This is great for them, no body says differently, but saying that a one year old platform is bad because these option won't be available for another month while overlooking all the benefits that the iPhone has over other devices is nothing but a slithery marketing tactic.
There is no one device that fits everyone's needs. If the LG Voyager is the choice for you then go for it. There are legitimate reasons to complain about the iPhone and Apple and iTunes and OS X and AppleTV or Steve Jobs or anything else associated with Apple, but I haven't read one argument that addresses those issues.
I didn't say that the iphone platform is bad because these things aren't available.
I was responding to a comment by wraithofwonder about why the LG Voyager is bad because iphone has all the software stuff.
The world isn't standing still. The second wave of Korean iphone clones are going to be close the gap even more. If a half-assed first attempt on a iphone clone beats iphones sales in america, then a 3/4 assed second attempt will do even more damage.
I didn't say that the iphone platform is bad because these things aren't available.
I was responding to a comment by wraithofwonder about why the LG Voyager is bad because iphone has all the software stuff.
The world isn't standing still. The second wave of Korean iphone clones are going to be close the gap even more. If a half-assed first attempt on a iphone clone beats iphones sales in america, then a 3/4 assed second attempt will do even more damage.
I don't recall the first wave. I've seen a lot of photoshopped images on Engadget, heard about a lot of vapotware and read the hyperbole term "iPhone killer" way to often to describe a phone that is attempting to directly to compete with the iPhone's target demographic.
None of this seems to be real or be making any impact at all. I want Nokia, RiM, SE, LG and everyone else to make a better OS for their phones. I want them to create a better ecosystem with integrated software that makes the cellphone an extension of the home compute, not a separate device.
These attempts to compete with the iPhone are just proof that Apple is dong something right. You can hate AT&T and you can iPhone as much as you want but you, and every cell phone user, will benefit from the iPhone being in the mix.
I don't recall the first wave. I've seen a lot of photoshopped images on Engadget, heard about a lot of vapotware and read the hyperbole term "iPhone killer" way to often to describe a phone that is attempting to directly to compete with the iPhone's target demographic.
None of this seems to be real or be making any impact at all. I want Nokia, RiM, SE, LG and everyone else to make a better OS for their phones. I want them to create a better ecosystem with integrated software that makes the cellphone an extension of the home compute, not a separate device.
These attempts to compete with the iPhone are just proof that Apple is dong something right. You can hate AT&T and you can iPhone as much as you want but you, and every cell phone user, will benefit from the iPhone being in the mix.
A walled garden is a walled garden --- it's not going to be a better ecosystem. The iphone ecosystem is also an ecosystem that pays the developers lesser money than some of the existing mobile ecosystems.
We only benefit when Apple failed on their full priced crippled phone with a long contract business model.
The iphone ecosystem is similar to docomo imode, nokia content discoverer, qualcomm brew... In order to be on the deck, developers pay for app certification and pay a percentage of the app sales revenue to docomo, nokia or qualcomm --- and these people don't charge a 30% cut.
The iphone ecosystem is similar to docomo imode, nokia content discoverer, qualcomm brew... In order to be on the deck, developers pay for app certification and pay a percentage of the app sales revenue to docomo, nokia or qualcomm --- and these people don't charge a 30% cut.
Are you purposely leaving out the other details or are you not aware of them? You didn't state what the others charge per app, the cost of the intiial certification or costs for the development software. The only aspect you've quantified is what Apple charges.
Are you purposely leaving out the other details or are you not aware of them? You didn't state what the others charge per app, the cost of the intiial certification or costs for the development software. The only aspect you've quantified is what Apple charges.
Well, the cost for the iphone SDK --- is to buy a mac first.
Sure the initial costs for the certification is more for the other platforms --- but they are also having hundreds of millions of potential customers.
You shouldn't even waste the time and effort to start a mobile app business with the prospect of selling only a couple of hundred of copies of your app.
You have to spend money to make money --- bigger initial certification costs shouldn't be a big problem if you can sell more copies to a larger audience.
Well, the cost for the iphone SDK --- is to buy a mac first.
Sure the initial costs for the certification is more for the other platforms --- but they are also having hundreds of millions of potential customers.
