That's simply not true. There have been several news items recently reporting that AT&T stores will cross-sell Blackberries to potential iPhone customers if the customer indicates they primarily want a smartphone for e-mail. True, they tend to get sold an iPhone if they say they want to use the web, but the point is that this is hardly a "nobody would know" situation with regard to iPhone competition.
You misread the sentence--it said Apple store, not AT&T store.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Wiggin
While the article was a thorough (if biased) comparison, I saw very little to support the initial premise that the G1 is aimed at a different market than the iPhone. Sure, it works differently; and I agree that the iPhone is the better device. But just because it's a poor immitator doesn't mean it's aimed at a different audience. That'd be really splitting the hairs of the smartphone market, would it? Saying that it's only aimed at the Windows Mobile crowd because "Android presents the same desktop PC interface found on Windows Mobile and Linux devices" is weak, at best.
If having a phone that's "good enough" to prevent customers from switching to ATT to get the iPhone, then it's a competitor. And as Windows and many, many other products have demonstrated in the past, "good enough" is all it takes for 90% of the people.
I agree. It's aimed at the same people (a wide range) who would buy an iPhone, and although it falls very short, it still has the potential to sell, especially to people who can't get decent AT&T coverage where they are.
And there's certainly room for both. (And better Android than Windows Mobile!) The mainstream pocket-personal-computer (not merely a "smart phone") market is just taking off--iPhone is well in the lead, but there's no need for it to remain alone.
Good reporting. Some of the bloggers out there are stating that this is the killer iPhone. Yet never mentions some of these glaring weaknesses that AI has just posted. Sure each device has advantages over each other. The 3g coverage alone is huge. 200 vs 20 or so? The hardware advantages of the iPhone is a game changer also.
I agree with the original statement of the article, and that is, I really don't see Android-based phones competing with the iPhone. Google's primary intention for buying the Android project was to make sure Microsoft didn't steam-roll over them in the mobile search market. As such, Windows Mobile is the target and will suffer greatly from this project, at least initially.
Also, I believe Apple's intentions of entering the mobile market was to make sure their iPod market didn't begin to fade away. It was obvious that all the smart phones were headed in the direction of becoming multimedia devices. They stood the chance of losing iPod sales to those people that would rather just carry one device that could reasonable do the same as two or three devices. That was my primary reason for getting an iPhone in the first place; it replaced my Nokia cell phone, iPod nano, and iBook. (While it's obviously not a complete replacement for a laptop, it is fairly competent at enough tasks to negate the need to take my laptop everywhere I go.) I don't think Apple is in the phone market to take over the world, they just wanted to expand their mobile computing business into new areas to make sure they weren't left out.
I think it was a mistake to call the first phone with Android the G1.
Whilst HTC/T-Mobile are using Google's brand power to launch the new phone it'll be amusing when the next phone with Android appears from a different manufacturer/network provider claiming they have the G-Phone.
You can hear it now. "We have the G Phone...no we have the G Phone...no we have the G Phone" etc...etc...etc...
I wonder what version we'll get to before the penny drops. G999 anybody? Nowt like confusing the consumer
I think it was a mistake to call the first phone with Android the G1.
I think it's funny how some people are referring to the phone as "The Android". Talk about confused. This is what usually happens when tech news spills over into non-tech outlets; there's no understanding of the product or the technology behind it, and as such articles and reports are filled with ignorance and misinformation.
Quote:
in 2 years, when my phone upgrade becomes available, I'll be looking at all of the options. Phones are different from computers. Every 2 years you get the option to jump platforms with no penalty.
While that may be true with "phones" it is not necessarily true with mobile computers, especially if you've invested money in applications for it. That's the biggest problem I have with people's perception of the iPhone... It's really not a phone, it's a mobile computer with phone capabilities. Even after my cell contract expires (SEP-2009), the iPhone will still be as useful as an iPod touch. Recently, I chose not to upgrade to the iPhone 3G, because, frankly, 3G isn't quite up to what it could be and since I don't drive, GPS isn't very useful. So just as with a computer, until the hardware differentiates itself enough from a previous version, there's no reason to upgrade. However, I welcome all the OS upgrades Apple wants to provide me with and unlike with my Mac, the OS upgrades are free!
