Really? I found that feature to be completely retarded. What's the point of having a street view when you're physically on the street and can witness how it looks. Unless you're not on that street. At which point it's just a gimmick feature...instead of using a finger to spin yourself around in the street view, your entire body spins.
I may just point and laugh when I see people looking at their Android phones and spin around in circles instead of using a finger to change the street view.
Not at all. I thought it was brilliant. Also, you have to keep in mind that future iterations will include advertising overlays... y'know, come in to this Starbucks in the next 5 minutes and you'll get $1.00 off any frappachino. This will really break phone advertising wide open.
Not at all. I thought it was brilliant. Also, you have to keep in mind that future iterations will include advertising overlays... y'know, come in to this Starbucks in the next 5 minutes and you'll get $1.00 off any frappachino. This will really break phone advertising wide open.
So the point of this feature is that it allows me to wave my phone around certain retail areas I might be in so I can see advertising in an HUD overlay? Anything else? Because that falls well short of my definition of "brilliant."
I think it's demo ware-- looks very cool, really not very useful.
As far as Android being a replay of Windows to the iPhone's Mac, that doesn't take into account how much more hardware coupling is involved in the iPhone's UI and general experience.
Windows could do its "good enough" Mac emulation on commodity hardware, and while some manufacturers might have offered machines with more or less snappiness, none of them shipped systems that didn't have a mouse, or that couldn't support basic UI conventions, or with 40x60 monitors.
Android has to support handsets with wildly divergent capabilities. We're being shown their best evocation of a reference handset, there's no reason to think that a retail version running on a big touch screen with a fast processor and a bunch of memory would be damagingly cheaper than an iPhone, and there's no way to do what's being shown on the cell phone world's version of cheap, commodity hardware.
When a cheap PC running Windows 95 came up short, it meant somewhat sluggish performance. When a cheap cell phone running Android comes up short, it will mean entire chunks of the UI fall off, along with that whole "ease of use" thing.
Let's be more explicit about what the brave new world of Android hardware ubiquity and free-for-all open source application distribution will offer for the cellphone user experience:
I'm wondering what is going to happen with the maps app on the iPod touch and iPhone. If Google are creating their own devices with this in mind, then why would they allow access to the competition?
The same reason why Samsung supplies crucial parts for the ipod when they also make their own music players: money.
All of you dismissing Android because of icon aesthetics and missing feature should realize that Android could be the next Windows 95 that wipes Apple out of the mobile business.
Windows 95 was "good enough" to most people. Android could be "good enough" to most people also. And if people can get cheap phones with Android on them, Apple could be in trouble.
Mind you, there seems to be a huge reversal recently. People are buying Apple products in droves with little regard for price. Seems like people have finally awoken and seen the light (thanks to iPods and word of mouth).
There's nothing about the iPod that couldn't have been said about the Mac 10-15 years ago. Macs were clearly a superior product...but nobody knew that. A series of events allowed the iPod to break this curse and make people more aware of Apple products (including the Mac).
Still...Apple has to be careful and not let Android become "good enough". I think Apple's doing a good thing patenting many iPhone innovations. Anything to stop people from directly copying the iPhone look and feel is a good for Apple.
This is a very intelligent analysis and makes a lot of good points. Many of which I was going to make, so thanks for saving me some typing!
Quote:
Originally Posted by Booga
I do wish Apple had taken the iPhone opportunity to dump Objective-C and Cocoa and gone with a more modern API, and that's one area that Android will have a HUGE advantage over the iPhone in. You'll have droves of developers who have years of experience in the toolchains, languages, and systems involved.
Apart from all the Mac developers who know Objective-C and all the programmers who can learn it really fast. True, more people probably know the Java syntax, but it's not a huge deal to most programmers.
I completely fail to see how Cocoa can be considered a disadvantage at all. It is a very good framework which Apple uses to build (nearly) all their Mac apps and all of their iPhone Apps.
iLife and other good software has helped sell Macs in droves. The iPhone has got of to reasonably good start (particularly in the US) and has received huge critical acclaim. The proof of the pudding is in the eating.
