If you were attempting to make a joke at my expense because you thought I am Finnish, then yes it was wasted and you made a major assumption. The same can be said about Nokia. Now because Apple is in a profitable position the past seems to be forgotten. Good thing Microsoft came along and saved them. In this case it was money that clogged the drain. The same money that Nokia has to throw at this problem. If you really think that Nokia will not use its considerable muscle and financial resources to compete, then you might as well stand in line with the rest of these rabid kool-aid drinkers. However, I do not see you in that light. If anything, you might be way over biased that Nokia will fail but within a few weeks, I am sure they will release their one phone you know about and one you don't and it will have people talking for sure.
First off, who cares if MS "saved" Apple as that was 11 years ago. (notice the quotes around saved) It's in the past and really has no bearing on where they are today other than maybe MS committing to develop office for said years. Second of all, you have to repeat your same lame comment for what reason? I could say MS wouldn't be what they are if they didn't get "help" from Apple in the early 80's. Thirdly, 150 million investment didn't save Apple it surely helped but didn't "save" them and there was much more to it that that. Forthly, you make comments on Apple's past as they were almost out of business yet Nokia was in a similar situation. Fifthly, you make "Appleista" comments which, justified or not, point out your intellectual level of personal attacks. You are arguing with people that are continuing this discussion acting as we are saying that Nokia will dissappear.
The facts are...
Apple is not far behind Nokia in profit (in the mobile space) after 18 months in the market.
Nokia is setting themselves up to compete with Apple or others but to compete none the less BECAUSE of Apple's innovations.
You fail to realize and acknowledge that Apple came in on foreign ground and shook up the entire industry not only with innovation but profit and number of phones sold to boot.
I will end this now saying why are you acting like I or others are saying Apple will destroy Nokia? Apple has done tremendous and I believe and signs point to even more market share in the future. They beat their 1% goal and thats impressive and the future will be software and they are in a much better position at the moment then most except maybe Google and RIM but that's a stretch to me. Apple's recent history has them not sitting on a comfortable position like others do... cough... MS... cough...
So all of that would have taken place without a penny from Microsoft? Apple would have remained in biz? Is this what you are saying?
Thank you very much for not oversimplifying my point of view, he said sarcastically.
Apple wasn't going to go out of business, but carrying on expensive legal disputes with Microsoft was counterproductive and Steve Jobs knew it so he cut a deal that benefitted both companies and put the legal disputes at an end. The $150M gave them a good boost, but Apple wasn't dead at that point. Another few years of similar legal battles with MS probably would have done them in, however.
There's your problem statement since not everyone will agree with you on that. You might just have to accept that not everyone thinks or wants the future to be software.
You fail to realize and acknowledge that Apple came in on foreign ground and shook up the entire industry not only with innovation but profit and number of phones sold to boot
Not really, Apple didn't have a history of mobile phones, but they did hire/buy a lot of people that did
I will end this now saying why are you acting like I or others are saying Apple will destroy Nokia? Apple has done tremendous and I believe and signs point to even more market share in the future. They beat their 1% goal and thats impressive and the future will be software and they are in a much better position at the moment then most except maybe Google and RIM but that's a stretch to me. Apple's recent history has them not sitting on a comfortable position like others do... cough... MS... cough...
Actually most people on this site claim that Apple will distroy Nokia.
Also, you have to use the 10,000,000 figure, as Apple might of hit 1% of the market of a few years ago, but that 1% has grown a lot since then
I'm still not entirely sure what you think makes a good mobile OS. Nokia have a touch screen phone coming out with new OS version and it's well known that there'll be a vast range of Nokia devices with touch screen to cater for different people (same as Android). So Nokia's touch screen potential matches Androids in that respect.
In terms of building a hardware device, many companies can buy components and create designs. They then hire Chinese companies to glue the bits together. Anyone can do it. But Nokia have an upper hand because of the enormous scale of their business and their experience doing so.
If the market becomes all about software, then it changes things. Companies which have the most advanced software technology will get a real advantage.
Go back 12 years, and Symbian was called Epoc and ran on a Psion handheld. And OS X was called NextStep and ran on a big-ass workstation. That difference is being felt by developers today. Apple and 3rd party iPhone developers inherit a great development environment. Symbian developers struggle and complain.
As users, we know that the S60 Browser and Mobile Safari are based on Webkit. But it's the iPhone version that is remarkable.
The tablet looks like a sand box to try out the technology.
The fact that the phone road-map is 100% linux-free suggests that Nokia are not yet ready to put this into a mainstream handset.
If they did intend to do that, I am sure there'd be press conferences and developer conferences.
C.