Okay article, very much an "advocate" article rather than an unbiased comparison though. A more even handed approach (while avoiding the tepid "everything is equal" approach of other tech journalists), would be preferable.
One minor point:
You say by means of comparison, that the G1 has 6 buttons to the iPhone's 1.
But while I haven't held one in my hand, all the pictures of the G1 show only 5 buttons unless you are counting the trackball twice, once as a trackball and once as a button. There could also be buttons on the side or back that at not visible in pictures of the G1, but then if you are going to include them, you have to admit that the iPhone has a few more than "1" as well.
These kind of niggly little points, sprinkled throughout the "Prince McClean articles" just come across as deceitful.
Why even go there when it just makes people suspicious of everything else you have stated, and doesn't really add much to the argument?
Well for starters, yes the trackball is a button, and the article did error in saying six rather than five. Calling this "deceitful" is perhaps over the top. -- edit: actually I was right, there are six buttons. I updated the article to recount them for you, and they are also all clearly visible in the accompanying photo of the device. --
Doing a comparison that suggests "everything is equal" when its clearly isn't would be deceitful.
Surprisingly poor article coming from AppleInsider. There are many cases were a iPhone good, gphone bad bias comes through with unsubstantiated statements. Knocking the gphone for not having an install base is silly. Its a new phone. Duh. Knocking it for not using objective-c is silly. There are more Java developers in the world than objective-c developers.
Well for starters, yes the trackball is a button, and the article did error in saying six rather than five. Calling this "deceitful" is perhaps over the top.
Doing a comparison that suggests "everything is equal" when its clearly isn't would be deceitful.
Again I mentioned before that there are actually six buttons (including the trackball) on the G1 front screen as shown in the demo video. The one button (with some letters) that is not obvious is located above the trackball. It behaves like a home button on an iPhone.
So the author of the article is not trying to mislead us. Please watch the demo video carefully again on YouTube.
All the whining wannabe developers threatening to jump ship to Android are suddenly realizing it's a better party over here.
On a less-serious note, it will be interesting to see this develop. Windows Mobile against Google's Android would be fun to watch. The corporate market is quite huge and while iPhone is beginning to get its feet wet in that arena, it's still more of a pure-consumer device for the time being.
G1 like everything Google has done so far is most likely their "beta" release. They will no doubt wait and see if their reality can coexist with everyone else.
Surprisingly poor article coming from AppleInsider. There are many cases were a iPhone good, gphone bad bias comes through with unsubstantiated statements. Knocking the gphone for not having an install base is silly. Its a new phone. Duh. Knocking it for not using objective-c is silly. There are more Java developers in the world than objective-c developers.
The G1 was not "knocked" for having no installed base nor for not supporting ObjectiveC. Its support for Java was presented as a positive for developers with existing Java code who can port it without much work.
Also, what unsubstantiated statements or reflection of bias did you note? The article clearly highlighted unique features such as the compass and Street Views and the slightly better camera specs on the G1.
The fact that the article didn't present your bias does not make it "biased," but if you have any specific criticisms that you think were unfair, it would be helpful if you could present them so that we can ensure everything is presented fairly.
"Again, Google isn't targeting Android toward the iPhone, but rather at mobile software markets represented by BlackBerry, Palm, Linux, Windows Mobile, and Symbian. "
WTF gave you that idea Daniel? Oh yeah, I forgot those other smartphones don't compete with the iPhone either in Kool-Aid land.
Why would Google be targeting the iPhone when the entire purpose of Google entering the smartphone market is to push its search and ad services, something the iPhone already does by default?
Clearly, Android does have to compete for attention against the iPhone as I noted, but to suggest that Google is out to cannibalize its strongest position in smartphones to replace Apple's Google-searching Maps and Safari with its own Apple-based browser is as ridiculous as everything else you post.
And why should Apple's get to take part of the revenue for what I made?
Why does Target or WalMart get a "cut" of your product? Perhaps because it's their store? Because they are the ones providing access to millions of customers? Because they're handling the sales, credit card processing, "returns", and complaints?
Try developing for, say, WinMobile. Now, go see just how big a piece of the action a major distributor like Handango wants as their cut. (hint: 50%+)
Quote:
Originally Posted by timgriff84
What do you do if what you make ends up on page 6 of its category?