It is likely that you will have heard pundits pointing to this as a weakness, although the main problem is they have probably never written an application in Cocoa. Cocoa is sort of old (~ 15 years) but with this comes maturity, which is also an advantage. It is well established.
Think about if Apple hadn't used cocoa + Objective C ? they wouldn't have the nice knock on effect of Mac Developers knowing how to develop iPhone apps and new iPhone developers having a better grasp of creating Mac applications.
This was no mistake, it was a carefully formulated strategy.
Apple better be concerned about Android. Even if what we've seen so far represents a "best effort", the fact remains that it is running very well on third-party hardware and HTC, Samsung and others may design their hardware offerings to specifically take advantage of Android's capabilities.
On another note, Apple needs to replace Eric Schmidt on its board to make sure that there is no appearance of conflict of interest. Apple and Google can still partner/cooperate on specific projects which are mutually beneficial.
On another note, Apple needs to replace Eric Schmidt on its board to make sure that there is no appearance of conflict of interest. Apple and Google can still partner/cooperate on specific projects which are mutually beneficial.
Eric Schmidt already recuses himself from any iPhone discussion. That is a complete non-issue.
Quote:
Originally Posted by commun5
Let's be more explicit about what the brave new world of Android hardware ubiquity and free-for-all open source application distribution will offer for the cellphone user experience:
1. System freeze
2. Cold reboot
This is no different from the times when the iPhones crash. Cold reboots on the iPhone aren't any more fun than on any other device. It's going to get worse with more 3rd party development.
Quote:
Originally Posted by kim kap sol
Really? I found that feature to be completely retarded. What's the point of having a street view when you're physically on the street and can witness how it looks. Unless you're not on that street. At which point it's just a gimmick feature...instead of using a finger to spin yourself around in the street view, your entire body spins.
I may just point and laugh when I see people looking at their Android phones and spin around in circles instead of using a finger to change the street view.
Ever drive around at night and wish you had a daylight version of streets and neighborhoods? It kind of sucks being in an area with a map and not knowing which direction you're pointing or what nearby landmarks are because there's not enough light at night. It's actually quite a remarkable feature, and if Apple released it first, you would be saying the exact opposite.
Quote:
Originally Posted by irnchriz
Crappy zoom feature, straight out of Microsofts piss poor attempt with Deepfish.
No multi-touch no sale
Also the gesture lock is just a pin. whoopity doo, 9 points (9 numbers) joined by a line, its a glorified pin number.
If they truly wanted to create a great mobile OS they should have been more creative and original instead of taking a sheet of carbon paper to the iPhone. Come on, are Google the new Microsoft? Start your copiers now.
The gesture lock is more than 9 possibilities. I can think of at least 128 different stroke combinations on a 3x3 grid. Once again, if Apple came out with it first, you would be praising Steve Jobs for his genius.
The zoom feature is considerably better in navigating large webpages without pinch-in/pinch-out all the time. Apple will improve their iPhone from what they see in Android, and Google will continue to improve its version, and the customer will benefit in the end. Why do you have to think in zero-sum games all the time?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Zandros
This is embarrasing for Google. About as pathetic as those who insist on skinning their Ubuntu to look like MacOS X but fail horribly.
If you view icon design as the cornerstone of mobile operating system design, then you would be on to something. However, comparing icons is as stupid as comparing recycle-bin and trash-can.
It's really embarrassing hearing Apple fanbois talk like grade school males comparing whose daddy can beat whose daddy. You guys need to get a hold of yourselves and stop giving apple users a bad rap.
"This is no different from the times when the iPhones crash. Cold reboots on the iPhone aren't any more fun than on any other device. It's going to get worse with more 3rd party development. "
Thanks for pointing out the obvious. There will be many more crashes and reboots with Android phones because there will be no control over application deployment and little effort to ensure that the software and hardware work well together.
