They also hit the timing right by releasing a product in the early stages of this type of device.
Timing had noting to do with it - there were dozens of other players around when iPod was first released. It was the interface, but moreso the redefinition of the platform that changed the game.
Quote:
Originally Posted by jfanning
Sure it may have a pretty interface, but just because Apple has been lucky with the iPod, doesn't mean it will overtake the market in this area as well
There was certinaly lunk involved with iPod, but that is a lesson learnt. Apple are not stupid - the things learnt from iPod bode well for iPhone's sucess. It's already happning with the way Apple has forced control of Cingular.
Quote:
Originally Posted by jfanning
Well you can't get an iPhone so I suppose it's functionality is useless, and most major markets will not be able to get one for another year.
umm...the US isnt a major market?
Sure - its not Asia, but its still massive!
Quote:
Originally Posted by jfanning
So you mean, I shouldn't buy another phone for three years incase Apple makes the iPhone better?
Thats just silly! You should buy a phone when you need it - but i'm sure once you use one you'll find a way to need and iPhone
Quote:
Originally Posted by jfanning
What icons on the screen indicating functionality in the device?
You should watch the macworld keynote video again, the icons are only a small part of it.
After you watch the video you shoudl go out and buy a $1000 Windows mobile device and try:
a) to use it without the stylus
b) not get angry while setting up network connection
c) not smash the thing while it's updating the screen because you changed to landscape mode
d) not get annoyed at how you ended up in the camera application after ansering a call and having the phne up to your cheek.
etc etc etc...
Quote:
Originally Posted by jfanning
Also the competition had a cool feature that long ago called "User installable Applications", maybe you have heard of them.
Sure have - uncontrolled, no standard crap mostly. Sure there is some GREAT apps out there but the platform is a mess, no matter how good the app is.
iPhone will have installable apps, just not what your thinking.
Quote:
Originally Posted by jfanning
But I don't know what me having an iPod has to do with Apple trying to get into the smart phone market
Because thats the same reason you'll buy an iPhone...you just havent relised it yet
Interesting. So these are not true Cocoa apps then? And the fact that Steve says it's running 'OS X' is just marketing?
Sure they are. LLVM is a compiler writing and optimizing technology. It replaces part of the GCC compiler used in XCode, not Cocoa or Carbon or Quartz or anything higher up the chain. In Leopard, it's also used in the OpenGL stack to optimize shaders instead of there being a discrete PowerPC or Intel stack.
Lattner let slip that LLVM 2.0 would include ARM support in May. Now why would they be adding ARM support?
There was certinaly lunk involved with iPod, but that is a lesson learnt. Apple are not stupid - the things learnt from iPod bode well for iPhone's sucess. It's already happning with the way Apple has forced control of Cingular.
I don't think they have, they have set themselves a huge target for a particular subset of mobile phone types. I think they will be struggling to sell the 10,000,000 target
Quote:
umm...the US isnt a major market?
Sure - its not Asia, but its still massive!
Well Europe has twice the subscriber levels of North America, and Asia Pacific has four times the levels of North America, so no, it is not massive.
Quote:
You should watch the macworld keynote video again, the icons are only a small part of it.
After you watch the video you shoudl go out and buy a $1000 Windows mobile device and try:
a) to use it without the stylus
b) not get angry while setting up network connection
c) not smash the thing while it's updating the screen because you changed to landscape mode
d) not get annoyed at how you ended up in the camera application after ansering a call and having the phne up to your cheek.
Why would you send $1000 on a WM device when you are buy them for a couple hundred euro? Or more to the point, why would you buy one full stop.
I have a Symbian device, and I have had a Symbian device for several years, works great for what I need to do. Have no problems with network connections on it.
Quote:
Sure have - uncontrolled, no standard crap mostly. Sure there is some GREAT apps out there but the platform is a mess, no matter how good the app is.
What mess? Only becomes a mess if the user allows it to become one. I've only had one Symbian application die on me, I stopped using that application.
Quote:
iPhone will have installable apps, just not what your thinking.
Because thats the same reason you'll buy an iPhone...you just havent relised it yet
Z
If you could buy it without the cellphone part, then yes I would buy one, needs some extra storage on it though, plus a SDK pretty damn fast.
I disagree, you see now that iPhone has set a 'standard', doesnt matter how good they think they are because:
How can you say that, when all you have seen of the device is the keynote.
Quote:
Seeing a familar theme yet?
No
Quote:
MMS is not as big as sms and video calling is yet to take off in a big way anywhere outside places like Japan. They know exactly the market they are targeting and have built the hardware to match.
I think that is their issue, they have build a device for the USA. They will have to improve it a lot to compete in other markets.
