People misuse the term "monopoly" a lot, and they like to say that if they can find some vague similarities between two situations then the two cases must be identical. But Apple's OS X -> iPhone is really, truly, NOT the same situation as Microsoft and desktop Windows and Windows mobile.
Besides which, even if Apple and Microsoft were somehow producing the same quality/usability based on the same decades-long pervasive "monopolies," that still wouldn't be a reason to NOT be glad for open-source innovation.
Quote:
Originally Posted by BlackSummerNight
I beg to differ, but everyone is entitled to their own opinion.
Apple and Microsoft have entirely different philosophies on open source support.
Apple builds on an open source or open standard foundation in all of its software products. Apple building a hardware software ecosystem is not the same as a monopoly. Because Apple's software is designed around an open standard foundation can make it easier for competitors to compete against Apple products.
MS wants to build all of its software on completely proprietary foundations that MS completely control and anyone else would have to license from MS. Which limits or even locks out competition.
The good part about Google coming into the game supporting open source. It puts more pressure on MS to support open software. Which they do grudgingly.
I don't give a shit about Stacker, ask Psystar how they like dealing with Apple. You say you support the open source community, but yet you support Apple.
OS X itself isn't open source and Apple as never licensed it to be.
Gruber said it best at the launch of the original iPhone, when he said the market was now divided between those who want a free handset, and those who want an iPhone.
That's a nice sound-bite but blatantly untrue - even if you take a very US-centric view of the world. Remember: Apple are still second to RIM in the US smartphone market and RIM's growth shows no signs of slowing down.
If you look at the rest of the world, people are still buying high-end Nokia, Samsung and Sharp phones.
You think Google signed with T-Mobile to do ANYTHING to do with ANY other carrier?
Get a clue, buy a vowel, read the news.
Google WANTED AT&T to be on board.
Google wanted EVERY carrier to be on board.
Google isn't trying to help any ONE carrier against another.
They arn't trying to help any ONE handset maker against another.
That's been the entire point.
They would like EVERY handset maker to have android devices and EVERY carrier to support them.
The only thing that is left, is what's really going on.
Google is taking on WM, and doing it at it's heart.
Get the carriers using Android, get all the handset makers to compete with each other but all using Android.......!
The competition in all of this is the iPhone's proprietary OS and the WM world.
Since Apple so far is limiting itself to basically one carrier a country, that leaves MS and WM as the monster in the pool.
THAT is what Google is doing.
It's so simple to see this going on.
Google is trying to out MS Microsoft at their own game.
I think they think it will roll over Apple the way Microsoft did in the 80's and 90's.
You'll know the point of Android is to attack the iPhone when they get some hardware to attack the iPhone.
Right now, Google has nothing to do with the hardware and is not negotiating contracts between hardware vendors and country by country carriers.
Eye on the ball guys, MS is about to lose BIGTIME to Android.
That's what Apple thought back in the 80s when MS copied Apple OS UI. MS was Apple partner in developing software for the Mac back then while (at the same time) creating their own OS (Windows) to run on all IBM compatible PCs. Everyone thought that MS was trying to take IBM out and Apple supported them because IBM was the dominant PC maker at the time. As it turn out, MS almost drove Apple out of business with IBM still at the top as PC maker. MS was and still PC software not hardware manufacturer.
You might not see it now but Android is competing with Apple iPhone (just wait for the Ad campaign). Having a Google CEO on Apple board make it even worst.
You think Google is entering the mobile market and sign with TMobile, to not take customers away from AT&T and kill some of the iPhone hype!
WoW, just WoW.
Uh, no they're not. Android is available for ANY phone on ANY network. This has nothing to do with T-Mobile or HTC, they just happened to be the first out with a device running Android. There will be other manufacturers releasing phones for other carriers. Anyone who thinks otherwise, obviously doesn't know anything about Android or the reason Google developed it.
You might not see it now but Android is competing with Apple iPhone (just wait for the Ad campaign). Having a Google CEO on Apple board make it even worst.
C'mon guys.
Android isn't a phone.
Google doesn't MAKE a phone.
Google is pitting Android against the other main mobil OS's out there.
They would like to see it on any maker that will take it.
They want everyone that uses it to succeeed.
They will have limitations, just like Windows, because they are trying to support everything.