Write a better application? Seriously. Because if your application isn't good enough to be featured or ranked highly on the App Store, what makes you think it's going to be ranked highly or in demand on another platform, or in another marketplace?
The developer of Trism for the Mac has reportedly made $250,000. That's a quarter of a million dollars. You, on the other hand, appear to be so adverse to risk that you're unwilling to go for the reward.
Why does Target or WalMart get a "cut" of your product? Perhaps because it's their store? Because they are the ones providing access to millions of customers? Because they're handling the sales, credit card processing, "returns", and complaints?
Try developing for, say, WinMobile. Now, go see just how big a piece of the action a major distributor like Handango wants as their cut. (hint: 50%+)
The point is though their is no alternative to their store, despite the fact its technologically possible. Imagine if every program written for the Mac had to be sold through Apple and Apple took 30% of that. Fair enough distributors for WinMobile charge a lot as well, but at least there's a form of competition between them.
Quote:
Originally Posted by ahmlco
Write a better application? Seriously. Because if your application isn't good enough to be featured or ranked highly on the App Store, what makes you think it's going to be ranked highly or in demand on another platform, or in another marketplace?
The developer of Trism for the Mac has reportedly made $250,000. That's a quarter of a million dollars. You, on the other hand, appear to be so adverse to risk that you're unwilling to go for the reward.
Isn't their something like 3000 apps already on the App Store? I don't doubt that the ones that manage to make it to the top of the charts or get featured are going to make a lot. But the problem I was mentioning is to get in the chart first a lot of people have to buy the thing and the featured space on the store is very limited compared to the number of apps already on the store.
I sold my iPhone (original, not 3G) some time ago.
I'll be ordering my G1 today.
Sorry Apple; you don't get to tell me what I can and cannot run on my phone. It's my phone, not yours.
Is it the principle of Apple doing quality control that irks you, or what? I think Apple has done a very good job monitoring and not hindering the App Store. There are countless number of helpful apps, and the system used allows the best Apps to be recognized. In regards to something like NetShare, start the blame game with AT&T. Besides, it wouldn't really be fair to other AT&T subscribers if the iPhone could tether for free. Blackberry users, Palm users, heck, any user must pay 30 bucks a month to tether. Imagine how iPhone users would react if there were an application out there that allowed Blackberries to tether for free. There would be an outrage on these boards in seconds.
Comments
That's simply not true. There have been several news items recently reporting that AT&T stores will cross-sell Blackberries to potential iPhone customers if the customer indicates they primarily want a smartphone for e-mail. True, they tend to get sold an iPhone if they say they want to use the web, but the point is that this is hardly a "nobody would know" situation with regard to iPhone competition.
You misread the sentence--it said Apple store, not AT&T store.
While the article was a thorough (if biased) comparison, I saw very little to support the initial premise that the G1 is aimed at a different market than the iPhone. Sure, it works differently; and I agree that the iPhone is the better device. But just because it's a poor immitator doesn't mean it's aimed at a different audience. That'd be really splitting the hairs of the smartphone market, would it? Saying that it's only aimed at the Windows Mobile crowd because "Android presents the same desktop PC interface found on Windows Mobile and Linux devices" is weak, at best.
If having a phone that's "good enough" to prevent customers from switching to ATT to get the iPhone, then it's a competitor. And as Windows and many, many other products have demonstrated in the past, "good enough" is all it takes for 90% of the people.
I agree. It's aimed at the same people (a wide range) who would buy an iPhone, and although it falls very short, it still has the potential to sell, especially to people who can't get decent AT&T coverage where they are.
And there's certainly room for both. (And better Android than Windows Mobile!) The mainstream pocket-personal-computer (not merely a "smart phone") market is just taking off--iPhone is well in the lead, but there's no need for it to remain alone.
Also, I believe Apple's intentions of entering the mobile market was to make sure their iPod market didn't begin to fade away. It was obvious that all the smart phones were headed in the direction of becoming multimedia devices. They stood the chance of losing iPod sales to those people that would rather just carry one device that could reasonable do the same as two or three devices. That was my primary reason for getting an iPhone in the first place; it replaced my Nokia cell phone, iPod nano, and iBook. (While it's obviously not a complete replacement for a laptop, it is fairly competent at enough tasks to negate the need to take my laptop everywhere I go.) I don't think Apple is in the phone market to take over the world, they just wanted to expand their mobile computing business into new areas to make sure they weren't left out.