And the fact that Steve says it's running 'OS X' is just marketing?
I could build a toaster that "runs OS X", because it has a Darwin kernel controlling the task scheduler that determines how long to keep the heating elements turned on.
Maybe it has a programming API that would allow source-code compatibility with the full-blown OS X. (Or at least a similar coding paradigm with a reduced set of system services available.)
Maybe it has Universal Binary support, but that's the least likely outcome IMO.
But yes... Saying that it runs "OS X" without any qualification about what *parts* of OS X we're talking about, and how much of it can actually be leveraged by the user, is mere marketing in my books.
I think that is their issue, they have build a device for the USA. They will have to improve it a lot to compete in other markets.
Totally. The smartphone market is so tiny in the USA that Apple also has a chance of dominating it too since Nokia, SE and most of the European phone manufacturers don't bother with the US for the most part, and the few carriers capable of picking up Nokia's top end phones tend not to.
By comparison, the Nokia N95 was launched this week in Europe. 5mp camera with a Carl Zeiss lens and decent flash, 3G inc HSDPA, WiFi, GPS, Application Downloads from the phone, WebKit based browser built in, Nokia Mapping (like googlemaps), SD card slot. I can already buy it on my carrier for £29 (yes TWENTY-NINE) with my usual £40 a month contract including a FREE 3 year sat nav subscription. It's smaller than the iPhone though a little thicker at 21mm.
That's what Apple are up against, not some crappy Treo, overly simple Blackberry or Windows Mobile rebadged HTC oversized brick.
I could build a toaster that "runs OS X", because it has a Darwin kernel controlling the task scheduler that determines how long to keep the heating elements turned on.
Maybe it has a programming API that would allow source-code compatibility with the full-blown OS X. (Or at least a similar coding paradigm with a reduced set of system services available.)
Maybe it has Universal Binary support, but that's the least likely outcome IMO.
But yes... Saying that it runs "OS X" without any qualification about what *parts* of OS X we're talking about, and how much of it can actually be leveraged by the user, is mere marketing in my books.
Good thing we do know what parts they're talking about: Cocoa, Core Animation, Core Image. Sounds pretty OS X-y to me.
Sure they are. LLVM is a compiler writing and optimizing technology. It replaces part of the GCC compiler used in XCode, not Cocoa or Carbon or Quartz or anything higher up the chain. In Leopard, it's also used in the OpenGL stack to optimize shaders instead of there being a discrete PowerPC or Intel stack.
Lattner let slip that LLVM 2.0 would include ARM support in May. Now why would they be adding ARM support?
That's good to know. So I guess it will be in an Xcode 3.1 release...or 3.5 at WWDC 2008 in a 3.5 release
I'd expect Apple to announce it under the developer spotlight rather than just throwing out a new version and saying 'guess what?'
Good thing we do know what parts they're talking about: Cocoa, Core Animation, Core Image. Sounds pretty OS X-y to me.
I second that but now that raises an interesting question...when Mac OS 10.6 comes out, how will the iPhone be updated to take advantage of it's new services? Surely it will exceed a few hundred megabytes...and would we get free (OS) upgrades at that?
I second that but now that raises an interesting question...when Mac OS 10.6 comes out, how will the iPhone be updated to take advantage of it's new services? Surely it will exceed a few hundred megabytes...and would we get free (OS) upgrades at that?
Individual frameworks are small?Core Image is ~9 MB, WebKit is ~20 MB. Also keep in mind that things added to newer OS updates won't be added to the iPhone?the iPhone won't have Spaces, or Time Machine, or things like that. I have no idea what will be added in 10.6, but I doubt it would add more than 20MB to the iPhone's OS X.
Also, bear in mind that 2 years from now, the iPhone will likely have 2-3x the space available.
I think they will be struggling to sell the 10,000,000 target
in 12 months? They have under estimated by a fair margin - don't forget that target is not just for the US.
Quote:
Originally Posted by jfanning
times the levels of North America, so no, it is not massive.
It's by far big enough to start with! iPod was Mac only when it was launched remember...as i said, there is a theme to this.
Quote:
Originally Posted by jfanning
Why would you send $1000 on a WM device when you are buy them for a couple hundred euro? Or more to the point, why would you buy one full stop.
Because in Australia thats how much they cost...or there abouts. I wasnt being literal just trying to point out the things that iPhone has fixed. I notice how you avoided my examples of things that are just crap about WM - which is fine, execpt its the whole point about why iPhone will be huge and why Moto/nokia buying Palm makes zero difference.
Quote:
Originally Posted by jfanning
I have a Symbian device, and I have had a Symbian device for several years, works great for what I need to do. Have no problems with network connections on it.
ok then!