"It's really embarrassing hearing Apple fanbois talk like grade school males comparing whose daddy can beat whose daddy. You guys need to get a hold of yourselves and stop giving apple users a bad rap."
Since there were no personal attacks in the posts to which you responded, I guess you have proven your point, as long as we substitute "myself" for "Apple fanbois."
Those videos look really good, but google has a few key problems:
(1) phone makers are wary about adopting these operating systems, if they do, consumers could loose brand loyalty, and switch whenever, confident that they could use any phone running that system. Makers like Nokia are wanting to make their system standard
(2) Apple have sold over 100m ipods, all of which run through itunes, many people will be unwilling to use a different media player, and will see the iphone as an easy way to stay familiarized
(3) What are they making money from?? Shareholders will need to be convinced this expensive battle with microsoft, Apple and the other handset makers is worth it, rather than simply putting their google apps on these competing platforms
However Apple have far more problems than that! If apple want to win this software war they need to change tactic, license their system to other phones! Ipod sales are soon to head into massive decline, as people stop upgrading their music player and switch to music phones, the iphone however good will not manage to achieve dominance like the ipod, unless they offer a huge array of new iphones to suit all tastes. However by selling on their advancd software and reaping in royalties off music sold and applications sold could be massive!
Earlier this year I wrote a post called 'The Chess Masters: Apple versus Google' that essentially asserted two things.
One that Apple and Google are without peers in terms of their ability to build products that cross once impenetrable boundaries between PC, mobile, media and Internet segments.
Two that given their respective mammoth ambitions, ?friends? Apple/Google are destined to become ?frienemies? ala Apple/Microsoft (circa 1990).
It seems clear that Android versus iPhone SDK is destined to become a bonafide platform battle while at the same time both companies continuing to have lots of reasons to partner ala frienemies.
It's really embarrassing hearing Apple fanbois talk like grade school males comparing whose daddy can beat whose daddy. You guys need to get a hold of yourselves and stop giving apple users a bad rap.
Actually, what's embarrassing is some pompous arm chair psychologist confidently declaring what people would and would not find a compelling feature "if Apple did it", and using that as a basis to dismiss such people as "fanbois."
Wait, did I say "embarrassing"? I meant "being a dick."
So the point of this feature is that it allows me to wave my phone around certain retail areas I might be in so I can see advertising in an HUD overlay? Anything else? Because that falls well short of my definition of "brilliant."
I'm looking at what this can be, not just what it is in the demo. If you have expressed preferences for products and things you like to do, these "overlays" could very easily target your interests and provide a way for you to take advantage of retailers in the area. I see that as revolutionary for both consumers and advertisers.
All right, all right... can we keep this analysis of Android on track and avoid the personality conflicts that these threads devolve into so quickly. Please?
I'm looking at what this can be, not just what it is in the demo. If you have expressed preferences for products and things you like to do, these "overlays" could very easily target your interests and provide a way for you to take advantage of retailers in the area. I see that as revolutionary for both consumers and advertisers.
I see what you're saying, but it seems like a stretch to justify a cool seeming feature that doesn't actually have much of a purpose.
Short range communication protocols already allow for sending localized info, so if you're dead set on getting sales pitches pushed onto your phone I would think it would make more sense to get it at or in the Starbuck's, say, rather than scanning a block of stores on the off chance one of them has something of interest for me.
All right, all right... can we keep this analysis of Android on track and avoid the personality conflicts that these threads devolve into so quickly. Please?
It has nothing to do with personalities. Playing the "fanboi" card is lazy and irritating.