Whilst HTC/T-Mobile are using Google's brand power to launch the new phone it'll be amusing when the next phone with Android appears from a different manufacturer/network provider claiming they have the G-Phone.
You can hear it now. "We have the G Phone...no we have the G Phone...no we have the G Phone" etc...etc...etc...
I wonder what version we'll get to before the penny drops. G999 anybody? Nowt like confusing the consumer
...the security problems Google is simply hoping won't exist may undoubtedly come to haunt the platform.
[ View this article at AppleInsider.com ]
I think it was a mistake to call the first phone with Android the G1.
I think it's funny how some people are referring to the phone as "The Android". Talk about confused. This is what usually happens when tech news spills over into non-tech outlets; there's no understanding of the product or the technology behind it, and as such articles and reports are filled with ignorance and misinformation.
in 2 years, when my phone upgrade becomes available, I'll be looking at all of the options. Phones are different from computers. Every 2 years you get the option to jump platforms with no penalty.
While that may be true with "phones" it is not necessarily true with mobile computers, especially if you've invested money in applications for it. That's the biggest problem I have with people's perception of the iPhone... It's really not a phone, it's a mobile computer with phone capabilities. Even after my cell contract expires (SEP-2009), the iPhone will still be as useful as an iPod touch. Recently, I chose not to upgrade to the iPhone 3G, because, frankly, 3G isn't quite up to what it could be and since I don't drive, GPS isn't very useful. So just as with a computer, until the hardware differentiates itself enough from a previous version, there's no reason to upgrade. However, I welcome all the OS upgrades Apple wants to provide me with and unlike with my Mac, the OS upgrades are free!
Okay article, very much an "advocate" article rather than an unbiased comparison though. A more even handed approach (while avoiding the tepid "everything is equal" approach of other tech journalists), would be preferable.
One minor point:
You say by means of comparison, that the G1 has 6 buttons to the iPhone's 1.
But while I haven't held one in my hand, all the pictures of the G1 show only 5 buttons unless you are counting the trackball twice, once as a trackball and once as a button. There could also be buttons on the side or back that at not visible in pictures of the G1, but then if you are going to include them, you have to admit that the iPhone has a few more than "1" as well.
These kind of niggly little points, sprinkled throughout the "Prince McClean articles" just come across as deceitful.
Why even go there when it just makes people suspicious of everything else you have stated, and doesn't really add much to the argument?
Well for starters, yes the trackball is a button, and the article did error in saying six rather than five. Calling this "deceitful" is perhaps over the top. -- edit: actually I was right, there are six buttons. I updated the article to recount them for you, and they are also all clearly visible in the accompanying photo of the device. --
Doing a comparison that suggests "everything is equal" when its clearly isn't would be deceitful.
Well for starters, yes the trackball is a button, and the article did error in saying six rather than five. Calling this "deceitful" is perhaps over the top.
Doing a comparison that suggests "everything is equal" when its clearly isn't would be deceitful.
Again I mentioned before that there are actually six buttons (including the trackball) on the G1 front screen as shown in the demo video. The one button (with some letters) that is not obvious is located above the trackball. It behaves like a home button on an iPhone.
So the author of the article is not trying to mislead us. Please watch the demo video carefully again on YouTube.
On a less-serious note, it will be interesting to see this develop. Windows Mobile against Google's Android would be fun to watch. The corporate market is quite huge and while iPhone is beginning to get its feet wet in that arena, it's still more of a pure-consumer device for the time being.
G1 like everything Google has done so far is most likely their "beta" release. They will no doubt wait and see if their reality can coexist with everyone else.
Surprisingly poor article coming from AppleInsider. There are many cases were a iPhone good, gphone bad bias comes through with unsubstantiated statements. Knocking the gphone for not having an install base is silly. Its a new phone. Duh. Knocking it for not using objective-c is silly. There are more Java developers in the world than objective-c developers.
The G1 was not "knocked" for having no installed base nor for not supporting ObjectiveC. Its support for Java was presented as a positive for developers with existing Java code who can port it without much work.
