so maybe you're short a few parameter in your analysis of success. One wonders what Android will morph into when it is repurposed away from the OEM's back to Google.
How are my parameters short? Windows basically killed Nokia. Only MS's deep pockets have kept Win Mobile alive. LG using WebOS does nothing for Palm, and BB is a shell of its former self. Numbers wise, having your own OS has led to more failures than successes.
Viseo seems to have a bit of a marketing campaign with the downsides of curved screens, but truth be told, I hope that curved screens sell nicely, but both flat and curved have limitations in viewability in the real world.
Being late to curved screens isn't going to be any big deal for Apple, no less than being late to 4K screens is. A bit of an inconvenience to customers who must look for third party products, but frankly, there isn't any big dollars in monitors for Apple anyway.
Sure, they will love it, and in the meantime, it doesn't seem to be much impediment to purchasing, which is, you know, the point.
You're right it's not impacting sales. But my point is around the argument that Apple isn't about being first it's about being the best. But I don't see anything revolutionary with the 6 and 6 Plus that make me think 'now this is how you do a large screen phone'. It seems pretty clear that these devices were a reaction to the popularity of larger phones, especially in Asia.
How are my parameters short? Windows basically killed Nokia. Only MS's deep pockets have kept Win Mobile alive. LG using WebOS does nothing for Palm, and BB is a shell of its former self. Numbers wise, having your own OS has led to more failures than successes.
Nokia was walking dead with their own OS. MS was late to the multitouch game, but the game is surely continuing without the Nokia name next year, and there isn't any reason for MS to depart Mobile.
Tell me again how OEM's using someone else's OS is making money, both in PC's and Mobile, because I'm not seeing it as any kind of advantage.
Viseo seems to have a bit of a marketing campaign with the downsides of curved screens, but truth be told, I hope that curved screens sell nicely, but both flat and curved have limitations in viewability in the real world.
Being late to curved screens isn't going to be any big deal for Apple, no less than being late to 4K screens is. A bit of an inconvenience to customers who must look for third party products, but frankly, there isn't any big dollars in monitors for Apple anyway.
I would never want a curved TV but I can see where a curved monitor would be cool. Now that Apple the 5K iMac I hope we see a 4 or 5K Cinema Display this year. I'd much rather see Mac customers buying an Apple display than one from Dell or HP.
Nokia was walking dead with their own OS. MS was late to the multitouch game, but the game is surely continuing without the Nokia name next year, and there isn't any reason for MS to depart Mobile.
Tell me again how OEM's using someone else's OS is making money, both in PC's and Mobile, because I'm not seeing it as any kind of advantage.
Yet again, Apple is a "Black Swan".
Apple is absolutely a 'Black Swan' which means nobody else can successfully mimic it. Using Android hasn't made anyone much money, but it has allowed them to survive which gives them the opportunity to turn things around. Apple is a perfect case in point at what a company can do if they hang around long enough.
You're right it's not impacting sales. But my point is around the argument that Apple isn't about being first it's about being the best. But I don't see anything revolutionary with the 6 and 6 Plus that make me think 'now this is how you do a large screen phone'. It seems pretty clear that these devices were a reaction to the popularity of larger phones, especially in Asia.
Sure, but you note shortcomings that having had been with iPhone from day one, yet Apple has chosen to continue those particular design cues. Perhaps they aren't perceived as important shortcomings by the buyers and no one (of note anyway) has stated that Apple implementation of a large screen is groundbreaking in itself. What's important, and you some others seem to miss this, is that iPhone buyers like the user experience provided by both the underlying technology, the design, and the broad ecosystem that Apple provides in their version of large screen smartphones. This is not disputable.
You especially need to step back and get over individual features as defining a product in any important way. Sure, some are more important to the buyer today, Touch ID being an important case, but these will be matched by the competition, which is the point to the OP. I don't particularly get the Android users fascination with breakthrough features, many of which are marketing gimmicks, as I'm not particularly concerned about lagging the bleeding edge; if anything, I wanted it fully baked before I sign on.