Those videos look really good, but google has a few key problems:
(1) phone makers are wary about adopting these operating systems, if they do, consumers could loose brand loyalty, and switch whenever, confident that they could use any phone running that system. Makers like Nokia are wanting to make their system standard
(2) Apple have sold over 100m ipods, all of which run through itunes, many people will be unwilling to use a different media player, and will see the iphone as an easy way to stay familiarized
(3) What are they making money from?? Shareholders will need to be convinced this expensive battle with microsoft, Apple and the other handset makers is worth it, rather than simply putting their google apps on these competing platforms
I agree with your point number 1. Point number 2 only somewhat.
For number 3, Google makes money for advertising. They are counting on hundreds of millions of users using mobile google search, maps, mail, whatever, and seeing the text ads that companies pay them to display. It's all about advertising dollars to Google. As this is a way for Google to make a lot money (billions and billions), I would have to wonder if handset makers and carriers/operators will want the piece of the pie, as Google is making money off of their hardware and networks. I can't but help think this will be the biggest barrier to Android, unless Google is willing to do a minority split of the advertising dollars.
No, this isn't like 1985 where Mac was a year old and MS was about to release Windows 1/2. The cell phone market already has a dominate OS player: Symbian. A good enough UI solution on top of Symbian may mean Apple's top-end market may disappear, outside of the USA at the least.
All Android is a new player in a competitive and saturated market where there are questionable 3rd party business models, inter-competing companies, and vast sink holes for money to poured into never to come back. I'll even question the use of "Java" (the Java VM is a clean-room clone, so Sun doesn't get to play) as it's 3rd party application development platform. There are 20 gazillion different Java platforms in the cell phone market, of billions of units, and the vast majority of apps are crap (in terms of elegance, design, usability, even functionality) as far as I can tell. There's something about that I'll need to explore more. The only real hook Google has is that they'll share the advertising dollars with the handset makers and the carrier/operators.
Quote:
However Apple have far more problems than that! If apple want to win this software war they need to change tactic, license their system to other phones! Ipod sales are soon to head into massive decline, as people stop upgrading their music player and switch to music phones, the iphone however good will not manage to achieve dominance like the ipod, unless they offer a huge array of new iphones to suit all tastes. However by selling on their advancd software and reaping in royalties off music sold and applications sold could be massive!
I don't think Apple is aspiring to dominate the cell market. They just want the top 5% of the market, which is about the size of the music player market. And I do believe that there will be 3 lines of iPhones (<$200 version, a $300 to $400 version, and $500+ version) to get more volume; just as there are 3/4 lines of iPods to get more units out there. So licensing the OS isn't part of the plan. It is one of their key differentiating features to take the top few percent of the market, which is where they want to be, and licensing the OS will mean a total retreat from that strategy (and a then becoming a player in market with razor thin margins, and Apple don't play in that market).
And I don't think I agree with you about the music player market going away. It's saturated, but it isn't going to disappear. The bigger question is if, 3 years down the road, Apple will want to stay in a market of very small margins. It looks they are going to transform their music players into a WiFi PDA type market, so they are already doing something. If WiFi is eclipsed by cellular networks, they have to re-strategize, but I get the feeling the WiFi market will be much cheaper to consumers then cellular.
I completely fail to see how Cocoa can be considered a disadvantage at all. It is a very good framework which Apple uses to build (nearly) all their Mac apps and all of their iPhone Apps.
Cocoa may well be good (I'm sure it is) but it's a closed platform. I will no more code in Cocoa and Objective C++ than I will in .NET, for exactly the same reasons.
Cocoa may well be good (I'm sure it is) but it's a closed platform. I will no more code in Cocoa and Objective C++ than I will in .NET, for exactly the same reasons.
Apparently some 100,000 developers disagree. I understand what you are saying about more people wanting to be involved with an open system (Android's 750,000+ downloads), but I prefer quality over quantity, as do many other people.
I would rather have Apple make sure that these apps are going to run smoothly. Sure, there will still be crashes, but not as many as Android, I'm betting. I'm okay with a closed system, as long as it is far. And Apple's system seems very fair to me.
Eric Schmidt already recuses himself from any iPhone discussion. That is a complete non-issue.