No, a document that engadet published doesn't have a linux model on it, that doesn't mean they don't have anything. If you had looked up the maemo information you would have seen details there.
Also, Apple has tried out the sandbox method a lot times in the past, you will find a lot of businesses will do that.
[QUOTE=Phizz;1336899]1. Yes, it is. Although there is no agreed industry definition for "smartphone", the iPhone (note the capitalisation) matches or surpasses all the definitions out there in terms of features and capabilities.
I think the more correct term would be to call it the "World dumbest Smartphone" Don't get me wrong, I love the device but it's so lacking in basic smartphone functionality that it isn't even funny. So in that sense, I think there is an argument to be made for someone who says it's not a smartphone.
There's your problem statement since not everyone will agree with you on that. You might just have to accept that not everyone thinks or wants the future to be software.
Doesn't matter what I think it's a fact. Things have been software for decades now... Gates saw that before most did but just didn't innovate just stole, copied, etc. We are rapidly approaching a point where our hardware is no longer the weak link our software is the problem. The iPhone and iPod are examples of "better" software on the same hardware is whats really needed. That doesn't mean I think the iPhone's software is the best in class just an example of how the same hardware with better software is gets you a better product. Everything is software interacting with hardware and hardware can only do so much.
Frankly I can't see what the problem is. Symbian works and it works well. I don't see why Nokia need huge plans to move away from Symbian, or why if they don't it'll be the end of Nokia as we know it. S60 just needs a bit of jazzing up which it is slowly but surely getting.
The problem with Symbian is that is was designed with the thought that mobile devices would not use software similar to desktop software. Apple raised the bar by bringing an OS and its API's designed for the desktop to the mobile space. The foundation of Symbian is not really built to compete with this at all.
Apple will continue to advance mobile OS X in ways that Symbian cannot, unless it went through a complete rewrite. With Apple raising the bar others will bring new mobile OS such as Andriod to compete with the iPhone. Symbian is not well positioned to compete.
Quote:
I think Nokia would have a lot to worry about if Apple had a whole range of devices with OSX mobile on them but until then, more people than not are going to want features in their phone that Apple currently doesn't offer
Looking at iPhone sales over 18 months, how many people do you believe are waiting?
I think the more correct term would be to call it the "World dumbest Smartphone" Don't get me wrong, I love the device but it's so lacking in basic smartphone functionality that it isn't even funny. So in that sense, I think there is an argument to be made for someone who says it's not a smartphone.
What exactly is the list of features a smartphone has to have to officially be a smartphone? I've never seen such a list.
At best we can look at sales to account for what features are required for a phone to be viable.
Not really, Apple didn't have a history of mobile phones, but they did hire/buy a lot of people that did
And your point? What does that matter? If they bought an existing product and then got the same results maybe your statement would have merit. They designed and entered a market with no presence and are doing well.
As for destroying Nokia I never said nor do I agree with that...
As for the 1% now your just arguing for the sake of being right or whatever your motive is...
The point is what I said and their numbers are impressive...
Completely disagree with you on this one.
The problem with the 1% goal is twofold.
One is that the market grew --- it went from 1 billion cell phones a year to an (estimated) 1.25 billion cell phones this year (the year hasn't ended yet). So Apple need to go 12.5 million iphones in order to get a 1% market share.
The second problem is that the original 1% goal as announced by Steve Jobs at the keynote is that the iphone came with a original price tag of $600. Selling 12.5 million iphones at $600 each is a lot different than selling 12.5 million iphones at $200 each.
The second problem is that the original 1% goal as announced by Steve Jobs at the keynote is that the iphone came with a original price tag of $600. Selling 12.5 million iphones at $600 each is a lot different than selling 12.5 million iphones at $200 each.
Don't forget that the $200/$300 price tag is for a subsidized device.
Comments
If you were attempting to make a joke at my expense because you thought I am Finnish, then yes it was wasted and you made a major assumption. The same can be said about Nokia. Now because Apple is in a profitable position the past seems to be forgotten. Good thing Microsoft came along and saved them. In this case it was money that clogged the drain. The same money that Nokia has to throw at this problem. If you really think that Nokia will not use its considerable muscle and financial resources to compete, then you might as well stand in line with the rest of these rabid kool-aid drinkers. However, I do not see you in that light. If anything, you might be way over biased that Nokia will fail but within a few weeks, I am sure they will release their one phone you know about and one you don't and it will have people talking for sure.