There will be plenty of iPhone releases in the future that will provide something I want enough to upgrade, and as an iPhone 5 user, I don't see the iPhone 6 as being anything that has any great appeal to me today, though I might surely turn around and upgrade at any time, being able to change my mind and all.
The important fact to remember is that Android OEM's have to seek differentiation from each other more so even than from Apple, and with the Android market being so commoditized, that's the best that any OEM can do, Samsung includes.
Apple is absolutely a 'Black Swan' which means nobody else can successfully mimic it. Using Android hasn't made anyone much money, but it has allowed them to survive which gives them the opportunity to turn things around. Apple is a perfect case in point at what a company can do if they hang around long enough.
How are OEM's going to turn it around, and what are the chances of success? I give MS more chances as it has time, money, and technology going for it, and maybe even, somebody who can run it, but those chances are small.
Samsung will never again see mobile profits like Apple, and the other OEM's will never see any serious profits at the bottom, but for some that cans subsidize mobile with other business, it is probably worthwhile to hang in there with small profits.
The important fact to remember is that Android OEM's have to seek differentiation from each other more so even than from Apple, and with the Android market being so commoditized, that's the best that any OEM can do, Samsung includes.
How are OEM's going to turn it around, and what are the chances of success? I give MS more chances as it has time, money, and technology going for it, and maybe even, somebody who can run it, but those chances are small.
Samsung will never again see mobile profits like Apple, and the other OEM's will never see any serious profits at the bottom, but for some that cans subsidize mobile with other business, it is probably worthwhile to hang in there with small profits.
How does any company turn things around? Apple was on the brink of extinction. Did you know back then that they'd become one of the biggest companies ever?
How does any company turn things around? Apple was on the brink of extinction. Did you know back then that they'd become one of the biggest companies ever?
No, I didn't know, but I was predicting Apple's eminent death, and I've been a user since the 128 Mac.
But the case of Apple was really a reverse takeover by NeXT, and that OS ended up giving them a huge advantage in everything we see today, not to mention that Steve Jobs came to the helm.
I believe that MS still has a great future if given brilliant leadership, but it will probably never see any substantial profits or marketshare in mobile. It will definitely be around for the "next great thing". Maybe that's all that these companies are holding out for; the "next great thing".
If Samsung can move Tizen forward in a big way, they many find themselves back in the mobile game without the differentiation issues of Android. I give them a chance of that, but time is not on their side and it will be a climb much more difficult than Apple experienced, and certainly as worthy of admiration. Tizen itself is necessary for Samsung's future in its professed "IoT" and I actually expect quite a bit of innovation backed by Samsung's manufacturing prowess. Ironically, Samsung could become the biggest player in Apple's HomeKit initiative, and very profitable in that segment.
I believe that they had to. One they had painted themselves into a corner design wise, and the only change other than thinner was to go bigger, and two I think they were afraid of more people going to the competition if they didn’t go bigger.
They didn't have to. Apple doesn't get scared of the competition.
Yea, but here we have the head of the shirt company loudly and publicly declaring that only the one size of the two particular styles of shirt they make are viable. Then the same company turns around and does exactly what they, by implication, criticised other for doing - releasing shirts both smaller and larger than the sizes they had earlier claimed were the best.
So I guess never in Apple history has Apple released a larger or smaller sized version of an existing product before the iPad/iPhone? Of course we'll exclude the iPod and iMac, MacBook, ...
Then why did they, because they wanted to, or because they had to?
Honestly... Apple never HAS to do anything. They march to the beat of their own drum. They've had no problems selling any phone. Most companies can only dream of having the same sort of success that Apple has in smartphones.
Phones have X inch screens. You can literally use any number for X.
The issue is... Apple has only ever had 2 screen sizes in their entire smartphone history... while everyone else has used a variety of sizes.
That doesn't mean Apple was right or wrong... screen size is just a decision. And it's one decision out of many that have to be made.
Comments
What does touch ID have to do with screen size? LG G3 and Moto X don't have fingerprint sensors.
Customers expect more of a design change in a smartphone than they do in a laptop.
How did having their own OS work out for Palm? It's not the formula to success that you think it is.
Not seeing that Palm/Handspring had much going for them outside of PDA's originally, and HP surely didn't know what to do with the OS later, so now LG has it if I'm correct.
I think that both Apple and MS have enough depth to both their product lines and OS variants to survive, so maybe you're short a few parameter in your analysis of success. One wonders what Android will morph into when it is repurposed away from the OEM's back to Google.
Ok if all these other companies are just copying Apple how come they're selling smart watches that are circular and not rounded recs? And since next to nothing leaked about ?Watch until it was revealed last September what exactly were they copying?
For one I never said Apple copied. Secondly regardless of the volume, a bigger screen means a bigger footprint which means it's harder to get your hands around. Thirdly, what indications were there that customers wanted a bigger screen? The smaller iPhone was kicking everyone's ass in sales.
Because it's an iPhone and it runs iOS. I'm sure anybody that owns a 6 or 6 Plus would love it as much if not more if it was slightly smaller with smaller bezels.
Sure, they will love it, and in the meantime, it doesn't seem to be much impediment to purchasing, which is, you know, the point.
As if Ive or Cook would say anything different. Ive also said in 2012 that they made the iPhone 5 taller but not wider so it could still be comfortably used with one hand. If that's the case how come the 6 and 6 Plus are wider? Or does Apple not care about one handed use any more. And if your answer is reachability, then how come Apple didn't make the iPhone 5 taller AND wider and introduce reachability then?
How are my parameters short? Windows basically killed Nokia. Only MS's deep pockets have kept Win Mobile alive. LG using WebOS does nothing for Palm, and BB is a shell of its former self. Numbers wise, having your own OS has led to more failures than successes.
Curved monitors are a gimmick? According to who?
Viseo seems to have a bit of a marketing campaign with the downsides of curved screens, but truth be told, I hope that curved screens sell nicely, but both flat and curved have limitations in viewability in the real world.
Being late to curved screens isn't going to be any big deal for Apple, no less than being late to 4K screens is. A bit of an inconvenience to customers who must look for third party products, but frankly, there isn't any big dollars in monitors for Apple anyway.
You're right it's not impacting sales. But my point is around the argument that Apple isn't about being first it's about being the best. But I don't see anything revolutionary with the 6 and 6 Plus that make me think 'now this is how you do a large screen phone'. It seems pretty clear that these devices were a reaction to the popularity of larger phones, especially in Asia.
How are my parameters short? Windows basically killed Nokia. Only MS's deep pockets have kept Win Mobile alive. LG using WebOS does nothing for Palm, and BB is a shell of its former self. Numbers wise, having your own OS has led to more failures than successes.
Nokia was walking dead with their own OS. MS was late to the multitouch game, but the game is surely continuing without the Nokia name next year, and there isn't any reason for MS to depart Mobile.
Tell me again how OEM's using someone else's OS is making money, both in PC's and Mobile, because I'm not seeing it as any kind of advantage.
Yet again, Apple is a "Black Swan".
I would never want a curved TV but I can see where a curved monitor would be cool. Now that Apple the 5K iMac I hope we see a 4 or 5K Cinema Display this year. I'd much rather see Mac customers buying an Apple display than one from Dell or HP.
Apple is absolutely a 'Black Swan' which means nobody else can successfully mimic it. Using Android hasn't made anyone much money, but it has allowed them to survive which gives them the opportunity to turn things around. Apple is a perfect case in point at what a company can do if they hang around long enough.
You're right it's not impacting sales. But my point is around the argument that Apple isn't about being first it's about being the best. But I don't see anything revolutionary with the 6 and 6 Plus that make me think 'now this is how you do a large screen phone'. It seems pretty clear that these devices were a reaction to the popularity of larger phones, especially in Asia.