Also, what unsubstantiated statements or reflection of bias did you note? The article clearly highlighted unique features such as the compass and Street Views and the slightly better camera specs on the G1.
The fact that the article didn't present your bias does not make it "biased," but if you have any specific criticisms that you think were unfair, it would be helpful if you could present them so that we can ensure everything is presented fairly.
:"may undoubtely" rolleyes:
this was originally written as "will undoubtedly," but edited to sound less decisive and opinionated, and ended up non-sensical.
DED...
"Again, Google isn't targeting Android toward the iPhone, but rather at mobile software markets represented by BlackBerry, Palm, Linux, Windows Mobile, and Symbian. "
WTF gave you that idea Daniel? Oh yeah, I forgot those other smartphones don't compete with the iPhone either in Kool-Aid land.
Why would Google be targeting the iPhone when the entire purpose of Google entering the smartphone market is to push its search and ad services, something the iPhone already does by default?
Clearly, Android does have to compete for attention against the iPhone as I noted, but to suggest that Google is out to cannibalize its strongest position in smartphones to replace Apple's Google-searching Maps and Safari with its own Apple-based browser is as ridiculous as everything else you post.
And why should Apple's get to take part of the revenue for what I made?
Why does Target or WalMart get a "cut" of your product? Perhaps because it's their store? Because they are the ones providing access to millions of customers? Because they're handling the sales, credit card processing, "returns", and complaints?
Try developing for, say, WinMobile. Now, go see just how big a piece of the action a major distributor like Handango wants as their cut. (hint: 50%+)
What do you do if what you make ends up on page 6 of its category?
Write a better application? Seriously. Because if your application isn't good enough to be featured or ranked highly on the App Store, what makes you think it's going to be ranked highly or in demand on another platform, or in another marketplace?
The developer of Trism for the Mac has reportedly made $250,000. That's a quarter of a million dollars. You, on the other hand, appear to be so adverse to risk that you're unwilling to go for the reward.
I'll be ordering my G1 today.
Sorry Apple; you don't get to tell me what I can and cannot run on my phone. It's my phone, not yours.
Why does Target or WalMart get a "cut" of your product? Perhaps because it's their store? Because they are the ones providing access to millions of customers? Because they're handling the sales, credit card processing, "returns", and complaints?
Try developing for, say, WinMobile. Now, go see just how big a piece of the action a major distributor like Handango wants as their cut. (hint: 50%+)
The point is though their is no alternative to their store, despite the fact its technologically possible. Imagine if every program written for the Mac had to be sold through Apple and Apple took 30% of that. Fair enough distributors for WinMobile charge a lot as well, but at least there's a form of competition between them.
Write a better application? Seriously. Because if your application isn't good enough to be featured or ranked highly on the App Store, what makes you think it's going to be ranked highly or in demand on another platform, or in another marketplace?
The developer of Trism for the Mac has reportedly made $250,000. That's a quarter of a million dollars. You, on the other hand, appear to be so adverse to risk that you're unwilling to go for the reward.
Isn't their something like 3000 apps already on the App Store? I don't doubt that the ones that manage to make it to the top of the charts or get featured are going to make a lot. But the problem I was mentioning is to get in the chart first a lot of people have to buy the thing and the featured space on the store is very limited compared to the number of apps already on the store.
I sold my iPhone (original, not 3G) some time ago.
I'll be ordering my G1 today.
Sorry Apple; you don't get to tell me what I can and cannot run on my phone. It's my phone, not yours.
Is it the principle of Apple doing quality control that irks you, or what? I think Apple has done a very good job monitoring and not hindering the App Store. There are countless number of helpful apps, and the system used allows the best Apps to be recognized. In regards to something like NetShare, start the blame game with AT&T. Besides, it wouldn't really be fair to other AT&T subscribers if the iPhone could tether for free. Blackberry users, Palm users, heck, any user must pay 30 bucks a month to tether. Imagine how iPhone users would react if there were an application out there that allowed Blackberries to tether for free. There would be an outrage on these boards in seconds.
.... is as ridiculous as everything else you post.
Mmm... not satisfied that you have driven readers away from "Roughly Drafted" by insulting them, are you trying to accomplish the same at AI?