Quote:
Originally Posted by jfanning
What mess? Only becomes a mess if the user allows it to become one. I've only had one Symbian application die on me, I stopped using that application.
I was talking about Windows Mobile, anyway - Apple like to 'control the whole widget'. In this case it seems unlikly they will open it. At least not at the moment.
You cant reprogram a toaster - its a closed system. Apple is pushing these things as appliances. Apple TV is another example of that.
Quote:
Originally Posted by jfanning
If you could buy it without the cellphone part, then yes I would buy one, needs some extra storage on it though, plus a SDK pretty damn fast.
Then it wouldnt be an iPhone, it would be a touch screen iPod with an organiser and you can drop the 'internet communication device' too. As much as it would probally be a 'cool' device - the appeal for such a device just isnt broad enough outside the kind of people that talk about these things at length...like all of us
How can you say that, when all you have seen of the device is the keynote.
Easy - its that good. iPod wasn't this good when it was released and we all know how badly THAT went.
Quote:
Originally Posted by jfanning
No
hahahahah ok then!
Quote:
Originally Posted by jfanning
I think that is their issue, they have build a device for the USA. They will have to improve it a lot to compete in other markets.
They have built a device with broad appeal - i agree, in the US. But i disagree that it will have to improve 'a lot'. As i said earlier, this is a platform device. 3G is coming, amongst other things.
in 12 months? They have under estimated by a fair margin - don't forget that target is not just for the US.
2006 world wide sales of smart phones were 80 million, Apple wants a 12.5% market share in one year?
Quote:
Because in Australia thats how much they cost...or there abouts. I wasnt being literal just trying to point out the things that iPhone has fixed. I notice how you avoided my examples of things that are just crap about WM - which is fine, execpt its the whole point about why iPhone will be huge and why Moto/nokia buying Palm makes zero difference.
Maybe we need to start adding a country to the $ sign, there are a few places using a $.
Again, the sales of Windows Mobile Devices are that low that they are not worth mentioning, I have used a few pocket PC devices in the past, and if the Windows Mobile devices are similar they won't be that nice. Nokia current has some 42% of the smart phone market, sure you could say Apple could attack this, but then your arguement about the iPod being dominate fails, as someone could do the same in this market.
Quote:
I was talking about Windows Mobile, anyway - Apple like to 'control the whole widget'. In this case it seems unlikly they will open it. At least not at the moment.
You cant reprogram a toaster - its a closed system. Apple is pushing these things as appliances. Apple TV is another example of that.
Apple does well in these areas as they are marketing to people that just want things to work, they will not always suit the 'geeky' person as it doesn't support this format, and that format. So Apple may find some sales of the iPhone here, but you are also talking about a very small market. Also you are talking about some US$500 for a phone, on a contract. If Apple do their normal practice, this will be ?500 in Europe (US$666), with for a 2 year contract, they are going to be very hard pressed to compete here on that price. ie the Nokia N95 is around US$900, but can be brought on contract for under US$200
Easy - its that good. iPod wasn't this good when it was released and we all know how badly THAT went.
But it wasn't released into a market where there was 1 billion similar devices being sold per year, with 80 million similar devices sold each year.
Quote:
They have built a device with broad appeal - i agree, in the US. But i disagree that it will have to improve 'a lot'. As i said earlier, this is a platform device. 3G is coming, amongst other things.
Z
That is the issue, it is all talk at the moment, we need to see the finished device, and really the v2 feature set.
2006 world wide sales of smart phones were 80 million, Apple wants a 12.5% market share in one year?
Nope - Again, iPhone isnt a smartphone. Apple said they want 1% of the whole phone market which is 10 million devices.
Quote:
Originally Posted by jfanning
Nokia current has some 42% of the smart phone market, sure you could say Apple could attack this, but then your arguement about the iPod being dominate fails, as someone could do the same in this market.
ahahah - you seem to be missing the crux of the issue, maybe i'm not explaining myself properly....
You can quote market share numbers until the cows come home, the reality of it is that no one can do anying remotly like the iPhone, because every part of it is protected by patents. As i said before - the current market share numbers dont count for anything because even though its a phone, thats just one of the things it does. You cant compare it to a Nokia device...even though companies like them will suffer becuase of it.
Quote:
Originally Posted by jfanning
Apple does well in these areas as they are marketing to people that just want things to work ... but you are also talking about a very small market.
On the contrary, its a HUGE market. It's 'geek's that are the minority. Almost everyone will pay more to get somehting that does the job properly, again iPod is a perfect example of this.
There were and still are lots of other options around, that do more for less - yet people pay more and get an iPod.
iPhone is exactly the same, the writing is on the wall. Even if you dont believe me
But it wasn't released into a market where there was 1 billion similar devices being sold per year, with 80 million similar devices sold each year.