You shouldn't even waste the time and effort to start a mobile app business with the prospect of selling only a couple of hundred of copies of your app.
You have to spend money to make money --- bigger initial certification costs shouldn't be a big problem if you can sell more copies to a larger audience.
Besides the rest of this post being backwards, your first sentence is so absurd that I think I'm going to have to stop replying to you if I wish to remain civil.
Besides the rest of this post being backwards, your first sentence is so absurd that I think I'm going to have to stop replying to you if I wish to remain civil.
It is a relevant issue --- you can't use the SDK on a windows machine. That's an initial set-up cost --- just like the initial costs for certification of your mobile apps.
... developers pay for app certification and pay a percentage of the app sales revenue to docomo, nokia or qualcomm --- and these people don't charge a 30% cut.
"Site registration and product uploads are free of charge. You set the price for your application and the revenue sharing model gives you 60% of the sales"
Greedy greedy Nokia!
I've heard that they even force the poor impoverished developers to buy their own computer.
Well, the cost for the iphone SDK --- is to buy a mac first.
How is this different from the need to buy any computer?
Quote:
Sure the initial costs for the certification is more for the other platforms --- but they are also having hundreds of millions of potential customers. You shouldn't even waste the time and effort to start a mobile app business with the prospect of selling only a couple of hundred of copies of your app.
You have to look at quality as well as quantity. Look at development for the Mac. It represents billions in revenue for software developers, despite the fact that the Mac is only 6% of the computer market.
You grossly over state the advantage of quantity. There are many high quality applications for the Mac that are not ported for Windows. I've seen Widnows users wishing they could have these apps. This is because of quality. The quality of development on the Mac as well as quality and sophistication of the average Mac user.
Adobe sells 40% of its professional products to Mac users. Avid sells 60% of its professional products to Mac users. 20% of MS Office users are on the Mac. 10% of the retail Vista sales in the US are for the Mac. Huge sales far beyond the Mac's marketshare.
The iphone ecosystem is similar to docomo imode, nokia content discoverer, qualcomm brew... In order to be on the deck, developers pay for app certification and pay a percentage of the app sales revenue to docomo, nokia or qualcomm --- and these people don't charge a 30% cut.
You're right, some charge a 50% cut, as do the online stores. This has been discussed before.
They also don't offer the marketing services that Apple will be offering. It will actually be cheaper for smaller developers, as Apple will take care of the updates, etc. This brings the cost down for them. Also, everything will be there, this is unlike other systems, where it can be hard to find the software at all.
Apples OS is also agreed to be far more sophisticated than any of the other phone OSes, and the development system is also considered to be the best.
Well, the cost for the iphone SDK --- is to buy a mac first.
Sure the initial costs for the certification is more for the other platforms --- but they are also having hundreds of millions of potential customers.
You shouldn't even waste the time and effort to start a mobile app business with the prospect of selling only a couple of hundred of copies of your app.
You have to spend money to make money --- bigger initial certification costs shouldn't be a big problem if you can sell more copies to a larger audience.
Again, you're distorting the truth. It's ludicrous to complain about having to buy a Mac to do this. You have to buy a PC to do any of the others, why should this be different? Well, it isn't. Many of the developers will be Mac developers anyway, and so will have a Mac. Any $599 Mac Mini will work just fine.
And sure, you realized that you have to PAY for the use of SDK's on any other platform, AND you have to buy that PC. Don't say that developers will have one, because they may not.
You're just being prejudiced here, and it's hard to understand why.
You're trying very hard to convince yourself of something that isn't true.
They also don't offer the marketing services that Apple will be offering. It will actually be cheaper for smaller developers, as Apple will take care of the updates, etc. This brings the cost down for them. Also, everything will be there, this is unlike other systems, where it can be hard to find the software at all.
Apples OS is also agreed to be far more sophisticated than any of the other phone OSes, and the development system is also considered to be the best.
It's easy to ignore if you want to.
If it's on the deck, then it's on the deck. I don't think "marketing services" will matter much if you are the little software developers --- your apps will be on page 12.
While OS X is more sophisticated than every mobile OS on earth, all the other OS'es were also specifically designed for the mobile phone environment. You think that their limitations are limitations, they think that's an asset.
If it's on the deck, then it's on the deck. I don't think "marketing services" will matter much if you are the little software developers --- your apps will be on page 12.
This is a new platform where no one holds any inherent advantage. Whether from a big developer or small independent, I don't see any reason why the best apps won't become the most popular.
Quote:
While OS X is more sophisticated than every mobile OS on earth, all the other OS'es were also specifically designed for the mobile phone environment. You think that their limitations are limitations, they think that's an asset.
I haven't seen any of the other mobile OS brag that being less sophisticated is a virtue.
Its because they know apps developed for the iPhone will blow their simple mobile apps away.
If it's on the deck, then it's on the deck. I don't think "marketing services" will matter much if you are the little software developers --- your apps will be on page 12.
You're right, you're not thinking this through. It's like iTunes, everyone gets equal access. That was considered to one of the breakthroughs for the small labels and individual artists. It will be true here as well.
Quote:
While OS X is more sophisticated than every mobile OS on earth, all the other OS'es were also specifically designed for the mobile phone environment. You think that their limitations are limitations, they think that's an asset.
You're wrong there as well. You apparently don't read much. Virtually every developer thinks that the iPhone OS is of much greater value and potential. Simply put, they can do far more than with the much more limited OSes on the other phones. Even Nokia has realized that Symbian isn't up to snuff. Their more sophisticated smartphones will use Linux. Even Linux is way behind OS X in this regard, and there is nowhere near as good a developmental system available for it. The first question is, which distro? The limited resources available will make it difficult for the smaller developers.
Those other OSes were designed in a time when it was thought that more wasn't needed, and the resources on the phones couldn't support them anyway. Times are different. They will need to rewrite their OSes from the ground up to compete.
If it's on the deck, then it's on the deck. I don't think "marketing services" will matter much if you are the little software developers --- your apps will be on page 12.
While OS X is more sophisticated than every mobile OS on earth, all the other OS'es were also specifically designed for the mobile phone environment. You think that their limitations are limitations, they think that's an asset.
This has also been discussed before. "The mobile phone environment" is no more a hard and fast limitation than "the portable computer environment" or "the desktop computer environment" before that, back when a personal computer was a massive compromise compared to the big mainframes.
Apple always skates to where the puck is going to be, so they made a mobile OS for powerful hand held computers, not for limited cell phones.
The hardware only gets cheaper and faster, and there's Apple, with a readably extensible, scalable subset of their desktop OS. Cell phone manufacturers have spent years learning how to coax performance out of limited hardware, Apple waited till the hardware could support the performance they wanted.
And the one place where they have strongly differentiated their mobile version of OS X from the desktop is the one place where you want it differentiated: the UI, and they made that the best of breed.
As I've said before, Apple waited (or maybe it was just serendipitous timing) until there was hardware that could handle the OS they wanted to deploy. It just gets easier from here, as the hardware scales.
Other phone manufacturers are now obliged to figure out how to make their limited cell phone OSes perform like full blown computer operating systems.
One of the first fruits of Apple's approach is, in fact, the SDK, which has the amenities, consistency and end to end fit and finish of a desktop equivalent, which is quite a bit different from, say, the Symbian experience, which, from what I've read, even Nokia thinks kinda sucks.
AT&T has been adding subscribers, on average, at a greater rate than Verizon has for a while now.
It's pretty much a wash, actually. The net subscriber ads war between ATT and Verizon has been a back-and-forth dogfight of late (preceded by years of Verizon mostly winning):
They also split the two most recent quarters (which aren't on the chart)... ATT won Q4 2007, Verizon won Q1 2008. So over the past 7 quarters, the tally is Verizon 4, ATT 3, if one cares about such things.
Quote:
Originally Posted by melgross
Churn is a problem in all cell companies around the world.
For some companies more than others. Verizon does a very good job on keeping churn down and consistently wins there:
And ARPU? Verizon consistently beats ATT, but both are consistently beaten by Alltel and Sprint (this is one of Sprint's very few silver linings of late):
Comments
There is debating and there is beating your head against a wall.
I do that too, but usually after first beating a dead horse.
I do that too, but usually after first beating a dead horse.
I've already had all these same debates with Samab. Its interesting to see him pulling out the same biased and flawed argument over and over.
This is great for them, no body says differently, but saying that a one year old platform is bad because these option won't be available for another month while overlooking all the benefits that the iPhone has over other devices is nothing but a slithery marketing tactic.
There is no one device that fits everyone's needs. If the LG Voyager is the choice for you then go for it. There are legitimate reasons to complain about the iPhone and Apple and iTunes and OS X and AppleTV or Steve Jobs or anything else associated with Apple, but I haven't read one argument that addresses those issues.
I didn't say that the iphone platform is bad because these things aren't available.
I was responding to a comment by wraithofwonder about why the LG Voyager is bad because iphone has all the software stuff.
The world isn't standing still. The second wave of Korean iphone clones are going to be close the gap even more. If a half-assed first attempt on a iphone clone beats iphones sales in america, then a 3/4 assed second attempt will do even more damage.
I didn't say that the iphone platform is bad because these things aren't available.
I was responding to a comment by wraithofwonder about why the LG Voyager is bad because iphone has all the software stuff.
The world isn't standing still. The second wave of Korean iphone clones are going to be close the gap even more. If a half-assed first attempt on a iphone clone beats iphones sales in america, then a 3/4 assed second attempt will do even more damage.
I don't recall the first wave. I've seen a lot of photoshopped images on Engadget, heard about a lot of vapotware and read the hyperbole term "iPhone killer" way to often to describe a phone that is attempting to directly to compete with the iPhone's target demographic.
None of this seems to be real or be making any impact at all. I want Nokia, RiM, SE, LG and everyone else to make a better OS for their phones. I want them to create a better ecosystem with integrated software that makes the cellphone an extension of the home compute, not a separate device.
These attempts to compete with the iPhone are just proof that Apple is dong something right. You can hate AT&T and you can iPhone as much as you want but you, and every cell phone user, will benefit from the iPhone being in the mix.
I don't recall the first wave. I've seen a lot of photoshopped images on Engadget, heard about a lot of vapotware and read the hyperbole term "iPhone killer" way to often to describe a phone that is attempting to directly to compete with the iPhone's target demographic.
None of this seems to be real or be making any impact at all. I want Nokia, RiM, SE, LG and everyone else to make a better OS for their phones. I want them to create a better ecosystem with integrated software that makes the cellphone an extension of the home compute, not a separate device.
These attempts to compete with the iPhone are just proof that Apple is dong something right. You can hate AT&T and you can iPhone as much as you want but you, and every cell phone user, will benefit from the iPhone being in the mix.
A walled garden is a walled garden --- it's not going to be a better ecosystem. The iphone ecosystem is also an ecosystem that pays the developers lesser money than some of the existing mobile ecosystems.
We only benefit when Apple failed on their full priced crippled phone with a long contract business model.
The iphone ecosystem is also an ecosystem that pays the developers lesser money than some of the existing mobile ecosystems.
Please explain.
Please explain.
The iphone ecosystem is similar to docomo imode, nokia content discoverer, qualcomm brew... In order to be on the deck, developers pay for app certification and pay a percentage of the app sales revenue to docomo, nokia or qualcomm --- and these people don't charge a 30% cut.
The iphone ecosystem is similar to docomo imode, nokia content discoverer, qualcomm brew... In order to be on the deck, developers pay for app certification and pay a percentage of the app sales revenue to docomo, nokia or qualcomm --- and these people don't charge a 30% cut.
Are you purposely leaving out the other details or are you not aware of them? You didn't state what the others charge per app, the cost of the intiial certification or costs for the development software. The only aspect you've quantified is what Apple charges.
Are you purposely leaving out the other details or are you not aware of them? You didn't state what the others charge per app, the cost of the intiial certification or costs for the development software. The only aspect you've quantified is what Apple charges.
Well, the cost for the iphone SDK --- is to buy a mac first.
Sure the initial costs for the certification is more for the other platforms --- but they are also having hundreds of millions of potential customers.
You shouldn't even waste the time and effort to start a mobile app business with the prospect of selling only a couple of hundred of copies of your app.
You have to spend money to make money --- bigger initial certification costs shouldn't be a big problem if you can sell more copies to a larger audience.
Well, the cost for the iphone SDK --- is to buy a mac first.
Sure the initial costs for the certification is more for the other platforms --- but they are also having hundreds of millions of potential customers.
You shouldn't even waste the time and effort to start a mobile app business with the prospect of selling only a couple of hundred of copies of your app.
You have to spend money to make money --- bigger initial certification costs shouldn't be a big problem if you can sell more copies to a larger audience.
Besides the rest of this post being backwards, your first sentence is so absurd that I think I'm going to have to stop replying to you if I wish to remain civil.
Besides the rest of this post being backwards, your first sentence is so absurd that I think I'm going to have to stop replying to you if I wish to remain civil.
It is a relevant issue --- you can't use the SDK on a windows machine. That's an initial set-up cost --- just like the initial costs for certification of your mobile apps.
... developers pay for app certification and pay a percentage of the app sales revenue to docomo, nokia or qualcomm --- and these people don't charge a 30% cut.
No seems like they charge 40%.
http://www.forum.nokia.com/main/soft...ket/index.html
"Site registration and product uploads are free of charge. You set the price for your application and the revenue sharing model gives you 60% of the sales"
Greedy greedy Nokia!
I've heard that they even force the poor impoverished developers to buy their own computer.
Bloody cheek!
Well, the cost for the iphone SDK --- is to buy a mac first.
How is this different from the need to buy any computer?
Sure the initial costs for the certification is more for the other platforms --- but they are also having hundreds of millions of potential customers. You shouldn't even waste the time and effort to start a mobile app business with the prospect of selling only a couple of hundred of copies of your app.
You have to look at quality as well as quantity. Look at development for the Mac. It represents billions in revenue for software developers, despite the fact that the Mac is only 6% of the computer market.
You grossly over state the advantage of quantity. There are many high quality applications for the Mac that are not ported for Windows. I've seen Widnows users wishing they could have these apps. This is because of quality. The quality of development on the Mac as well as quality and sophistication of the average Mac user.
Adobe sells 40% of its professional products to Mac users. Avid sells 60% of its professional products to Mac users. 20% of MS Office users are on the Mac. 10% of the retail Vista sales in the US are for the Mac. Huge sales far beyond the Mac's marketshare.
The iphone ecosystem is similar to docomo imode, nokia content discoverer, qualcomm brew... In order to be on the deck, developers pay for app certification and pay a percentage of the app sales revenue to docomo, nokia or qualcomm --- and these people don't charge a 30% cut.
You're right, some charge a 50% cut, as do the online stores. This has been discussed before.
They also don't offer the marketing services that Apple will be offering. It will actually be cheaper for smaller developers, as Apple will take care of the updates, etc. This brings the cost down for them. Also, everything will be there, this is unlike other systems, where it can be hard to find the software at all.
Apples OS is also agreed to be far more sophisticated than any of the other phone OSes, and the development system is also considered to be the best.
It's easy to ignore if you want to.
Well, the cost for the iphone SDK --- is to buy a mac first.
Sure the initial costs for the certification is more for the other platforms --- but they are also having hundreds of millions of potential customers.
You shouldn't even waste the time and effort to start a mobile app business with the prospect of selling only a couple of hundred of copies of your app.
You have to spend money to make money --- bigger initial certification costs shouldn't be a big problem if you can sell more copies to a larger audience.
Again, you're distorting the truth. It's ludicrous to complain about having to buy a Mac to do this. You have to buy a PC to do any of the others, why should this be different? Well, it isn't. Many of the developers will be Mac developers anyway, and so will have a Mac. Any $599 Mac Mini will work just fine.
And sure, you realized that you have to PAY for the use of SDK's on any other platform, AND you have to buy that PC. Don't say that developers will have one, because they may not.
You're just being prejudiced here, and it's hard to understand why.
You're trying very hard to convince yourself of something that isn't true.
They also don't offer the marketing services that Apple will be offering. It will actually be cheaper for smaller developers, as Apple will take care of the updates, etc. This brings the cost down for them. Also, everything will be there, this is unlike other systems, where it can be hard to find the software at all.
Apples OS is also agreed to be far more sophisticated than any of the other phone OSes, and the development system is also considered to be the best.
It's easy to ignore if you want to.
If it's on the deck, then it's on the deck. I don't think "marketing services" will matter much if you are the little software developers --- your apps will be on page 12.
While OS X is more sophisticated than every mobile OS on earth, all the other OS'es were also specifically designed for the mobile phone environment. You think that their limitations are limitations, they think that's an asset.
If it's on the deck, then it's on the deck. I don't think "marketing services" will matter much if you are the little software developers --- your apps will be on page 12.
This is a new platform where no one holds any inherent advantage. Whether from a big developer or small independent, I don't see any reason why the best apps won't become the most popular.
While OS X is more sophisticated than every mobile OS on earth, all the other OS'es were also specifically designed for the mobile phone environment. You think that their limitations are limitations, they think that's an asset.
I haven't seen any of the other mobile OS brag that being less sophisticated is a virtue.
Its because they know apps developed for the iPhone will blow their simple mobile apps away.
If it's on the deck, then it's on the deck. I don't think "marketing services" will matter much if you are the little software developers --- your apps will be on page 12.
You're right, you're not thinking this through. It's like iTunes, everyone gets equal access. That was considered to one of the breakthroughs for the small labels and individual artists. It will be true here as well.
While OS X is more sophisticated than every mobile OS on earth, all the other OS'es were also specifically designed for the mobile phone environment. You think that their limitations are limitations, they think that's an asset.
You're wrong there as well. You apparently don't read much. Virtually every developer thinks that the iPhone OS is of much greater value and potential. Simply put, they can do far more than with the much more limited OSes on the other phones. Even Nokia has realized that Symbian isn't up to snuff. Their more sophisticated smartphones will use Linux. Even Linux is way behind OS X in this regard, and there is nowhere near as good a developmental system available for it. The first question is, which distro? The limited resources available will make it difficult for the smaller developers.
Those other OSes were designed in a time when it was thought that more wasn't needed, and the resources on the phones couldn't support them anyway. Times are different. They will need to rewrite their OSes from the ground up to compete.
Advantage iPhone all around.
If it's on the deck, then it's on the deck. I don't think "marketing services" will matter much if you are the little software developers --- your apps will be on page 12.
While OS X is more sophisticated than every mobile OS on earth, all the other OS'es were also specifically designed for the mobile phone environment. You think that their limitations are limitations, they think that's an asset.
This has also been discussed before. "The mobile phone environment" is no more a hard and fast limitation than "the portable computer environment" or "the desktop computer environment" before that, back when a personal computer was a massive compromise compared to the big mainframes.
Apple always skates to where the puck is going to be, so they made a mobile OS for powerful hand held computers, not for limited cell phones.
The hardware only gets cheaper and faster, and there's Apple, with a readably extensible, scalable subset of their desktop OS. Cell phone manufacturers have spent years learning how to coax performance out of limited hardware, Apple waited till the hardware could support the performance they wanted.
And the one place where they have strongly differentiated their mobile version of OS X from the desktop is the one place where you want it differentiated: the UI, and they made that the best of breed.
As I've said before, Apple waited (or maybe it was just serendipitous timing) until there was hardware that could handle the OS they wanted to deploy. It just gets easier from here, as the hardware scales.
Other phone manufacturers are now obliged to figure out how to make their limited cell phone OSes perform like full blown computer operating systems.
One of the first fruits of Apple's approach is, in fact, the SDK, which has the amenities, consistency and end to end fit and finish of a desktop equivalent, which is quite a bit different from, say, the Symbian experience, which, from what I've read, even Nokia thinks kinda sucks.
AT&T has been adding subscribers, on average, at a greater rate than Verizon has for a while now.
It's pretty much a wash, actually. The net subscriber ads war between ATT and Verizon has been a back-and-forth dogfight of late (preceded by years of Verizon mostly winning):
They also split the two most recent quarters (which aren't on the chart)... ATT won Q4 2007, Verizon won Q1 2008. So over the past 7 quarters, the tally is Verizon 4, ATT 3, if one cares about such things.
Churn is a problem in all cell companies around the world.
For some companies more than others. Verizon does a very good job on keeping churn down and consistently wins there:
And ARPU? Verizon consistently beats ATT, but both are consistently beaten by Alltel and Sprint (this is one of Sprint's very few silver linings of late):
Hope the info was of some use.
.