(with accelerometer, without, with GPS, without, with both, without either.... and on and on)
Google can't control the handset maker.
Can't negotiate with a carrier.
They aren't trying.
They will go in with ANY handset maker, with ANY carrier and help them to try to succeed with Android.
This is EXACTLY what MS is doing with Mobile.
It is NOT what Apple is doing.
Once T-Mobile takes a few hundred thousand customers away from AT&T because of Android, AT&T may respond.
But these issues are local to one country.
One carrier.
One handset maker.
If you don't realize what Google is up to is much much bigger, you missed the entire point.
If you spend too much time listening to the talk about a "Google-Phone" then you get sucked into thinking Android is a phone.
It's not.
Fast forward about 12 months and we'll have 5 android phones on the market in different places in the world with different carriers.
When THAT happens, we'll actually be looking at which Android-hardware competitions are most effective.
Some will die a horrible death of bad design.
Some will win and do well.
None of it will have ANYTHING to do with Google pitting Android (which is not a phone) against the iPhone. (which is a phone)
It will have to do with a four way partnership and how well it's implemented.
That is a model to take share from MS.
And I think it's good enough to kill a lot of MS's market share in the mobile world.
Uh, no they're not. Android is available for ANY phone on ANY network. This has nothing to do with T-Mobile or HTC, they just happened to be the first out with a device running Android. There will be other manufacturers releasing phones for other carriers. Anyone who thinks otherwise, obviously doesn't know anything about Android or the reason Google developed it.
Also, if this would have been a Verizon phone, I would drop my BlackBerry Pearl today for it. No matter how crude it may seem now or compared to the 2G iPhone, it will get better. At least that is the hope. If the OS is updatable like the iPhone OS has been, this will be a big deal. Hopefully, Verizon doesn't kill this.
However, I would still take my 3G iPhone over it any day of the week. I just wished I had Verizon coverage with it.
There's little reason now to pay for a handset that isn't an iPhone, and I'm just not seeing the appeal of Android. Competition is a good thing, but to anyone whose main objections to the iPhone were pricing and being "locked in" to a carrier for 18 months, how is Android attractive?
I'm taking a very close look at Android. I refuse to switch to at&t, and the current phone offerings from T-mobile have been complete crap. Any improvements will probably get my money. When Apple's deal with the devil has run it's course and it becomes available on T-mo, then I'll get an iPhone.
I think Apple/ATT should be very worried, since what may appeal is the monthly pricing plans: T-Mobile has been extremely aggressive lately, and ATT's rates and plans rankle.
People may be willing to settle for a handset that does less than the iPhone, but offers a total cost of ownership that is substantially lower.
There's room for both. There's the people who go to KFC (gPhone) and those who go to Boston Market (iPhone). Boston Market might cost a little more but, IMO, it's worth it.
I doubt they'll have nearly as many users and that's going to make it a LOT easier.
Actually, T-mo should have it's most aggressive pricing as they introduce 3G. I got in on their initial pricing when they were new to the US and I'm still only paying $40/mo. including free text messages and (their version of) the web.
There's room for both. There's the people who go to KFC (gPhone) and those who go to Boston Market (iPhone). Boston Market might cost a little more but, IMO, it's worth it.
Now ya see.... here's another post acting like Goodle makes a phone.
There are going to be ten or fifteen different models from lots of different handset makers, all running Android. All on a wide range of carriers.
You are NOT going to be able to say.... "I WANT VERIZON, WHEN THE G-PHONE (KFC) COMES TO VERIZON I'M BUYING IT.
You will NOT be able to say that, because there will be as much difference between ONE handset maker that runs Android on T-Mobile Vs. another handset maker with Android on Verizon as there is today on any two phones LIKE that.
Nothing is going to change with Android in that regard.
What it means, you walk into T-Mobile as a Verizon customer..... ask them about that new Android thing. They will show you what they got. What hardware features that are included with THAT handset from WHATEVER handset maker built it. And how they will price the service and cost.
Then, you walk into Verizon and say.... if you want to keep me.... show me that Android thing. (for the sake of argument) Verzon pulls out a handset made by SOMEBODY running Android for THEIR network. You look at how you like THAT hardware.