It was released into a worse situation, where there were dozens of competing products that offered a more rounded solution and 'better value'.
Yet the ability of the iPod to do what it does so well and Apple's redefinition of the product class changed the way people think about music players. Now you think music player, you think iPod.
Quote:
Originally Posted by jfanning
That is the issue, it is all talk at the moment, we need to see the finished device, and really the v2 feature set.
There is a saying the car racing: When the flag drops the bullshit stops.
I think you'll find that its players like moto, palm, nokia, sony etc that will have to stop making out like this is just another phone rather than Apple have to make up ground.
Nope - Again, iPhone isnt a smartphone. Apple said they want 1% of the whole phone market which is 10 million devices.
If that is the case, then it will be even harder to reach their target, they have to compete against people paying between 0 and 100 euro for a phone that does what they want, the customer will be asking, why should I pay 500 euro more for a phone.
Quote:
You can quote market share numbers until the cows come home, the reality of it is that no one can do anying remotly like the iPhone, because every part of it is protected by patents. As i said before - the current market share numbers dont count for anything because even though its a phone, thats just one of the things it does. You cant compare it to a Nokia device...even though companies like them will suffer becuase of it.
The reason you can't compare it to a Nokia device, is because everyone is trying to say it is not a smart phone, Nokia sells similar products, they have a lot of symbian devices available, and a lot more in the works. They have their N800. Apple is walking into their backyard, and Nokia are not a small company. Jobs can bring the RDF about patents up all he likes, that is what every seems to think is going to make them win.
Remember, Philips had a patent on the 3 head shaver, Braun still made one, and won the lawsuit that followed.
Quote:
On the contrary, its a HUGE market. It's 'geek's that are the minority. Almost everyone will pay more to get somehting that does the job properly, again iPod is a perfect example of this.
Like I said, most people use a phone for calls, and sms, they are going to have to be given a heck of a lot more to justify 500 euro more.
Quote:
There were and still are lots of other options around, that do more for less - yet people pay more and get an iPod.
iPhone is exactly the same, the writing is on the wall. Even if you dont believe me
You cannot compare the iPod and the iPhone, even if you don't believe me.
It was released into a worse situation, where there were dozens of competing products that offered a more rounded solution and 'better value'.
Yet the ability of the iPod to do what it does so well and Apple's redefinition of the product class changed the way people think about music players. Now you think music player, you think iPod.
It was marketing, Apple actually market the iPod, you would think they would have learned to market the Mac as well, maybe they would increase sales that one.
Quote:
There is a saying the car racing: When the flag drops the bullshit stops.
I think you'll find that its players like moto, palm, nokia, sony etc that will have to stop making out like this is just another phone rather than Apple have to make up ground.
The issue is, v1 is just that, just another phone.
the customer will be asking, why should I pay 500 euro more for a phone.
You might think it will be harder, but 1% isnt a big chunk of the market. Its a conservative estimate. Thats the way Apple works - there is NO way they would say..we are aiming for 10 million units if they didnt KNOW they would beat it by a long way. So at the next keynote Steve Jobs can have a slide with a graph saying - this is the market, this was our target and BOOM this is what we did! arent we great? yes...yes we are.
Quote:
Originally Posted by jfanning
The reason you can't compare it to a Nokia device, is because everyone is trying to say it is not a smart phone, Nokia sells similar products, they have a lot of symbian devices available, and a lot more in the works. They have their N800.
Obviously you love your Nokia devices - i'm not saying you are wrong to like them, just that i dont agree with your assessment of iPhone. It isnt a smartphone.
Quote:
Originally Posted by jfanning
Apple is walking into their backyard, and Nokia are not a small company. Jobs can bring the RDF about patents up all he likes, that is what every seems to think is going to make them win.
Its not RDF, its reality.
Quote:
Originally Posted by jfanning
Remember, Philips had a patent on the 3 head shaver, Braun still made one, and won the lawsuit that followed.
And? We arent talking about shavers
Quote:
Originally Posted by jfanning
Like I said, most people use a phone for calls, and sms, they are going to have to be given a heck of a lot more to justify 500 euro more.
I agree! Let me tell you just 3 reasons to justify it:
1) It Just works, just like your iPod
2) You wont hate iPhone like you hate your current phone (you not included, because you love your nokia...we know)
3) there is nothing like it on the market, because its a 'new' product.
I donno about euro's so much, but in $ value i can understand - i bought a 1000$ pda/phone/smartphone. I'd pay that much again to get an iPhone. It has all the features i want, but the software sucks. Maybe it's just me. I know several people that wont buy iPhone because they dont like Steve Jobs, they hate iPods...whatever. But that wont stop 10 million other people buying them. At the end of the day, thats all that counts - people will buy it and pay top dollar just like they still do with iPods.