First off, who cares if MS "saved" Apple as that was 11 years ago. (notice the quotes around saved) It's in the past and really has no bearing on where they are today other than maybe MS committing to develop office for said years. Second of all, you have to repeat your same lame comment for what reason? I could say MS wouldn't be what they are if they didn't get "help" from Apple in the early 80's. Thirdly, 150 million investment didn't save Apple it surely helped but didn't "save" them and there was much more to it that that. Forthly, you make comments on Apple's past as they were almost out of business yet Nokia was in a similar situation. Fifthly, you make "Appleista" comments which, justified or not, point out your intellectual level of personal attacks. You are arguing with people that are continuing this discussion acting as we are saying that Nokia will dissappear.
The facts are...
Apple is not far behind Nokia in profit (in the mobile space) after 18 months in the market.
Nokia is setting themselves up to compete with Apple or others but to compete none the less BECAUSE of Apple's innovations.
You fail to realize and acknowledge that Apple came in on foreign ground and shook up the entire industry not only with innovation but profit and number of phones sold to boot.
I will end this now saying why are you acting like I or others are saying Apple will destroy Nokia? Apple has done tremendous and I believe and signs point to even more market share in the future. They beat their 1% goal and thats impressive and the future will be software and they are in a much better position at the moment then most except maybe Google and RIM but that's a stretch to me. Apple's recent history has them not sitting on a comfortable position like others do... cough... MS... cough...
So all of that would have taken place without a penny from Microsoft? Apple would have remained in biz? Is this what you are saying?
Thank you very much for not oversimplifying my point of view, he said sarcastically.
Apple wasn't going to go out of business, but carrying on expensive legal disputes with Microsoft was counterproductive and Steve Jobs knew it so he cut a deal that benefitted both companies and put the legal disputes at an end. The $150M gave them a good boost, but Apple wasn't dead at that point. Another few years of similar legal battles with MS probably would have done them in, however.
and the future will be software
There's your problem statement since not everyone will agree with you on that. You might just have to accept that not everyone thinks or wants the future to be software.
You fail to realize and acknowledge that Apple came in on foreign ground and shook up the entire industry not only with innovation but profit and number of phones sold to boot
Not really, Apple didn't have a history of mobile phones, but they did hire/buy a lot of people that did
I will end this now saying why are you acting like I or others are saying Apple will destroy Nokia? Apple has done tremendous and I believe and signs point to even more market share in the future. They beat their 1% goal and thats impressive and the future will be software and they are in a much better position at the moment then most except maybe Google and RIM but that's a stretch to me. Apple's recent history has them not sitting on a comfortable position like others do... cough... MS... cough...
Actually most people on this site claim that Apple will distroy Nokia.
Also, you have to use the 10,000,000 figure, as Apple might of hit 1% of the market of a few years ago, but that 1% has grown a lot since then
http://www.engadgetmobile.com/2008/1...play/#comments
Which suggests that Apple will be on its 3rd generation of Unix phones before Nokia release its first. (not counting the tablet)
C.
I'm still not entirely sure what you think makes a good mobile OS. Nokia have a touch screen phone coming out with new OS version and it's well known that there'll be a vast range of Nokia devices with touch screen to cater for different people (same as Android). So Nokia's touch screen potential matches Androids in that respect.
In terms of building a hardware device, many companies can buy components and create designs. They then hire Chinese companies to glue the bits together. Anyone can do it. But Nokia have an upper hand because of the enormous scale of their business and their experience doing so.
If the market becomes all about software, then it changes things. Companies which have the most advanced software technology will get a real advantage.
Go back 12 years, and Symbian was called Epoc and ran on a Psion handheld. And OS X was called NextStep and ran on a big-ass workstation. That difference is being felt by developers today. Apple and 3rd party iPhone developers inherit a great development environment. Symbian developers struggle and complain.
As users, we know that the S60 Browser and Mobile Safari are based on Webkit. But it's the iPhone version that is remarkable.
C.
Which suggests that Apple will be on its 3rd generation of Unix phones before Nokia release its first. (not counting the tablet)
Why don't you count the tablet? You can make calls with it (it has Skype, and a SIP client built in)
Why don't you count the tablet? You can make calls with it (it has Skype, and a SIP client built in)
The tablet looks like a sand box to try out the technology.
The fact that the phone road-map is 100% linux-free suggests that Nokia are not yet ready to put this into a mainstream handset.
If they did intend to do that, I am sure there'd be press conferences and developer conferences.
C.
The tablet looks like a sand box to try out the technology.
The fact that the phone road-map is 100% linux-free suggests that Nokia are not yet ready to put this into a mainstream handset.
If they did intend to do that, I am sure there'd be press conferences and developer conferences.
C.
No, a document that engadet published doesn't have a linux model on it, that doesn't mean they don't have anything. If you had looked up the maemo information you would have seen details there.
Also, