Funny, everyone i know hates that they are forced to use Itunes if they buy an ipod. I like Itunes....
They are not forced to use iTunes there are other options. With over 100 million voluntary downloads of iTunes. The majority of the market likes it.
Quote:
Let me be clear, i am an Apple fan. I just think the smart cell phone industry will be the next big thing. If one OS could become the defacto OS for the industry.... well watch out.
There is no need to for one OS to rule everything. Windows has shown that does not really work.
You are working on old assumption and business logic from the 90's. Marketshare is important to a degree, but certainly not the entire story.
Apple's current ability to sell computers over $1000. Apple's revenue, profit, stock price, and market valuation. Versus Dell and HP go to show that their are other factors just as important as market share.
You've missed how Windows need to be everything to everybody has proven to be a liability. Windows is not able to have the ability to change the way Apple can change Mac OS.
Your talking about the hardware company that is Apple. Yes they are profitable in comparison to the other hardware venders.
Many people who buy the iPhone do not even realize that it is a smart phone to begin with and think it's a cell phone as it is marketed. This accounts for a large part of the sales percentage of it to smart phones overall.
It should be really compared as a percentage of both cell phones and smart phones combined. And there the percentage is probably not that significant.
The real test is whether corporate America adopts it and this has yet to be witnessed.
I am not sure why you think that Apple is marketing this as a cellphone rather than a smartphone when the ads I've seen all highlight "surfing twice as fast", "finding your way twice as fast" and "downloading twice as fast". Were it not for the closing shot of accepting a call (without any corresponding voiceover), it would be easy to think this is just an internet device rather than a cellphone.
Apple has thus far exerted little public effort to compete directly in the corporate marketplace, preferring instead to aim the iPhone as a consumer device which is usable in a work environment. At this point, I think corporate uptake of the iPhone is all gravy to Apple.
The real test is how well it sells. Period. If Apple captures 1% of the cellphone market, they will have hit their publicly stated sales goal.
I didn't say people didn't buy them, i said people didn't like it....
Most Windows users if given the opportunity would cut the ties of Itunes and Ipod.
Just ask someone who uses windows. You may have a hard time finding one. Only like 90% of people that have a PC use windows.
I think most people like it. There are other solutions out there. If you want to manually put your music on your iPod or even run Linux on it you are free too, but I think most people are drawn to the iPod because of?not in spite of?the ease of use brought on by the union between the iPod and iTunes.
Quote:
Originally Posted by ekeefe41
Your talking about the hardware company that is Apple. Yes they are profitable in comparison to the other hardware venders.
I'm talking about OS's
Since Apple makes OS X specifically to run on its own HW it's a bit disingenuous to only compare the OS sales here.
I am not sure why you think that Apple is marketing this as a cellphone rather than a smartphone when the ads I've seen all highlight "surfing twice as fast", "finding your way twice as fast" and "downloading twice as fast". Were it not for the closing shot of accepting a call (without any corresponding voiceover), it would be easy to think this is just an internet device rather than a cellphone.
Apple has thus far exerted little public effort to compete directly in the corporate marketplace, preferring instead to aim the iPhone as a consumer device which is usable in a work environment. At this point, I think corporate uptake of the iPhone is all gravy to Apple.
The real test is how well it sells. Period. If Apple captures 1% of the cellphone market, they will have hit their publicly stated sales goal.
There is no mention of a data plan- many people assume that texting is the same thing. Where does it mention data plan in either TV or print adds?
Tell that to Steve Ballmer. See how he feels about that right now. On second thought, never mind. All you're likely to get out of him is "Developers! Developers! Developers! Developers! I! LOVE! THIS! COMPANY! HEE-HAW!"
Microsoft won the OS war because Gates outsmarted Apple under John Sculley, IBM's top brass, and most of the rest of the nascent high tech industry, period. That doesn't prove the superiority of the Windows business model so much as it proves the incompetence of Microsoft's then-competition.
Apple has much smarter leadership now and IMO seems to have learned the lessons from the past. The market has also seem the downside to the Windows business model: lack of innovation, lack of accountability (Dell blames Windows bugs, Microsoft blames Dell hardware), a vast amount of mediocre choices of hardware and software when most people would rather have fewer but higher-quality choices. The market is taking a second look at Apple's way of doing things and Apple's computing marketshare is growing as a result.