Quote:
Originally Posted by jfanning
You cannot compare the iPod and the iPhone, even if you don't believe me.
I'm not comparing the products, i'm comparing the business model.
Comments
Interesting. So these are not true Cocoa apps then? And the fact that Steve says it's running 'OS X' is just marketing?
No, they're real Cocoa apps.
Cocoa is fairly small, and easily fits into the 500 MB version of OS X on the iPod.
Trust me, Cocoa is the first thing they put on there.
They also hit the timing right by releasing a product in the early stages of this type of device.
Timing had noting to do with it - there were dozens of other players around when iPod was first released. It was the interface, but moreso the redefinition of the platform that changed the game.
Sure it may have a pretty interface, but just because Apple has been lucky with the iPod, doesn't mean it will overtake the market in this area as well
There was certinaly lunk involved with iPod, but that is a lesson learnt. Apple are not stupid - the things learnt from iPod bode well for iPhone's sucess. It's already happning with the way Apple has forced control of Cingular.
Well you can't get an iPhone so I suppose it's functionality is useless, and most major markets will not be able to get one for another year.
umm...the US isnt a major market?
Sure - its not Asia, but its still massive!
So you mean, I shouldn't buy another phone for three years incase Apple makes the iPhone better?
Thats just silly! You should buy a phone when you need it - but i'm sure once you use one you'll find a way to need and iPhone
What icons on the screen indicating functionality in the device?
You should watch the macworld keynote video again, the icons are only a small part of it.
After you watch the video you shoudl go out and buy a $1000 Windows mobile device and try:
a) to use it without the stylus
b) not get angry while setting up network connection
c) not smash the thing while it's updating the screen because you changed to landscape mode
d) not get annoyed at how you ended up in the camera application after ansering a call and having the phne up to your cheek.
etc etc etc...
Also the competition had a cool feature that long ago called "User installable Applications", maybe you have heard of them.
Sure have - uncontrolled, no standard crap mostly. Sure there is some GREAT apps out there but the platform is a mess, no matter how good the app is.
iPhone will have installable apps, just not what your thinking.
But I don't know what me having an iPod has to do with Apple trying to get into the smart phone market
Because thats the same reason you'll buy an iPhone...you just havent relised it yet
Z
Interesting. So these are not true Cocoa apps then? And the fact that Steve says it's running 'OS X' is just marketing?
Sure they are. LLVM is a compiler writing and optimizing technology. It replaces part of the GCC compiler used in XCode, not Cocoa or Carbon or Quartz or anything higher up the chain. In Leopard, it's also used in the OpenGL stack to optimize shaders instead of there being a discrete PowerPC or Intel stack.
Lattner let slip that LLVM 2.0 would include ARM support in May. Now why would they be adding ARM support?
There was certinaly lunk involved with iPod, but that is a lesson learnt. Apple are not stupid - the things learnt from iPod bode well for iPhone's sucess. It's already happning with the way Apple has forced control of Cingular.
I don't think they have, they have set themselves a huge target for a particular subset of mobile phone types. I think they will be struggling to sell the 10,000,000 target
umm...the US isnt a major market?
Sure - its not Asia, but its still massive!
Well Europe has twice the subscriber levels of North America, and Asia Pacific has four times the levels of North America, so no, it is not massive.
You should watch the macworld keynote video again, the icons are only a small part of it.
After you watch the video you shoudl go out and buy a $1000 Windows mobile device and try:
a) to use it without the stylus
b) not get angry while setting up network connection
c) not smash the thing while it's updating the screen because you changed to landscape mode
d) not get annoyed at how you ended up in the camera application after ansering a call and having the phne up to your cheek.
Why would you send $1000 on a WM device when you are buy them for a couple hundred euro? Or more to the point, why would you buy one full stop.
I have a Symbian device, and I have had a Symbian device for several years, works great for what I need to do. Have no problems with network connections on it.
Sure have - uncontrolled, no standard crap mostly. Sure there is some GREAT apps out there but the platform is a mess, no matter how good the app is.
What mess? Only becomes a mess if the user allows it to become one. I've only had one Symbian application die on me, I stopped using that application.
iPhone will have installable apps, just not what your thinking.
Because thats the same reason you'll buy an iPhone...you just havent relised it yet
Z
If you could buy it without the cellphone part, then yes I would buy one, needs some extra storage on it though, plus a SDK pretty damn fast.
I disagree, you see now that iPhone has set a 'standard', doesnt matter how good they think they are because:
How can you say that, when all you have seen of the device is the keynote.