Just like everybody does it today, you're going to look at the hardware that the handset maker has, the features opened up by the OS (Android in this case), the pricing from the carrier and then you'll decide. Switch for T-Mobile? Stay with Verizon? You decide.
If Google accomplishes what they are trying to do, it won't matter what you decide.
You'll be running some handset on some network with Android on it.
They don't care if you will, or if you won't switch your carrier.
They don't care if a handset maker does or doesn't include GPS.
They'll let the hardware companies beat each other over the head trying to win on price and features. But if it has Android on it, instead of some other OS, they win.
That's what they're doing.
You don't like T-Mobile or THIS version of hardware?
These things are like buses.... just wait a bit and another one will be along.
Actually, T-mo should have it's most aggressive pricing as they introduce 3G. I got in on their initial pricing when they were new to the US and I'm still only paying $40/mo. including free text messages and (their version of) the web.
I'm not doubting you may find a great deal.
Especially if you live in a great T-Mobile support area.
I was merely pointing out that I don't expect the total number of users, with the average data access per hour at T-Mobile on their 3G network to come close to what AT&T had happen on their network.
T-Mobile may be better at handling this stuff, but it will also be more like Finland adopting 3G.
I think there will be more iPhones floating around than the total number of all T-Mobile customers.
this thing is 3 times as thick as an iphone 2G oer 3G...
i have nothing against googles android, it might even be ported to the iphone by some hackers! but i idslike the cheapish ugly HTC whatever iphone knock-offs...!!!
Comments
Correct.
People misuse the term "monopoly" a lot, and they like to say that if they can find some vague similarities between two situations then the two cases must be identical. But Apple's OS X -> iPhone is really, truly, NOT the same situation as Microsoft and desktop Windows and Windows mobile.
Besides which, even if Apple and Microsoft were somehow producing the same quality/usability based on the same decades-long pervasive "monopolies," that still wouldn't be a reason to NOT be glad for open-source innovation.
I beg to differ, but everyone is entitled to their own opinion.
Apple and Microsoft have entirely different philosophies on open source support.
Apple builds on an open source or open standard foundation in all of its software products. Apple building a hardware software ecosystem is not the same as a monopoly. Because Apple's software is designed around an open standard foundation can make it easier for competitors to compete against Apple products.
MS wants to build all of its software on completely proprietary foundations that MS completely control and anyone else would have to license from MS. Which limits or even locks out competition.
The good part about Google coming into the game supporting open source. It puts more pressure on MS to support open software. Which they do grudgingly.
I don't give a shit about Stacker, ask Psystar how they like dealing with Apple. You say you support the open source community, but yet you support Apple.
OS X itself isn't open source and Apple as never licensed it to be.
The entire battle is Google against MS.
Goggle vs the iPhone? Not so much.
Android is in competition with everyone who makes smartphones. I don't see how they are targeting any one in particular over anyone else.
Gruber said it best at the launch of the original iPhone, when he said the market was now divided between those who want a free handset, and those who want an iPhone.
That's a nice sound-bite but blatantly untrue - even if you take a very US-centric view of the world. Remember: Apple are still second to RIM in the US smartphone market and RIM's growth shows no signs of slowing down.
If you look at the rest of the world, people are still buying high-end Nokia, Samsung and Sharp phones.
Android is in competition with everyone who makes smartphones. I don't see how they are targeting any one in particular over anyone else.
Android is NOT in competition with everyone who makes a smartphone.
Android is NOT EVEN A PHONE!. (it's an framework, OS, Platform)
(*shakes head in disgust*)
Google would like EVERYONE THAT MAKES a smartphone to USE android.
It's NOT in competition with SMARTPHONES!
It's in competition with the companies that MAKE the OS for smartphones.
Jeese........
Are you super fricking KIDDIN!
You think Google is after AT&T?
You think Google signed with T-Mobile to do ANYTHING to do with ANY other carrier?
Get a clue, buy a vowel, read the news.
Google WANTED AT&T to be on board.
Google wanted EVERY carrier to be on board.
Google isn't trying to help any ONE carrier against another.
They arn't trying to help any ONE handset maker against another.
That's been the entire point.
They would like EVERY handset maker to have android devices and EVERY carrier to support them.
The only thing that is left, is what's really going on.
Google is taking on WM, and doing it at it's heart.