Back directly on-topic: I don't think any one mobile OS is going to ever gain a Windows-like majority. I see iPhone and RIM as being the two dominant players, with a healthy percentage of Android and Symbian thrown into the mix. I am skeptical about the long term prospects of "design by committee" platforms being able to truly achieve excellence, but they will gain their share. With all this competition, the mobile OS market will be much more healthy and vibrant than the stultified desktop computing market dominated by Windows. Happy days!
I also think Windows Mobile is doomed as a significant player in the mobile OS market. I see a lot of their third party partners defecting to Android or other Linux-based OSes. Why should their hardware partners trust them anymore?
There is no mention of a data plan- many peolpe assume that texting is the same thing. Where does it mention data plan in either TV or print adds?
Many cell phones have mobile web.
So by this definition, the LG Dare and Samsung Instinct are marketed as cellphones rather than smartphones. I guess people like paying extra for a phone to just make calls.
Additionally, it's very, very interesting that Googles (debatable but definitely valid) response to this criticism is never mentioned in the same articles. Google's known position is that they are taking a well-known and in some circles respected approach to OS development, by trying to prototype the basics of Android somewhat privately, before the code is released in full to the OS community. You may disagree with this, but it's a valid choice to make. Others make it, Google made it, and to describe what they are doing as "favouring" particular OS developers is disingenuous to say the least.
Can you point to a link with Google's valid response to the criticism? Their public silence on Android is deafening. I can not find anything recent regarding their strategy.
Care to explain why/how AppleTv is a "...complete and utter failure"? Compared to what?
Compared to the iPod say? I'm a geek, and I have lots of geeky friends. Everyone I know has an iPod (or 2 or 3...), but I don't know a *single person* who owns an AppleTV.
For me they blew it when they didn't include a DVD player. I'd quite happily have ditched my existing DVD player and bought an AppleTV instead, just to have the latest gadget, and who knows, by know I'd probably be buying and renting all my movies from the iTunes store. As it is, I considered it briefly, looked away, and never looked back I'm afraid.
So by this definition, the LG Dare and Samsung Instinct are marketed as cellphones rather than smartphones. I guess people like paying extra for a phone to just make calls.
You have an option with the Dare not to get a data plan. I know nothing of the Instinct.
Compared to the iPod say? I'm a geek, and I have lots of geeky friends. Everyone I know has an iPod (or 2 or 3...), but I don't know a *single person* who owns an AppleTV.
For me they blew it when they didn't include a DVD player. I'd quite happily have ditched my existing DVD player and bought an AppleTV instead, just to have the latest gadget, and who knows, by know I'd probably be buying and renting all my movies from the iTunes store. As it is, I considered it briefly, looked away, and never looked back I'm afraid.
I know of several you do and like it for what it is. Why put a DVD player in it when that is older tech. There would have been countless replies as to why Apple didn't include Blu-ray, HD-DVD, or have multiple versions of the AppleTV for this. I had hoped Apple would eventually offer an add-on solution that would utilize that USB2.0 on the AppleTV for optical drive support once the HD optical format war was over. It looks like Apple is only focusing on networked media.
My parents love it because of the ease of use for renting movies and buying a missed TV show from time to time. To them that makes the $229 price tag quite feasible, which really isn't much when you consider the cost of DVD and VHS players back in the day and adjust for inflation for the ease of use for near-instant viewing.
Unless teckstud, I don't see it as a failure and enjoyed it after my 3 returns of the device, but it's not for everyone's needs. Last week I even talked one friend who absolutely loves his iPhone 3G (his first Apple product) from buying an AppleTV for his home media system. He's an IT guy, too, so I would have thought he'd have checked different options first. I sent him pros and cons of several systems, and I expected, he's undecided as none of them are a perfect solution.
I would like an option for the device to play more media types natively and not require video to be imported into iTunes first. I love iTunes for music, but not for video. At very least it could b an advanced option where the user can turn on disk support which will read shared folders of LAN based machines.
Apple needs to kill the AppleTV as a separate product, and just integrate all its software into the iPod. Give people a reason to buy the bigger iPods again. Video out connectors have been available for awhile for the iPod, and could serve the same purpose as the AppleTV while continuing to lock in Apple's iPod dominance.
Comments
Funny, everyone i know hates that they are forced to use Itunes if they buy an ipod. I like Itunes....
They are not forced to use iTunes there are other options. With over 100 million voluntary downloads of iTunes. The majority of the market likes it.
Let me be clear, i am an Apple fan. I just think the smart cell phone industry will be the next big thing. If one OS could become the defacto OS for the industry.... well watch out.
There is no need to for one OS to rule everything. Windows has shown that does not really work.