Seeing a familar theme yet?
No
MMS is not as big as sms and video calling is yet to take off in a big way anywhere outside places like Japan. They know exactly the market they are targeting and have built the hardware to match.
I think that is their issue, they have build a device for the USA. They will have to improve it a lot to compete in other markets.
And the fact that Steve says it's running 'OS X' is just marketing?
I could build a toaster that "runs OS X", because it has a Darwin kernel controlling the task scheduler that determines how long to keep the heating elements turned on.
Maybe it has a programming API that would allow source-code compatibility with the full-blown OS X. (Or at least a similar coding paradigm with a reduced set of system services available.)
Maybe it has Universal Binary support, but that's the least likely outcome IMO.
But yes... Saying that it runs "OS X" without any qualification about what *parts* of OS X we're talking about, and how much of it can actually be leveraged by the user, is mere marketing in my books.
I think that is their issue, they have build a device for the USA. They will have to improve it a lot to compete in other markets.
Totally. The smartphone market is so tiny in the USA that Apple also has a chance of dominating it too since Nokia, SE and most of the European phone manufacturers don't bother with the US for the most part, and the few carriers capable of picking up Nokia's top end phones tend not to.
By comparison, the Nokia N95 was launched this week in Europe. 5mp camera with a Carl Zeiss lens and decent flash, 3G inc HSDPA, WiFi, GPS, Application Downloads from the phone, WebKit based browser built in, Nokia Mapping (like googlemaps), SD card slot. I can already buy it on my carrier for £29 (yes TWENTY-NINE) with my usual £40 a month contract including a FREE 3 year sat nav subscription. It's smaller than the iPhone though a little thicker at 21mm.
That's what Apple are up against, not some crappy Treo, overly simple Blackberry or Windows Mobile rebadged HTC oversized brick.
I could build a toaster that "runs OS X", because it has a Darwin kernel controlling the task scheduler that determines how long to keep the heating elements turned on.
Maybe it has a programming API that would allow source-code compatibility with the full-blown OS X. (Or at least a similar coding paradigm with a reduced set of system services available.)
Maybe it has Universal Binary support, but that's the least likely outcome IMO.
But yes... Saying that it runs "OS X" without any qualification about what *parts* of OS X we're talking about, and how much of it can actually be leveraged by the user, is mere marketing in my books.
Good thing we do know what parts they're talking about: Cocoa, Core Animation, Core Image. Sounds pretty OS X-y to me.
Sure they are. LLVM is a compiler writing and optimizing technology. It replaces part of the GCC compiler used in XCode, not Cocoa or Carbon or Quartz or anything higher up the chain. In Leopard, it's also used in the OpenGL stack to optimize shaders instead of there being a discrete PowerPC or Intel stack.
Lattner let slip that LLVM 2.0 would include ARM support in May. Now why would they be adding ARM support?
That's good to know. So I guess it will be in an Xcode 3.1 release...or 3.5 at WWDC 2008 in a 3.5 release
I'd expect Apple to announce it under the developer spotlight rather than just throwing out a new version and saying 'guess what?'
Good thing we do know what parts they're talking about: Cocoa, Core Animation, Core Image. Sounds pretty OS X-y to me.
I second that but now that raises an interesting question...when Mac OS 10.6 comes out, how will the iPhone be updated to take advantage of it's new services? Surely it will exceed a few hundred megabytes...and would we get free (OS) upgrades at that?
I second that but now that raises an interesting question...when Mac OS 10.6 comes out, how will the iPhone be updated to take advantage of it's new services? Surely it will exceed a few hundred megabytes...and would we get free (OS) upgrades at that?
Individual frameworks are small?Core Image is ~9 MB, WebKit is ~20 MB. Also keep in mind that things added to newer OS updates won't be added to the iPhone?the iPhone won't have Spaces, or Time Machine, or things like that. I have no idea what will be added in 10.6, but I doubt it would add more than 20MB to the iPhone's OS X.
Also, bear in mind that 2 years from now, the iPhone will likely have 2-3x the space available.
I think they will be struggling to sell the 10,000,000 target
in 12 months? They have under estimated by a fair margin - don't forget that target is not just for the US.
times the levels of North America, so no, it is not massive.
It's by far big enough to start with! iPod was Mac only when it was launched remember...as i said, there is a theme to this.
Why would you send $1000 on a WM device when you are buy them for a couple hundred euro? Or more to the point, why would you buy one full stop.
Because in Australia thats how much they cost...or there abouts. I wasnt being literal just trying to point out the things that iPhone has fixed. I notice how you avoided my examples of things that are just crap about WM - which is fine, execpt its the whole point about why iPhone will be huge and why Moto/nokia buying Palm makes zero difference.
I have a Symbian device, and I have had a Symbian device for several years, works great for what I need to do. Have no problems with network connections on it.
ok then!
What mess? Only becomes a mess if the user allows it to become one. I've only had one Symbian application die on me, I stopped using that application.
I was talking about Windows Mobile, anyway - Apple like to 'control the whole widget'. In this case it seems unlikly they will open it. At least not at the moment.
You cant reprogram a toaster - its a closed system. Apple is pushing these things as appliances. Apple TV is another example of that.
If you could buy it without the cellphone part, then yes I would buy one, needs some extra storage on it though, plus a SDK pretty damn fast.
Then it wouldnt be an iPhone, it would be a touch screen iPod with an organiser and you can drop the 'internet communication device' too. As much as it would probally be a 'cool' device - the appeal for such a device just isnt broad enough outside the kind of people that talk about these things at length...like all of us
Z
How can you say that, when all you have seen of the device is the keynote.
Easy - its that good. iPod wasn't this good when it was released and we all know how badly THAT went.
No
hahahahah ok then!
I think that is their issue, they have build a device for the USA. They will have to improve it a lot to compete in other markets.
They have built a device with broad appeal - i agree, in the US. But i disagree that it will have to improve 'a lot'. As i said earlier, this is a platform device. 3G is coming, amongst other things.
Z
in 12 months? They have under estimated by a fair margin - don't forget that target is not just for the US.
2006 world wide sales of smart phones were 80 million, Apple wants a 12.5% market share in one year?
Because in Australia thats how much they cost...or there abouts. I wasnt being literal just trying to point out the things that iPhone has fixed. I notice how you avoided my examples of things that are just crap about WM - which is fine, execpt its the whole point about why iPhone will be huge and why Moto/nokia buying Palm makes zero difference.
Maybe we need to start adding a country to the $ sign, there are a few places using a $.
Again, the sales of Windows Mobile Devices are that low that they are not worth mentioning, I have used a few pocket PC devices in the past, and if the Windows Mobile devices are similar they won't be that nice. Nokia current has some 42% of the smart phone market, sure you could say Apple could attack this, but then your arguement about the iPod being dominate fails, as someone could do the same in this market.
I was talking about Windows Mobile, anyway - Apple like to 'control the whole widget'. In this case it seems unlikly they will open it. At least not at the moment.
You cant reprogram a toaster - its a closed system. Apple is pushing these things as appliances. Apple TV is another example of that.
Apple does well in these areas as they are marketing to people that just want things to work, they will not always suit the 'geeky' person as it doesn't support this format, and that format. So Apple may find some sales of the iPhone here, but you are also talking about a very small market. Also you are talking about some US$500 for a phone, on a contract. If Apple do their normal practice, this will be ?500 in Europe (US$666), with for a 2 year contract, they are going to be very hard pressed to compete here on that price. ie the Nokia N95 is around US$900, but can be brought on contract for under US$200
Easy - its that good. iPod wasn't this good when it was released and we all know how badly THAT went.
But it wasn't released into a market where there was 1 billion similar devices being sold per year, with 80 million similar devices sold each year.
They have built a device with broad appeal - i agree, in the US. But i disagree that it will have to improve 'a lot'. As i said earlier, this is a platform device. 3G is coming, amongst other things.
Z
That is the issue, it is all talk at the moment, we need to see the finished device, and really the v2 feature set.
2006 world wide sales of smart phones were 80 million, Apple wants a 12.5% market share in one year?
Nope - Again, iPhone isnt a smartphone. Apple said they want 1% of the whole phone market which is 10 million devices.
Nokia current has some 42% of the smart phone market, sure you could say Apple could attack this, but then your arguement about the iPod being dominate fails, as someone could do the same in this market.
ahahah - you seem to be missing the crux of the issue, maybe i'm not explaining myself properly....
You can quote market share numbers until the cows come home, the reality of it is that no one can do anying remotly like the iPhone, because every part of it is protected by patents. As i said before - the current market share numbers dont count for anything because even though its a phone, thats just one of the things it does. You cant compare it to a Nokia device...even though companies like them will suffer becuase of it.
Apple does well in these areas as they are marketing to people that just want things to work ... but you are also talking about a very small market.
On the contrary, its a HUGE market. It's 'geek's that are the minority. Almost everyone will pay more to get somehting that does the job properly, again iPod is a perfect example of this.
There were and still are lots of other options around, that do more for less - yet people pay more and get an iPod.
iPhone is exactly the same, the writing is on the wall. Even if you dont believe me
Z
But it wasn't released into a market where there was 1 billion similar devices being sold per year, with 80 million similar devices sold each year.