Get the carriers using Android, get all the handset makers to compete with each other but all using Android.......!
The competition in all of this is the iPhone's proprietary OS and the WM world.
Since Apple so far is limiting itself to basically one carrier a country, that leaves MS and WM as the monster in the pool.
THAT is what Google is doing.
It's so simple to see this going on.
Google is trying to out MS Microsoft at their own game.
I think they think it will roll over Apple the way Microsoft did in the 80's and 90's.
You'll know the point of Android is to attack the iPhone when they get some hardware to attack the iPhone.
Right now, Google has nothing to do with the hardware and is not negotiating contracts between hardware vendors and country by country carriers.
Eye on the ball guys, MS is about to lose BIGTIME to Android.
That's what Apple thought back in the 80s when MS copied Apple OS UI. MS was Apple partner in developing software for the Mac back then while (at the same time) creating their own OS (Windows) to run on all IBM compatible PCs. Everyone thought that MS was trying to take IBM out and Apple supported them because IBM was the dominant PC maker at the time. As it turn out, MS almost drove Apple out of business with IBM still at the top as PC maker. MS was and still PC software not hardware manufacturer.
You might not see it now but Android is competing with Apple iPhone (just wait for the Ad campaign). Having a Google CEO on Apple board make it even worst.
Are you fricking KIDDIN!
You think Google is entering the mobile market and sign with TMobile, to not take customers away from AT&T and kill some of the iPhone hype!
WoW, just WoW.
Uh, no they're not. Android is available for ANY phone on ANY network. This has nothing to do with T-Mobile or HTC, they just happened to be the first out with a device running Android. There will be other manufacturers releasing phones for other carriers. Anyone who thinks otherwise, obviously doesn't know anything about Android or the reason Google developed it.
You might not see it now but Android is competing with Apple iPhone (just wait for the Ad campaign). Having a Google CEO on Apple board make it even worst.
C'mon guys.
Android isn't a phone.
Google doesn't MAKE a phone.
Google is pitting Android against the other main mobil OS's out there.
They would like to see it on any maker that will take it.
They want everyone that uses it to succeeed.
They will have limitations, just like Windows, because they are trying to support everything.
(with accelerometer, without, with GPS, without, with both, without either.... and on and on)
Google can't control the handset maker.
Can't negotiate with a carrier.
They aren't trying.
They will go in with ANY handset maker, with ANY carrier and help them to try to succeed with Android.
This is EXACTLY what MS is doing with Mobile.
It is NOT what Apple is doing.
Once T-Mobile takes a few hundred thousand customers away from AT&T because of Android, AT&T may respond.
But these issues are local to one country.
One carrier.
One handset maker.
If you don't realize what Google is up to is much much bigger, you missed the entire point.
If you spend too much time listening to the talk about a "Google-Phone" then you get sucked into thinking Android is a phone.
It's not.
Fast forward about 12 months and we'll have 5 android phones on the market in different places in the world with different carriers.
When THAT happens, we'll actually be looking at which Android-hardware competitions are most effective.
Some will die a horrible death of bad design.
Some will win and do well.
None of it will have ANYTHING to do with Google pitting Android (which is not a phone) against the iPhone. (which is a phone)
It will have to do with a four way partnership and how well it's implemented.
That is a model to take share from MS.
And I think it's good enough to kill a lot of MS's market share in the mobile world.
Uh, no they're not. Android is available for ANY phone on ANY network. This has nothing to do with T-Mobile or HTC, they just happened to be the first out with a device running Android. There will be other manufacturers releasing phones for other carriers. Anyone who thinks otherwise, obviously doesn't know anything about Android or the reason Google developed it.
Bingo.
Well said.
Bingo.
Well said.
Agreed.
Also, if this would have been a Verizon phone, I would drop my BlackBerry Pearl today for it. No matter how crude it may seem now or compared to the 2G iPhone, it will get better. At least that is the hope. If the OS is updatable like the iPhone OS has been, this will be a big deal. Hopefully, Verizon doesn't kill this.
However, I would still take my 3G iPhone over it any day of the week. I just wished I had Verizon coverage with it.
There's little reason now to pay for a handset that isn't an iPhone, and I'm just not seeing the appeal of Android. Competition is a good thing, but to anyone whose main objections to the iPhone were pricing and being "locked in" to a carrier for 18 months, how is Android attractive?