You are working on old assumption and business logic from the 90's. Marketshare is important to a degree, but certainly not the entire story.
Apple's current ability to sell computers over $1000. Apple's revenue, profit, stock price, and market valuation. Versus Dell and HP go to show that their are other factors just as important as market share.
You've missed how Windows need to be everything to everybody has proven to be a liability. Windows is not able to have the ability to change the way Apple can change Mac OS.
Your talking about the hardware company that is Apple. Yes they are profitable in comparison to the other hardware venders.
I'm talking about OS's
Wow, and yet, it has a 75% market share in the US.
(This is what economists call "cheap talk.")
(and what Europeans call "monopolistic behaviour")
They are not forced to use iTunes there are other options. With over 100 million voluntary downloads of iTunes. The majority of the market likes it.
There is no need to for one OS to rule everything. Windows has shown that does not really work.
http://www.yamipod.com/main/modules/home/
Yea... that looks like allot of fun.
Many people who buy the iPhone do not even realize that it is a smart phone to begin with and think it's a cell phone as it is marketed. This accounts for a large part of the sales percentage of it to smart phones overall.
It should be really compared as a percentage of both cell phones and smart phones combined. And there the percentage is probably not that significant.
The real test is whether corporate America adopts it and this has yet to be witnessed.
I am not sure why you think that Apple is marketing this as a cellphone rather than a smartphone when the ads I've seen all highlight "surfing twice as fast", "finding your way twice as fast" and "downloading twice as fast". Were it not for the closing shot of accepting a call (without any corresponding voiceover), it would be easy to think this is just an internet device rather than a cellphone.
Apple has thus far exerted little public effort to compete directly in the corporate marketplace, preferring instead to aim the iPhone as a consumer device which is usable in a work environment. At this point, I think corporate uptake of the iPhone is all gravy to Apple.
The real test is how well it sells. Period. If Apple captures 1% of the cellphone market, they will have hit their publicly stated sales goal.
Your talking about the hardware company that is Apple. Yes they are profitable in comparison to the other hardware venders.
I'm talking about OS's
Apple is profitable because of the integration of its hardware and OS.
(and what Europeans call "monopolistic behaviour")
A monopoly in itself is not bad. To abuse your monopolistic position is bad.
http://www.yamipod.com/main/modules/home/
Yea... that looks like allot of fun.
Apple's competitors need to step up their game.
They lost the PC war
Lawsuit about IE tightly integrated in MS os in the US.
E-mails about lack of concern for security and holes in os from MS themselves.
Lawsuits about monopoly in the EU.
Zune.
Vista's perception (rightly or wrongly), not that great. MS vows to avoid Vista mistakes in Windows 7 - http://www.electronista.com/articles...ows.7.updates/
Just wait for Windows 7.
We like our business model for the mobile phone market. - Steve Ballmer.
Stock price flat, flat flat!
If that's winning, I'm glad Apple lost the PC war! -
I didn't say people didn't buy them, i said people didn't like it....
Most Windows users if given the opportunity would cut the ties of Itunes and Ipod.
Just ask someone who uses windows. You may have a hard time finding one. Only like 90% of people that have a PC use windows.
I think most people like it. There are other solutions out there. If you want to manually put your music on your iPod or even run Linux on it you are free too, but I think most people are drawn to the iPod because of?not in spite of?the ease of use brought on by the union between the iPod and iTunes.
Your talking about the hardware company that is Apple. Yes they are profitable in comparison to the other hardware venders.
I'm talking about OS's
Since Apple makes OS X specifically to run on its own HW it's a bit disingenuous to only compare the OS sales here.
I am not sure why you think that Apple is marketing this as a cellphone rather than a smartphone when the ads I've seen all highlight "surfing twice as fast", "finding your way twice as fast" and "downloading twice as fast". Were it not for the closing shot of accepting a call (without any corresponding voiceover), it would be easy to think this is just an internet device rather than a cellphone.
Apple has thus far exerted little public effort to compete directly in the corporate marketplace, preferring instead to aim the iPhone as a consumer device which is usable in a work environment. At this point, I think corporate uptake of the iPhone is all gravy to Apple.
The real test is how well it sells. Period. If Apple captures 1% of the cellphone market, they will have hit their publicly stated sales goal.
There is no mention of a data plan- many people assume that texting is the same thing. Where does it mention data plan in either TV or print adds?
Many cell phones have web features.
Tell that to Steve Ballmer. See how he feels about that right now. On second thought, never mind. All you're likely to get out of him is "Developers! Developers! Developers! Developers! I! LOVE! THIS! COMPANY! HEE-HAW!"
Did someone mention.....DEVELOPERS???
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8zEQhhaJsU4
Apple has much smarter leadership now and IMO seems to have learned the lessons from the past. The market has also seem the downside to the Windows business model: lack of innovation, lack of accountability (Dell blames Windows bugs, Microsoft blames Dell hardware), a vast amount of mediocre choices of hardware and software when most people would rather have fewer but higher-quality choices. The market is taking a second look at Apple's way of doing things and Apple's computing marketshare is growing as a result.
Back directly on-topic: I don't think any one mobile OS is going to ever gain a Windows-like majority. I see iPhone and RIM as being the two dominant players, with a healthy percentage of Android and Symbian thrown into the mix. I am skeptical about the long term prospects of "design by committee" platforms being able to truly achieve excellence, but they will gain their share. With all this competition, the mobile OS market will be much more healthy and vibrant than the stultified desktop computing market dominated by Windows. Happy days!
I also think Windows Mobile is doomed as a significant player in the mobile OS market. I see a lot of their third party partners defecting to Android or other Linux-based OSes. Why should their hardware partners trust them anymore?
There is no mention of a data plan- many peolpe assume that texting is the same thing. Where does it mention data plan in either TV or print adds?
Many cell phones have mobile web.
So by this definition, the LG Dare and Samsung Instinct are marketed as cellphones rather than smartphones. I guess people like paying extra for a phone to just make calls.
Additionally, it's very, very interesting that Googles (debatable but definitely valid) response to this criticism is never mentioned in the same articles. Google's known position is that they are taking a well-known and in some circles respected approach to OS development, by trying to prototype the basics of Android somewhat privately, before the code is released in full to the OS community. You may disagree with this, but it's a valid choice to make. Others make it, Google made it, and to describe what they are doing as "favouring" particular OS developers is disingenuous to say the least.
Can you point to a link with Google's valid response to the criticism? Their public silence on Android is deafening. I can not find anything recent regarding their strategy.
Care to explain why/how AppleTv is a "...complete and utter failure"? Compared to what?
Compared to the iPod say? I'm a geek, and I have lots of geeky friends. Everyone I know has an iPod (or 2 or 3...), but I don't know a *single person* who owns an AppleTV.
For me they blew it when they didn't include a DVD player. I'd quite happily have ditched my existing DVD player and bought an AppleTV instead, just to have the latest gadget, and who knows, by know I'd probably be buying and renting all my movies from the iTunes store. As it is, I considered it briefly, looked away, and never looked back I'm afraid.
So by this definition, the LG Dare and Samsung Instinct are marketed as cellphones rather than smartphones. I guess people like paying extra for a phone to just make calls.
You have an option with the Dare not to get a data plan. I know nothing of the Instinct.
You have no such option with iPhone.
Compared to the iPod say? I'm a geek, and I have lots of geeky friends. Everyone I know has an iPod (or 2 or 3...), but I don't know a *single person* who owns an AppleTV.
For me they blew it when they didn't include a DVD player. I'd quite happily have ditched my existing DVD player and bought an AppleTV instead, just to have the latest gadget, and who knows, by know I'd probably be buying and renting all my movies from the iTunes store. As it is, I considered it briefly, looked away, and never looked back I'm afraid.
I know of several you do and like it for what it is. Why put a DVD player in it when that is older tech. There would have been countless replies as to why Apple didn't include Blu-ray, HD-DVD, or have multiple versions of the AppleTV for this. I had hoped Apple would eventually offer an add-on solution that would utilize that USB2.0 on the AppleTV for optical drive support once the HD optical format war was over. It looks like Apple is only focusing on networked media.
My parents love it because of the ease of use for renting movies and buying a missed TV show from time to time. To them that makes the $229 price tag quite feasible, which really isn't much when you consider the cost of DVD and VHS players back in the day and adjust for inflation for the ease of use for near-instant viewing.
Unless teckstud, I don't see it as a failure and enjoyed it after my 3 returns of the device, but it's not for everyone's needs. Last week I even talked one friend who absolutely loves his iPhone 3G (his first Apple product) from buying an AppleTV for his home media system. He's an IT guy, too, so I would have thought he'd have checked different options first. I sent him pros and cons of several systems, and I expected, he's undecided as none of them are a perfect solution.
I would like an option for the device to play more media types natively and not require video to be imported into iTunes first. I love iTunes for music, but not for video. At very least it could b an advanced option where the user can turn on disk support which will read shared folders of LAN based machines.