That's nice and all but it means that he brings nothing to the table with regard to Apple's hottest product which also points to their future direction. Given the rumors of much tighter integration between .Mac and the iPhone, does Schmidt also now recuse himself from .Mac/Apple online services discussions where his insight would be most beneficial? How about future conflicts as entertainment content providers?
I am not alone in pointing out this growing problem:
Comments
Really? I found that feature to be completely retarded. What's the point of having a street view when you're physically on the street and can witness how it looks. Unless you're not on that street. At which point it's just a gimmick feature...instead of using a finger to spin yourself around in the street view, your entire body spins.
I may just point and laugh when I see people looking at their Android phones and spin around in circles instead of using a finger to change the street view.
Not at all. I thought it was brilliant. Also, you have to keep in mind that future iterations will include advertising overlays... y'know, come in to this Starbucks in the next 5 minutes and you'll get $1.00 off any frappachino. This will really break phone advertising wide open.
Not at all. I thought it was brilliant. Also, you have to keep in mind that future iterations will include advertising overlays... y'know, come in to this Starbucks in the next 5 minutes and you'll get $1.00 off any frappachino. This will really break phone advertising wide open.
So the point of this feature is that it allows me to wave my phone around certain retail areas I might be in so I can see advertising in an HUD overlay? Anything else? Because that falls well short of my definition of "brilliant."
I think it's demo ware-- looks very cool, really not very useful.
Windows could do its "good enough" Mac emulation on commodity hardware, and while some manufacturers might have offered machines with more or less snappiness, none of them shipped systems that didn't have a mouse, or that couldn't support basic UI conventions, or with 40x60 monitors.
Android has to support handsets with wildly divergent capabilities. We're being shown their best evocation of a reference handset, there's no reason to think that a retail version running on a big touch screen with a fast processor and a bunch of memory would be damagingly cheaper than an iPhone, and there's no way to do what's being shown on the cell phone world's version of cheap, commodity hardware.
When a cheap PC running Windows 95 came up short, it meant somewhat sluggish performance. When a cheap cell phone running Android comes up short, it will mean entire chunks of the UI fall off, along with that whole "ease of use" thing.
1. System freeze
2. Cold reboot
I'm wondering what is going to happen with the maps app on the iPod touch and iPhone. If Google are creating their own devices with this in mind, then why would they allow access to the competition?
The same reason why Samsung supplies crucial parts for the ipod when they also make their own music players: money.
All of you dismissing Android because of icon aesthetics and missing feature should realize that Android could be the next Windows 95 that wipes Apple out of the mobile business.
Windows 95 was "good enough" to most people. Android could be "good enough" to most people also. And if people can get cheap phones with Android on them, Apple could be in trouble.
Mind you, there seems to be a huge reversal recently. People are buying Apple products in droves with little regard for price. Seems like people have finally awoken and seen the light (thanks to iPods and word of mouth).
There's nothing about the iPod that couldn't have been said about the Mac 10-15 years ago. Macs were clearly a superior product...but nobody knew that. A series of events allowed the iPod to break this curse and make people more aware of Apple products (including the Mac).
Still...Apple has to be careful and not let Android become "good enough". I think Apple's doing a good thing patenting many iPhone innovations. Anything to stop people from directly copying the iPhone look and feel is a good for Apple.
This is a very intelligent analysis and makes a lot of good points. Many of which I was going to make, so thanks for saving me some typing!
I do wish Apple had taken the iPhone opportunity to dump Objective-C and Cocoa and gone with a more modern API, and that's one area that Android will have a HUGE advantage over the iPhone in. You'll have droves of developers who have years of experience in the toolchains, languages, and systems involved.
Apart from all the Mac developers who know Objective-C and all the programmers who can learn it really fast. True, more people probably know the Java syntax, but it's not a huge deal to most programmers.
