The technological advantage that Nokia has is not that significant.
Opinion unless you can provide proof.
Quote:
But the point is that that is not an enduring competitive advantage. At some point Apple will gather together enough RF engineers and beat Nokia at its own game, all the while being in front on the software side.
Are you saying Nokia can't do the same?
Quote:
Nokia engineers should be very worried. It's exactly that engineering mindset that is their weakness: "Oh we can create it just tell us what the specs are". But the real difficult problems cannot be specified and require things other than plain technical understanding.
Another opinion. Have you been present at local Nokia meetings where they discussed their ability to do things?
Quote:
The fact people find gadgets so hard to use, and increasingly so speaks to this. Nokia doesn't even understand or see the problem, let alone being able to solve it.
What people are these? Maybe phones in general are to complicated for some people. What do you think?
Premature? If Apple had marketed it as an iPod with phone, I do not think anyone would have complained, but they came out with this revolutionary smartphone that for the most part is crippled
I'm not sure why you insist on calling it an iPod with a phone. The iPod is one app among 12 native apps and 1500 web based apps. The iPhone is in many ways is a blank slate ready to use any software designed for it. This is exactly the reason I say you are biased against the iPhone to an extreme.
Simply because it does not do all of the things you would like it to do does not make it a bad phone. Its just not the phone for you.
The study exists beyond my opinion. I just cannot find it to link to it.
My point being, that if you can not find a link or something to back up your claim then the point being made is still valid, but if someone else were in the same situation, you would completely invalidate their arguement. Sort of a doublestandard.
I'm not sure why you insist on calling it an iPod with a phone. The iPod is one app among 12 native apps and 1500 web based apps. The iPhone is in many ways is a blank slate ready to use any software designed for it. This is exactly the reason I say you are biased against the iPhone to an extreme.
Simply because it does not do all of the things you would like it to do does not make it a bad phone. Its just not the phone for you.
Really?
Try this: take the sim card out of you iPhone and tell me what you are left with. I bet you have a heavier, thinker iPod without phone functionality. With each successive post, it is clear that this is your first dabble into the high-end phone arena, and this is okay. However, for those of use that have used higher end phones since their inception, we have more sophisticated and discerning tastes. This is not a dig against you, but is a glaring contrast to how the phone market is fragmented. For the most part, the US has not received the higer end SE or Nokia phones, and are thus left with a tainted view, but those who have traveled a bit more and have used higher end phones can make a more detailed comparison. It is just the way it is. It has nothing to do with being extreme. It is simply a fact.
The proof is the fact that O2 UK reported the EDGE iPhone being used for data far more than the 3G Nokia N95's on its network.
I know you most likely do not have a link for this which is fine. I do remember reading where the CEO of O2 mentioned this but I also remember reading that he had skewed the data to report favorable data usage claims. Also, if I am not mistaken (UK guys weigh in), O2 has a crappy 3G network with very little coverage so if this is correct, the article you pointed out is meaningless simply because it is an unfair and inaccurate test.
You are saying that it makes it look like ass on purpose. Wow those Nokia engineers are world class!
In fact they scored a hat-trick because it scrolls like ass and scales like ass too.
The Nokia browser is a clown car, hilarious to look at but not fit for driving.
It's engine might be Webkit, but the engine is installed upside down and falls out whenever the hooter blows.
C.
Hmmm.......
Not too sure about the ass part but surly something is. I used my Nokia N82 and visited 10 web sites, the basic, CNN, BBC, Yahoo, etc.... They ALL rendered as they were supposed to. Even The BBC site rendered fine. You had to scroll back and forth but the built in scrolling device made this quite easy and most importantly, accurately.
Sooooo.... I am not sure which site you went to but all the one's I went to worked just fine. With this being said, your argument is baseless and well false unless of course you can produce sites (one does not count) that can not be accurately represented by the Nokia browser. As for Safari, compared to Firefox, Safari is crap. Hopefully there will be a mobile version as well.
The web browser on Nokia's use SVG to render. Of course it will scale the fonts and graphos. This is what SVG does.