I'm taking a very close look at Android. I refuse to switch to at&t, and the current phone offerings from T-mobile have been complete crap. Any improvements will probably get my money. When Apple's deal with the devil has run it's course and it becomes available on T-mo, then I'll get an iPhone.
I think Apple/ATT should be very worried, since what may appeal is the monthly pricing plans: T-Mobile has been extremely aggressive lately, and ATT's rates and plans rankle.
People may be willing to settle for a handset that does less than the iPhone, but offers a total cost of ownership that is substantially lower.
There's room for both. There's the people who go to KFC (gPhone) and those who go to Boston Market (iPhone). Boston Market might cost a little more but, IMO, it's worth it.
This is EXACTLY what MS is doing with Mobile.
It is NOT what Apple is doing."
Exactly - IMO it's better to be in bed with 1 person even if they aren't that great than it is to whore yourself out to anyone who will have you
I doubt they'll have nearly as many users and that's going to make it a LOT easier.
Actually, T-mo should have it's most aggressive pricing as they introduce 3G. I got in on their initial pricing when they were new to the US and I'm still only paying $40/mo. including free text messages and (their version of) the web.
Can't wait for the other shoe to drop.
I believe it is only a matter of time before we see an entry level iPhone.
It will be a hybrid of the nano and iPhone.
It will be primarily a iPod and Phone without all the web and apps.
Hmm... I don't think that's gonna happen. They will continue slow, measured upgrades and keep their pricing the same until the competition catches up.
There's room for both. There's the people who go to KFC (gPhone) and those who go to Boston Market (iPhone). Boston Market might cost a little more but, IMO, it's worth it.
Now ya see.... here's another post acting like Goodle makes a phone.
There are going to be ten or fifteen different models from lots of different handset makers, all running Android. All on a wide range of carriers.
You are NOT going to be able to say.... "I WANT VERIZON, WHEN THE G-PHONE (KFC) COMES TO VERIZON I'M BUYING IT.
You will NOT be able to say that, because there will be as much difference between ONE handset maker that runs Android on T-Mobile Vs. another handset maker with Android on Verizon as there is today on any two phones LIKE that.
Nothing is going to change with Android in that regard.
What it means, you walk into T-Mobile as a Verizon customer..... ask them about that new Android thing. They will show you what they got. What hardware features that are included with THAT handset from WHATEVER handset maker built it. And how they will price the service and cost.
Then, you walk into Verizon and say.... if you want to keep me.... show me that Android thing. (for the sake of argument) Verzon pulls out a handset made by SOMEBODY running Android for THEIR network. You look at how you like THAT hardware.
Just like everybody does it today, you're going to look at the hardware that the handset maker has, the features opened up by the OS (Android in this case), the pricing from the carrier and then you'll decide. Switch for T-Mobile? Stay with Verizon? You decide.
If Google accomplishes what they are trying to do, it won't matter what you decide.
You'll be running some handset on some network with Android on it.
They don't care if you will, or if you won't switch your carrier.
They don't care if a handset maker does or doesn't include GPS.
They'll let the hardware companies beat each other over the head trying to win on price and features. But if it has Android on it, instead of some other OS, they win.
That's what they're doing.
You don't like T-Mobile or THIS version of hardware?
These things are like buses.... just wait a bit and another one will be along.
Actually, T-mo should have it's most aggressive pricing as they introduce 3G. I got in on their initial pricing when they were new to the US and I'm still only paying $40/mo. including free text messages and (their version of) the web.
I'm not doubting you may find a great deal.
Especially if you live in a great T-Mobile support area.
I was merely pointing out that I don't expect the total number of users, with the average data access per hour at T-Mobile on their 3G network to come close to what AT&T had happen on their network.
T-Mobile may be better at handling this stuff, but it will also be more like Finland adopting 3G.
I think there will be more iPhones floating around than the total number of all T-Mobile customers.
i have nothing against googles android, it might even be ported to the iphone by some hackers! but i idslike the cheapish ugly HTC whatever iphone knock-offs...!!!
...
I am very excited for this phone. I want to buy it on day one.
...
I predict you will not have to camp out overnight to get one.