Sure, but you note shortcomings that having had been with iPhone from day one, yet Apple has chosen to continue those particular design cues. Perhaps they aren't perceived as important shortcomings by the buyers and no one (of note anyway) has stated that Apple implementation of a large screen is groundbreaking in itself. What's important, and you some others seem to miss this, is that iPhone buyers like the user experience provided by both the underlying technology, the design, and the broad ecosystem that Apple provides in their version of large screen smartphones. This is not disputable.
You especially need to step back and get over individual features as defining a product in any important way. Sure, some are more important to the buyer today, Touch ID being an important case, but these will be matched by the competition, which is the point to the OP. I don't particularly get the Android users fascination with breakthrough features, many of which are marketing gimmicks, as I'm not particularly concerned about lagging the bleeding edge; if anything, I wanted it fully baked before I sign on.
There will be plenty of iPhone releases in the future that will provide something I want enough to upgrade, and as an iPhone 5 user, I don't see the iPhone 6 as being anything that has any great appeal to me today, though I might surely turn around and upgrade at any time, being able to change my mind and all.
The important fact to remember is that Android OEM's have to seek differentiation from each other more so even than from Apple, and with the Android market being so commoditized, that's the best that any OEM can do, Samsung includes.
It's a grand race to the bottom.
Apple is absolutely a 'Black Swan' which means nobody else can successfully mimic it. Using Android hasn't made anyone much money, but it has allowed them to survive which gives them the opportunity to turn things around. Apple is a perfect case in point at what a company can do if they hang around long enough.
How are OEM's going to turn it around, and what are the chances of success? I give MS more chances as it has time, money, and technology going for it, and maybe even, somebody who can run it, but those chances are small.
Samsung will never again see mobile profits like Apple, and the other OEM's will never see any serious profits at the bottom, but for some that cans subsidize mobile with other business, it is probably worthwhile to hang in there with small profits.
What's the alternative? I don't see one.
How does any company turn things around? Apple was on the brink of extinction. Did you know back then that they'd become one of the biggest companies ever?
How does any company turn things around? Apple was on the brink of extinction. Did you know back then that they'd become one of the biggest companies ever?
No, I didn't know, but I was predicting Apple's eminent death, and I've been a user since the 128 Mac.
But the case of Apple was really a reverse takeover by NeXT, and that OS ended up giving them a huge advantage in everything we see today, not to mention that Steve Jobs came to the helm.
I believe that MS still has a great future if given brilliant leadership, but it will probably never see any substantial profits or marketshare in mobile. It will definitely be around for the "next great thing". Maybe that's all that these companies are holding out for; the "next great thing".
If Samsung can move Tizen forward in a big way, they many find themselves back in the mobile game without the differentiation issues of Android. I give them a chance of that, but time is not on their side and it will be a climb much more difficult than Apple experienced, and certainly as worthy of admiration. Tizen itself is necessary for Samsung's future in its professed "IoT" and I actually expect quite a bit of innovation backed by Samsung's manufacturing prowess. Ironically, Samsung could become the biggest player in Apple's HomeKit initiative, and very profitable in that segment.
They didn't have to. Apple doesn't get scared of the competition.
So I guess never in Apple history has Apple released a larger or smaller sized version of an existing product before the iPad/iPhone? Of course we'll exclude the iPod and iMac, MacBook, ...
Then why did they? All evidence pointed to people preferring a smaller device.
Honestly... Apple never HAS to do anything. They march to the beat of their own drum. They've had no problems selling any phone. Most companies can only dream of having the same sort of success that Apple has in smartphones.
Phones have X inch screens. You can literally use any number for X.
The issue is... Apple has only ever had 2 screen sizes in their entire smartphone history... while everyone else has used a variety of sizes.
That doesn't mean Apple was right or wrong... screen size is just a decision. And it's one decision out of many that have to be made.