It doesn't.
The difference is in the font rendering technology mostly. Apple have better fonts and a higher resolution screen so it's always going to look better.
I really don't want to get back into this debate again. It's pointless. There's a new iPhone due probably in a month. Let's see what Apple add and hopefully they fix the silly crap like SMSing vCards mentioned earlier, which is just unbelievable after a year of being available that they've not fixed that.
Thanks all you lot for beta testing it for the last year, I look forward to iPhone 2.0 (but really it's 1.0) supplying all the things it should have had at the start.
The difference is in the font rendering technology mostly. Apple have better fonts and a higher resolution screen so it's always going to look better.
I really don't want to get back into this debate again. It's pointless. There's a new iPhone due probably in a month. Let's see what Apple add and hopefully they fix the silly crap like SMSing vCards mentioned earlier, which is just unbelievable after a year of being available that they've not fixed that.
Thanks all you lot for beta testing it for the last year, I look forward to iPhone 2.0 (but really it's 1.0) supplying all the things it should have had at the start.
Apple does have a higher res screen and all. I was mainly talking about the way the images appear on the screen. I have had only one site that does not render properly on my Nokia, so the post from Carniphage does not make much sense.
Apple does have a higher res screen and all. I was mainly talking about the way the images appear on the screen. I have had only one site that does not render properly on my Nokia, so the post from Carniphage does not make much sense.
No, SVG isn't used to render the images either. It supports SVG but it's not the tech used to render the page.
Carniphage, I too think you're just wrong. The S60 Browser looks different in the same way Windows' fonts look different to MacOS fonts but it's just different, not necessarily more correct. Browsers on different platforms don't always have to render pixel perfect identically to each other.
Carniphage, I too think you're just wrong. The S60 Browser looks different in the same way Windows' fonts look different to MacOS fonts but it's just different, not necessarily more correct. Browsers on different platforms don't always have to render pixel perfect identically to each other.
Thanks for the info. I have a friend that works for a Swedish company that supplies SVG software to Nokia and the other manufacturers. He was saying that Nokia does use SVG in their browsers. It might now be in the N or E series. I can ask him to see. Now I am curious about this.
Thanks for the info. I have a friend that works for a Swedish company that supplies SVG software to Nokia and the other manufacturers. He was saying that Nokia does use SVG in their browsers. It might now be in the N or E series. I can ask him to see. Now I am curious about this.
Nokia's S60 browser uses an SVG plugin, like they do for Flash-lite. As far as I'm aware they don't use it for the entire renderer though.
Apple does have a higher res screen and all. I was mainly talking about the way the images appear on the screen. I have had only one site that does not render properly on my Nokia, so the post from Carniphage does not make much sense.
Sapporo
"render properly" is all that matters to you? Is it a binary thing? It renders, it does not render?
The Nokia browser uses crappy fonts which only approximate the intended appearance of a website. The lack of proper proportional fonts and anti-aliasing means the you have to zoom in really close to make text readable. This in turn means you can't view a whole page AND read it.
Combine this with the small screen, and a terrible the 4 way pad. And you have an experience which is clunky, slow, and unrewarding. The fact that it looks like ass is not just an aesthetic issue, it is a profoundly important user-interface issue.
At the end of the day Nokia's engineers have implemented a basic browser. It renders pages. It allows navigation. Then they got up and went home. Mission accomplished.
But no one in their right minds would want to use it in such a crude form. And they don't.
The web-usage statistics bear this out. By December last year, there are more web-hits from the iPhone than the entire Symbian platform. Despite the tiny number of iPhones out there.
Nokia and the others keep making the same mistake. Web browsing became yet another feature they could add onto their ever-growing list of features. They became seduced by a false notion; That by remorselessly adding features, they were innovating.
Real innovation requires you add value to your products. For a feature to have any value at all, ordinary people have to be able to use it.
"render properly" is all that matters to you? Is it a binary thing? It renders, it does not render?
The Nokia browser uses crappy fonts which only approximate the intended appearance of a website. The lack of proper proportional fonts and anti-aliasing means the you have to zoom in really close to make text readable. This in turn means you can't view a whole page AND read it.