I completely fail to see how Cocoa can be considered a disadvantage at all. It is a very good framework which Apple uses to build (nearly) all their Mac apps and all of their iPhone Apps.
iLife and other good software has helped sell Macs in droves. The iPhone has got of to reasonably good start (particularly in the US) and has received huge critical acclaim. The proof of the pudding is in the eating.
It is likely that you will have heard pundits pointing to this as a weakness, although the main problem is they have probably never written an application in Cocoa. Cocoa is sort of old (~ 15 years) but with this comes maturity, which is also an advantage. It is well established.
Think about if Apple hadn't used cocoa + Objective C ? they wouldn't have the nice knock on effect of Mac Developers knowing how to develop iPhone apps and new iPhone developers having a better grasp of creating Mac applications.
This was no mistake, it was a carefully formulated strategy.
On another note, Apple needs to replace Eric Schmidt on its board to make sure that there is no appearance of conflict of interest. Apple and Google can still partner/cooperate on specific projects which are mutually beneficial.
On another note, Apple needs to replace Eric Schmidt on its board to make sure that there is no appearance of conflict of interest. Apple and Google can still partner/cooperate on specific projects which are mutually beneficial.
Eric Schmidt already recuses himself from any iPhone discussion. That is a complete non-issue.
Let's be more explicit about what the brave new world of Android hardware ubiquity and free-for-all open source application distribution will offer for the cellphone user experience:
1. System freeze
2. Cold reboot
This is no different from the times when the iPhones crash. Cold reboots on the iPhone aren't any more fun than on any other device. It's going to get worse with more 3rd party development.
Really? I found that feature to be completely retarded. What's the point of having a street view when you're physically on the street and can witness how it looks. Unless you're not on that street. At which point it's just a gimmick feature...instead of using a finger to spin yourself around in the street view, your entire body spins.
I may just point and laugh when I see people looking at their Android phones and spin around in circles instead of using a finger to change the street view.
Ever drive around at night and wish you had a daylight version of streets and neighborhoods? It kind of sucks being in an area with a map and not knowing which direction you're pointing or what nearby landmarks are because there's not enough light at night. It's actually quite a remarkable feature, and if Apple released it first, you would be saying the exact opposite.
Crappy zoom feature, straight out of Microsofts piss poor attempt with Deepfish.
No multi-touch no sale
Also the gesture lock is just a pin. whoopity doo, 9 points (9 numbers) joined by a line, its a glorified pin number.
If they truly wanted to create a great mobile OS they should have been more creative and original instead of taking a sheet of carbon paper to the iPhone. Come on, are Google the new Microsoft? Start your copiers now.
The gesture lock is more than 9 possibilities. I can think of at least 128 different stroke combinations on a 3x3 grid. Once again, if Apple came out with it first, you would be praising Steve Jobs for his genius.
The zoom feature is considerably better in navigating large webpages without pinch-in/pinch-out all the time. Apple will improve their iPhone from what they see in Android, and Google will continue to improve its version, and the customer will benefit in the end. Why do you have to think in zero-sum games all the time?
This is embarrasing for Google. About as pathetic as those who insist on skinning their Ubuntu to look like MacOS X but fail horribly.
If you view icon design as the cornerstone of mobile operating system design, then you would be on to something. However, comparing icons is as stupid as comparing recycle-bin and trash-can.
It's really embarrassing hearing Apple fanbois talk like grade school males comparing whose daddy can beat whose daddy. You guys need to get a hold of yourselves and stop giving apple users a bad rap.
"This is no different from the times when the iPhones crash. Cold reboots on the iPhone aren't any more fun than on any other device. It's going to get worse with more 3rd party development. "
Thanks for pointing out the obvious. There will be many more crashes and reboots with Android phones because there will be no control over application deployment and little effort to ensure that the software and hardware work well together.
"It's really embarrassing hearing Apple fanbois talk like grade school males comparing whose daddy can beat whose daddy. You guys need to get a hold of yourselves and stop giving apple users a bad rap."