It was released into a worse situation, where there were dozens of competing products that offered a more rounded solution and 'better value'.
Yet the ability of the iPod to do what it does so well and Apple's redefinition of the product class changed the way people think about music players. Now you think music player, you think iPod.
That is the issue, it is all talk at the moment, we need to see the finished device, and really the v2 feature set.
There is a saying the car racing: When the flag drops the bullshit stops.
I think you'll find that its players like moto, palm, nokia, sony etc that will have to stop making out like this is just another phone rather than Apple have to make up ground.
Z
Nope - Again, iPhone isnt a smartphone. Apple said they want 1% of the whole phone market which is 10 million devices.
If that is the case, then it will be even harder to reach their target, they have to compete against people paying between 0 and 100 euro for a phone that does what they want, the customer will be asking, why should I pay 500 euro more for a phone.
You can quote market share numbers until the cows come home, the reality of it is that no one can do anying remotly like the iPhone, because every part of it is protected by patents. As i said before - the current market share numbers dont count for anything because even though its a phone, thats just one of the things it does. You cant compare it to a Nokia device...even though companies like them will suffer becuase of it.
The reason you can't compare it to a Nokia device, is because everyone is trying to say it is not a smart phone, Nokia sells similar products, they have a lot of symbian devices available, and a lot more in the works. They have their N800. Apple is walking into their backyard, and Nokia are not a small company. Jobs can bring the RDF about patents up all he likes, that is what every seems to think is going to make them win.
Remember, Philips had a patent on the 3 head shaver, Braun still made one, and won the lawsuit that followed.
On the contrary, its a HUGE market. It's 'geek's that are the minority. Almost everyone will pay more to get somehting that does the job properly, again iPod is a perfect example of this.
Like I said, most people use a phone for calls, and sms, they are going to have to be given a heck of a lot more to justify 500 euro more.
There were and still are lots of other options around, that do more for less - yet people pay more and get an iPod.
iPhone is exactly the same, the writing is on the wall. Even if you dont believe me
You cannot compare the iPod and the iPhone, even if you don't believe me.
It was released into a worse situation, where there were dozens of competing products that offered a more rounded solution and 'better value'.
Yet the ability of the iPod to do what it does so well and Apple's redefinition of the product class changed the way people think about music players. Now you think music player, you think iPod.
It was marketing, Apple actually market the iPod, you would think they would have learned to market the Mac as well, maybe they would increase sales that one.
There is a saying the car racing: When the flag drops the bullshit stops.
I think you'll find that its players like moto, palm, nokia, sony etc that will have to stop making out like this is just another phone rather than Apple have to make up ground.
The issue is, v1 is just that, just another phone.
the customer will be asking, why should I pay 500 euro more for a phone.
You might think it will be harder, but 1% isnt a big chunk of the market. Its a conservative estimate. Thats the way Apple works - there is NO way they would say..we are aiming for 10 million units if they didnt KNOW they would beat it by a long way. So at the next keynote Steve Jobs can have a slide with a graph saying - this is the market, this was our target and BOOM this is what we did! arent we great? yes...yes we are.
The reason you can't compare it to a Nokia device, is because everyone is trying to say it is not a smart phone, Nokia sells similar products, they have a lot of symbian devices available, and a lot more in the works. They have their N800.
Obviously you love your Nokia devices - i'm not saying you are wrong to like them, just that i dont agree with your assessment of iPhone. It isnt a smartphone.
Apple is walking into their backyard, and Nokia are not a small company. Jobs can bring the RDF about patents up all he likes, that is what every seems to think is going to make them win.
Its not RDF, its reality.
Remember, Philips had a patent on the 3 head shaver, Braun still made one, and won the lawsuit that followed.
And? We arent talking about shavers
Like I said, most people use a phone for calls, and sms, they are going to have to be given a heck of a lot more to justify 500 euro more.
I agree! Let me tell you just 3 reasons to justify it:
1) It Just works, just like your iPod
2) You wont hate iPhone like you hate your current phone (you not included, because you love your nokia...we know)
3) there is nothing like it on the market, because its a 'new' product.
I donno about euro's so much, but in $ value i can understand - i bought a 1000$ pda/phone/smartphone. I'd pay that much again to get an iPhone. It has all the features i want, but the software sucks. Maybe it's just me. I know several people that wont buy iPhone because they dont like Steve Jobs, they hate iPods...whatever. But that wont stop 10 million other people buying them. At the end of the day, thats all that counts - people will buy it and pay top dollar just like they still do with iPods.
You cannot compare the iPod and the iPhone, even if you don't believe me.
I'm not comparing the products, i'm comparing the business model.
Z