Combine this with the small screen, and a terrible the 4 way pad. And you have an experience which is clunky, slow, and unrewarding. The fact that it looks like ass is not just an aesthetic issue, it is a profoundly important user-interface issue.
At the end of the day Nokia's engineers have implemented a basic browser. It renders pages. It allows navigation. Then they got up and went home. Mission accomplished.
But no one in their right minds would want to use it in such a crude form. And they don't.
The web-usage statistics bear this out. By December last year, there are more web-hits from the iPhone than the entire Symbian platform. Despite the tiny number of iPhones out there.
Nokia and the others keep making the same mistake. Web browsing became yet another feature they could add onto their ever-growing list of features. They became seduced by a false notion; That by remorselessly adding features, they were innovating.
Real innovation requires you add value to your products. For a feature to have any value at all, ordinary people have to be able to use it.
C.
The S60 browser is actually very usable - so much so that I've been using it practically every day for the last 13 months. The iPhone browser is great too, but I find the finger navigation far too clunky. Unless you have the smallest fingers, you have to keep zooming in and out to click links, which is time consuming and tedious. I feel a d-pad and cursor are far more reliable and accurate for browsing the internet on a mobile device. It's the very reason we use mice on our computers - the are accurate and precise. Touchscreens are fine for big chunky menus like on the iPhone, but not for the internet.
The lack of proper proportional fonts and anti-aliasing means the you have to zoom in really close to make text readable. This in turn means you can't view a whole page AND read it.
It does have proportional fonts and anti aliasing. It has a smaller, lower resolution screen, which is the issue really. Their fonts aren't as nice either.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Carniphage
But no one in their right minds would want to use it in such a crude form. And they don't.
The web-usage statistics bear this out. By December last year, there are more web-hits from the iPhone than the entire Symbian platform. Despite the tiny number of iPhones out there.
Those were US statistics. It's the reverse for Europe, as you'd expect. Apart from that, I suspect the unlimited data plan you get with every iPhone skews the usage more than slightly, whereas most Symbian phones don't have unlimited data.
The O2 MD saying the iPhone was pushing up data usage more than any other phone is a 'No shit Sherlock' moment IMHO. Give people 'free' unlimited data and they'll use it.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Carniphage
Nokia and the others keep making the same mistake. Web browsing became yet another feature they could add onto their ever-growing list of features. They became seduced by a false notion; That by remorselessly adding features, they were innovating.
If they just wanted to tick a box, they already had Opera so I think you're doing them a disservice there. Starting a port of Webkit back in 2005 was pretty ballsy.
It does have proportional fonts and anti aliasing. It has a smaller, lower resolution screen, which is the issue really. Their fonts aren't as nice either.
Those were US statistics. It's the reverse for Europe, as you'd expect. Apart from that, I suspect the unlimited data plan you get with every iPhone skews the usage more than slightly, whereas most Symbian phones don't have unlimited data.
The O2 MD saying the iPhone was pushing up data usage more than any other phone is a 'No shit Sherlock' moment IMHO. Give people 'free' unlimited data and they'll use it.
If they just wanted to tick a box, they already had Opera so I think you're doing them a disservice there. Starting a port of Webkit back in 2005 was pretty ballsy.
I remember now. This was a big deal when Nokia said that they would do this. Some of the Apple Zealots and Nokia faithful were a bit outraged. Saw Nokia as selling out.
If they just wanted to tick a box, they already had Opera so I think you're doing them a disservice there. Starting a port of Webkit back in 2005 was pretty ballsy.
I see no balls, only ass.
To my eyes, Webkit or no, Opera looks slightly more usable.
Taking three years to write something that bad is nature's way of saying "scrap it and start again from scratch".
But there's a massive resistance in the tech industry to be *really* ballsy. We all know the best way to fix Windows is to take-off and nuke the site from orbit. It's the only way to be sure. Likewise Symbian and WinCE are needing the same sort of euthanizing.
Apple *had* to kill-off System-9. But I think they learned that nuking a teetering pile of old technology can bring a ton of benefits.
Really?Try this: take the sim card out of you iPhone and tell me what you are left with. I bet you have a heavier, thinker iPod without phone functionality. With each successive post, it is clear that this is your first dabble into the high-end phone arena, and this is okay.
The only apps that need the sim card:
-Phone
-SMS
Apps that don't use the sim card:
-Address Book
-Calendar
-Camera
- Clock
- Calculator
- Notes
- iTunes Store
- iPod
Apps that work with WIFI:
-YouTube
-Stocks
-Google Maps
-Weather
-iTunes Store
-Mail
-Safari
-1500+ Web Apps
Quote:
However, for those of use that have used higher end phones since their inception, we have more sophisticated and discerning tastes. This is not a dig against you, but is a glaring contrast to how the phone market is fragmented. For the most part, the US has not received the higer end SE or Nokia phones, and are thus left with a tainted view, but those who have traveled a bit more and have used higher end phones can make a more detailed comparison. It is just the way it is. It has nothing to do with being extreme. It is simply a fact.
You are putting a very limited label around what sophisticated and high end means. Your label tends to include functions where Nokia and SE phones excel but exclude functions where the iPhone excels. The potential of the iPhone from a software standpoint far far exceeds what Nokia or SE are currently capable of.
Comments
The technological advantage that Nokia has is not that significant.
Opinion unless you can provide proof.
But the point is that that is not an enduring competitive advantage. At some point Apple will gather together enough RF engineers and beat Nokia at its own game, all the while being in front on the software side.
Are you saying Nokia can't do the same?
Nokia engineers should be very worried. It's exactly that engineering mindset that is their weakness: "Oh we can create it just tell us what the specs are". But the real difficult problems cannot be specified and require things other than plain technical understanding.
Another opinion. Have you been present at local Nokia meetings where they discussed their ability to do things?
The fact people find gadgets so hard to use, and increasingly so speaks to this. Nokia doesn't even understand or see the problem, let alone being able to solve it.
What people are these? Maybe phones in general are to complicated for some people. What do you think?
Premature? If Apple had marketed it as an iPod with phone, I do not think anyone would have complained, but they came out with this revolutionary smartphone that for the most part is crippled
I'm not sure why you insist on calling it an iPod with a phone. The iPod is one app among 12 native apps and 1500 web based apps. The iPhone is in many ways is a blank slate ready to use any software designed for it. This is exactly the reason I say you are biased against the iPhone to an extreme.
Simply because it does not do all of the things you would like it to do does not make it a bad phone. Its just not the phone for you.
To use your standards of proof. If you can not produce proof of this study, then it becomes your opinion.
The study exists beyond my opinion. I just cannot find it to link to it.
Opinion unless you can provide proof.
The proof is the fact that O2 UK reported the EDGE iPhone being used for data far more than the 3G Nokia N95's on its network.
The study exists beyond my opinion. I just cannot find it to link to it.
My point being, that if you can not find a link or something to back up your claim then the point being made is still valid, but if someone else were in the same situation, you would completely invalidate their arguement. Sort of a doublestandard.
I'm not sure why you insist on calling it an iPod with a phone. The iPod is one app among 12 native apps and 1500 web based apps. The iPhone is in many ways is a blank slate ready to use any software designed for it. This is exactly the reason I say you are biased against the iPhone to an extreme.
Simply because it does not do all of the things you would like it to do does not make it a bad phone. Its just not the phone for you.
Really?
Try this: take the sim card out of you iPhone and tell me what you are left with. I bet you have a heavier, thinker iPod without phone functionality. With each successive post, it is clear that this is your first dabble into the high-end phone arena, and this is okay. However, for those of use that have used higher end phones since their inception, we have more sophisticated and discerning tastes. This is not a dig against you, but is a glaring contrast to how the phone market is fragmented. For the most part, the US has not received the higer end SE or Nokia phones, and are thus left with a tainted view, but those who have traveled a bit more and have used higher end phones can make a more detailed comparison. It is just the way it is. It has nothing to do with being extreme. It is simply a fact.
The proof is the fact that O2 UK reported the EDGE iPhone being used for data far more than the 3G Nokia N95's on its network.
I know you most likely do not have a link for this which is fine. I do remember reading where the CEO of O2 mentioned this but I also remember reading that he had skewed the data to report favorable data usage claims. Also, if I am not mistaken (UK guys weigh in), O2 has a crappy 3G network with very little coverage so if this is correct, the article you pointed out is meaningless simply because it is an unfair and inaccurate test.
The web browser on Nokia's use SVG to render. Of course it will scale the fonts and graphos. This is what SVG does.
You are saying that it makes it look like ass on purpose. Wow those Nokia engineers are world class!
In fact they scored a hat-trick because it scrolls like ass and scales like ass too.
The Nokia browser is a clown car, hilarious to look at but not fit for driving.
It's engine might be Webkit, but the engine is installed upside down and falls out whenever the hooter blows.
C.
You are saying that it makes it look like ass on purpose. Wow those Nokia engineers are world class!
In fact they scored a hat-trick because it scrolls like ass and scales like ass too.
The Nokia browser is a clown car, hilarious to look at but not fit for driving.
It's engine might be Webkit, but the engine is installed upside down and falls out whenever the hooter blows.
C.
Hmmm.......
Not too sure about the ass part but surly something is. I used my Nokia N82 and visited 10 web sites, the basic, CNN, BBC, Yahoo, etc.... They ALL rendered as they were supposed to. Even The BBC site rendered fine. You had to scroll back and forth but the built in scrolling device made this quite easy and most importantly, accurately.
Sooooo.... I am not sure which site you went to but all the one's I went to worked just fine. With this being said, your argument is baseless and well false unless of course you can produce sites (one does not count) that can not be accurately represented by the Nokia browser. As for Safari, compared to Firefox, Safari is crap. Hopefully there will be a mobile version as well.
The web browser on Nokia's use SVG to render. Of course it will scale the fonts and graphos. This is what SVG does.
It doesn't.
The difference is in the font rendering technology mostly. Apple have better fonts and a higher resolution screen so it's always going to look better.
I really don't want to get back into this debate again. It's pointless. There's a new iPhone due probably in a month. Let's see what Apple add and hopefully they fix the silly crap like SMSing vCards mentioned earlier, which is just unbelievable after a year of being available that they've not fixed that.
Thanks all you lot for beta testing it for the last year, I look forward to iPhone 2.0 (but really it's 1.0) supplying all the things it should have had at the start.
It doesn't.
The difference is in the font rendering technology mostly. Apple have better fonts and a higher resolution screen so it's always going to look better.
I really don't want to get back into this debate again. It's pointless. There's a new iPhone due probably in a month. Let's see what Apple add and hopefully they fix the silly crap like SMSing vCards mentioned earlier, which is just unbelievable after a year of being available that they've not fixed that.
Thanks all you lot for beta testing it for the last year, I look forward to iPhone 2.0 (but really it's 1.0) supplying all the things it should have had at the start.
@aegis,
Apple does have a higher res screen and all. I was mainly talking about the way the images appear on the screen. I have had only one site that does not render properly on my Nokia, so the post from Carniphage does not make much sense.
@aegis,
Apple does have a higher res screen and all. I was mainly talking about the way the images appear on the screen. I have had only one site that does not render properly on my Nokia, so the post from Carniphage does not make much sense.
No, SVG isn't used to render the images either. It supports SVG but it's not the tech used to render the page.
There's a nice overview of Nokia's S60 Browser (written in 2005!) on http://www.osnews.com/story/12965
Carniphage, I too think you're just wrong. The S60 Browser looks different in the same way Windows' fonts look different to MacOS fonts but it's just different, not necessarily more correct. Browsers on different platforms don't always have to render pixel perfect identically to each other.
No, SVG isn't used to render the images either. It supports SVG but it's not the tech used to render the page.
There's a nice overview of Nokia's S60 Browser (written in 2005!) on http://www.osnews.com/story/12965
Carniphage, I too think you're just wrong. The S60 Browser looks different in the same way Windows' fonts look different to MacOS fonts but it's just different, not necessarily more correct. Browsers on different platforms don't always have to render pixel perfect identically to each other.
@aegis,
Thanks for the info. I have a friend that works for a Swedish company that supplies SVG software to Nokia and the other manufacturers. He was saying that Nokia does use SVG in their browsers. It might now be in the N or E series. I can ask him to see. Now I am curious about this.
Thanks for the info. I have a friend that works for a Swedish company that supplies SVG software to Nokia and the other manufacturers. He was saying that Nokia does use SVG in their browsers. It might now be in the N or E series. I can ask him to see. Now I am curious about this.
Nokia's S60 browser uses an SVG plugin, like they do for Flash-lite. As far as I'm aware they don't use it for the entire renderer though.
http://opensource.nokia.com/projects...ser/index.html has an architectural diagram showing how SVG fits in. You wouldn't put it there if the UI made use of the plugin.
@aegis,
Apple does have a higher res screen and all. I was mainly talking about the way the images appear on the screen. I have had only one site that does not render properly on my Nokia, so the post from Carniphage does not make much sense.
Sapporo
"render properly" is all that matters to you? Is it a binary thing? It renders, it does not render?
The Nokia browser uses crappy fonts which only approximate the intended appearance of a website. The lack of proper proportional fonts and anti-aliasing means the you have to zoom in really close to make text readable. This in turn means you can't view a whole page AND read it.
Combine this with the small screen, and a terrible the 4 way pad. And you have an experience which is clunky, slow, and unrewarding. The fact that it looks like ass is not just an aesthetic issue, it is a profoundly important user-interface issue.
http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=Kj2Ch4gSlig
Compare it to this.
http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=eGZQvfEBYT4
At the end of the day Nokia's engineers have implemented a basic browser. It renders pages. It allows navigation. Then they got up and went home. Mission accomplished.
But no one in their right minds would want to use it in such a crude form. And they don't.
The web-usage statistics bear this out. By December last year, there are more web-hits from the iPhone than the entire Symbian platform. Despite the tiny number of iPhones out there.
Nokia and the others keep making the same mistake. Web browsing became yet another feature they could add onto their ever-growing list of features. They became seduced by a false notion; That by remorselessly adding features, they were innovating.
Real innovation requires you add value to your products. For a feature to have any value at all, ordinary people have to be able to use it.
C.
Sapporo
"render properly" is all that matters to you? Is it a binary thing? It renders, it does not render?
The Nokia browser uses crappy fonts which only approximate the intended appearance of a website. The lack of proper proportional fonts and anti-aliasing means the you have to zoom in really close to make text readable. This in turn means you can't view a whole page AND read it.
Combine this with the small screen, and a terrible the 4 way pad. And you have an experience which is clunky, slow, and unrewarding. The fact that it looks like ass is not just an aesthetic issue, it is a profoundly important user-interface issue.
http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=Kj2Ch4gSlig
Compare it to this.
http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=eGZQvfEBYT4
At the end of the day Nokia's engineers have implemented a basic browser. It renders pages. It allows navigation. Then they got up and went home. Mission accomplished.
But no one in their right minds would want to use it in such a crude form. And they don't.
The web-usage statistics bear this out. By December last year, there are more web-hits from the iPhone than the entire Symbian platform. Despite the tiny number of iPhones out there.
Nokia and the others keep making the same mistake. Web browsing became yet another feature they could add onto their ever-growing list of features. They became seduced by a false notion; That by remorselessly adding features, they were innovating.
Real innovation requires you add value to your products. For a feature to have any value at all, ordinary people have to be able to use it.
C.
The S60 browser is actually very usable - so much so that I've been using it practically every day for the last 13 months. The iPhone browser is great too, but I find the finger navigation far too clunky. Unless you have the smallest fingers, you have to keep zooming in and out to click links, which is time consuming and tedious. I feel a d-pad and cursor are far more reliable and accurate for browsing the internet on a mobile device. It's the very reason we use mice on our computers - the are accurate and precise. Touchscreens are fine for big chunky menus like on the iPhone, but not for the internet.
The lack of proper proportional fonts and anti-aliasing means the you have to zoom in really close to make text readable. This in turn means you can't view a whole page AND read it.
It does have proportional fonts and anti aliasing. It has a smaller, lower resolution screen, which is the issue really. Their fonts aren't as nice either.
But no one in their right minds would want to use it in such a crude form. And they don't.
The web-usage statistics bear this out. By December last year, there are more web-hits from the iPhone than the entire Symbian platform. Despite the tiny number of iPhones out there.
Those were US statistics. It's the reverse for Europe, as you'd expect. Apart from that, I suspect the unlimited data plan you get with every iPhone skews the usage more than slightly, whereas most Symbian phones don't have unlimited data.
The O2 MD saying the iPhone was pushing up data usage more than any other phone is a 'No shit Sherlock' moment IMHO. Give people 'free' unlimited data and they'll use it.
Nokia and the others keep making the same mistake. Web browsing became yet another feature they could add onto their ever-growing list of features. They became seduced by a false notion; That by remorselessly adding features, they were innovating.
If they just wanted to tick a box, they already had Opera so I think you're doing them a disservice there. Starting a port of Webkit back in 2005 was pretty ballsy.
It does have proportional fonts and anti aliasing. It has a smaller, lower resolution screen, which is the issue really. Their fonts aren't as nice either.
Those were US statistics. It's the reverse for Europe, as you'd expect. Apart from that, I suspect the unlimited data plan you get with every iPhone skews the usage more than slightly, whereas most Symbian phones don't have unlimited data.
The O2 MD saying the iPhone was pushing up data usage more than any other phone is a 'No shit Sherlock' moment IMHO. Give people 'free' unlimited data and they'll use it.
If they just wanted to tick a box, they already had Opera so I think you're doing them a disservice there. Starting a port of Webkit back in 2005 was pretty ballsy.
I remember now. This was a big deal when Nokia said that they would do this. Some of the Apple Zealots and Nokia faithful were a bit outraged. Saw Nokia as selling out.
Good point aegis.
If they just wanted to tick a box, they already had Opera so I think you're doing them a disservice there. Starting a port of Webkit back in 2005 was pretty ballsy.
I see no balls, only ass.
To my eyes, Webkit or no, Opera looks slightly more usable.
Taking three years to write something that bad is nature's way of saying "scrap it and start again from scratch".
But there's a massive resistance in the tech industry to be *really* ballsy. We all know the best way to fix Windows is to take-off and nuke the site from orbit. It's the only way to be sure. Likewise Symbian and WinCE are needing the same sort of euthanizing.
Apple *had* to kill-off System-9. But I think they learned that nuking a teetering pile of old technology can bring a ton of benefits.
C.
Really?Try this: take the sim card out of you iPhone and tell me what you are left with. I bet you have a heavier, thinker iPod without phone functionality. With each successive post, it is clear that this is your first dabble into the high-end phone arena, and this is okay.
The only apps that need the sim card:
-Phone
-SMS
Apps that don't use the sim card:
-Address Book
-Calendar
-Camera
- Clock
- Calculator
- Notes
- iTunes Store
- iPod
Apps that work with WIFI:
-YouTube
-Stocks
-Google Maps
-Weather
-iTunes Store
-Mail
-Safari
-1500+ Web Apps
However, for those of use that have used higher end phones since their inception, we have more sophisticated and discerning tastes. This is not a dig against you, but is a glaring contrast to how the phone market is fragmented. For the most part, the US has not received the higer end SE or Nokia phones, and are thus left with a tainted view, but those who have traveled a bit more and have used higher end phones can make a more detailed comparison. It is just the way it is. It has nothing to do with being extreme. It is simply a fact.
You are putting a very limited label around what sophisticated and high end means. Your label tends to include functions where Nokia and SE phones excel but exclude functions where the iPhone excels. The potential of the iPhone from a software standpoint far far exceeds what Nokia or SE are currently capable of.