Since there were no personal attacks in the posts to which you responded, I guess you have proven your point, as long as we substitute "myself" for "Apple fanbois."
(1) phone makers are wary about adopting these operating systems, if they do, consumers could loose brand loyalty, and switch whenever, confident that they could use any phone running that system. Makers like Nokia are wanting to make their system standard
(2) Apple have sold over 100m ipods, all of which run through itunes, many people will be unwilling to use a different media player, and will see the iphone as an easy way to stay familiarized
(3) What are they making money from?? Shareholders will need to be convinced this expensive battle with microsoft, Apple and the other handset makers is worth it, rather than simply putting their google apps on these competing platforms
However Apple have far more problems than that! If apple want to win this software war they need to change tactic, license their system to other phones! Ipod sales are soon to head into massive decline, as people stop upgrading their music player and switch to music phones, the iphone however good will not manage to achieve dominance like the ipod, unless they offer a huge array of new iphones to suit all tastes. However by selling on their advancd software and reaping in royalties off music sold and applications sold could be massive!
One that Apple and Google are without peers in terms of their ability to build products that cross once impenetrable boundaries between PC, mobile, media and Internet segments.
Two that given their respective mammoth ambitions, ?friends? Apple/Google are destined to become ?frienemies? ala Apple/Microsoft (circa 1990).
It seems clear that Android versus iPhone SDK is destined to become a bonafide platform battle while at the same time both companies continuing to have lots of reasons to partner ala frienemies.
Check out the post if interested:
The Chess Masters: Apple versus Google
http://thenetworkgarden.blogs.com/we...ess-maste.html
Mark
It's really embarrassing hearing Apple fanbois talk like grade school males comparing whose daddy can beat whose daddy. You guys need to get a hold of yourselves and stop giving apple users a bad rap.
Actually, what's embarrassing is some pompous arm chair psychologist confidently declaring what people would and would not find a compelling feature "if Apple did it", and using that as a basis to dismiss such people as "fanbois."
Wait, did I say "embarrassing"? I meant "being a dick."
So the point of this feature is that it allows me to wave my phone around certain retail areas I might be in so I can see advertising in an HUD overlay? Anything else? Because that falls well short of my definition of "brilliant."
I'm looking at what this can be, not just what it is in the demo. If you have expressed preferences for products and things you like to do, these "overlays" could very easily target your interests and provide a way for you to take advantage of retailers in the area. I see that as revolutionary for both consumers and advertisers.
I'm looking at what this can be, not just what it is in the demo. If you have expressed preferences for products and things you like to do, these "overlays" could very easily target your interests and provide a way for you to take advantage of retailers in the area. I see that as revolutionary for both consumers and advertisers.
I see what you're saying, but it seems like a stretch to justify a cool seeming feature that doesn't actually have much of a purpose.
Short range communication protocols already allow for sending localized info, so if you're dead set on getting sales pitches pushed onto your phone I would think it would make more sense to get it at or in the Starbuck's, say, rather than scanning a block of stores on the off chance one of them has something of interest for me.
All right, all right... can we keep this analysis of Android on track and avoid the personality conflicts that these threads devolve into so quickly. Please?
It has nothing to do with personalities. Playing the "fanboi" card is lazy and irritating.
Those videos look really good, but google has a few key problems:
(1) phone makers are wary about adopting these operating systems, if they do, consumers could loose brand loyalty, and switch whenever, confident that they could use any phone running that system. Makers like Nokia are wanting to make their system standard
(2) Apple have sold over 100m ipods, all of which run through itunes, many people will be unwilling to use a different media player, and will see the iphone as an easy way to stay familiarized
(3) What are they making money from?? Shareholders will need to be convinced this expensive battle with microsoft, Apple and the other handset makers is worth it, rather than simply putting their google apps on these competing platforms
I agree with your point number 1. Point number 2 only somewhat.
For number 3, Google makes money for advertising. They are counting on hundreds of millions of users using mobile google search, maps, mail, whatever, and seeing the text ads that companies pay them to display. It's all about advertising dollars to Google. As this is a way for Google to make a lot money (billions and billions), I would have to wonder if handset makers and carriers/operators will want the piece of the pie, as Google is making money off of their hardware and networks. I can't but help think this will be the biggest barrier to Android, unless Google is willing to do a minority split of the advertising dollars.
No, this isn't like 1985 where Mac was a year old and MS was about to release Windows 1/2. The cell phone market already has a dominate OS player: Symbian. A good enough UI solution on top of Symbian may mean Apple's top-end market may disappear, outside of the USA at the least.
All Android is a new player in a competitive and saturated market where there are questionable 3rd party business models, inter-competing companies, and vast sink holes for money to poured into never to come back. I'll even question the use of "Java" (the Java VM is a clean-room clone, so Sun doesn't get to play) as it's 3rd party application development platform. There are 20 gazillion different Java platforms in the cell phone market, of billions of units, and the vast majority of apps are crap (in terms of elegance, design, usability, even functionality) as far as I can tell. There's something about that I'll need to explore more. The only real hook Google has is that they'll share the advertising dollars with the handset makers and the carrier/operators.
However Apple have far more problems than that! If apple want to win this software war they need to change tactic, license their system to other phones! Ipod sales are soon to head into massive decline, as people stop upgrading their music player and switch to music phones, the iphone however good will not manage to achieve dominance like the ipod, unless they offer a huge array of new iphones to suit all tastes. However by selling on their advancd software and reaping in royalties off music sold and applications sold could be massive!
I don't think Apple is aspiring to dominate the cell market. They just want the top 5% of the market, which is about the size of the music player market. And I do believe that there will be 3 lines of iPhones (<$200 version, a $300 to $400 version, and $500+ version) to get more volume; just as there are 3/4 lines of iPods to get more units out there. So licensing the OS isn't part of the plan. It is one of their key differentiating features to take the top few percent of the market, which is where they want to be, and licensing the OS will mean a total retreat from that strategy (and a then becoming a player in market with razor thin margins, and Apple don't play in that market).
And I don't think I agree with you about the music player market going away. It's saturated, but it isn't going to disappear. The bigger question is if, 3 years down the road, Apple will want to stay in a market of very small margins. It looks they are going to transform their music players into a WiFi PDA type market, so they are already doing something. If WiFi is eclipsed by cellular networks, they have to re-strategize, but I get the feeling the WiFi market will be much cheaper to consumers then cellular.
I completely fail to see how Cocoa can be considered a disadvantage at all. It is a very good framework which Apple uses to build (nearly) all their Mac apps and all of their iPhone Apps.
Cocoa may well be good (I'm sure it is) but it's a closed platform. I will no more code in Cocoa and Objective C++ than I will in .NET, for exactly the same reasons.
Cocoa may well be good (I'm sure it is) but it's a closed platform. I will no more code in Cocoa and Objective C++ than I will in .NET, for exactly the same reasons.
Apparently some 100,000 developers disagree. I understand what you are saying about more people wanting to be involved with an open system (Android's 750,000+ downloads), but I prefer quality over quantity, as do many other people.
I would rather have Apple make sure that these apps are going to run smoothly. Sure, there will still be crashes, but not as many as Android, I'm betting. I'm okay with a closed system, as long as it is far. And Apple's system seems very fair to me.
Eric Schmidt already recuses himself from any iPhone discussion. That is a complete non-issue.
That's nice and all but it means that he brings nothing to the table with regard to Apple's hottest product which also points to their future direction. Given the rumors of much tighter integration between .Mac and the iPhone, does Schmidt also now recuse himself from .Mac/Apple online services discussions where his insight would be most beneficial? How about future conflicts as entertainment content providers?
I am not alone in pointing out this growing problem:
http://www.businessweek.com/technolo...gn_id=rss_tech
http://www.techcrunch.com/2008/01/13...-meetings-wtf/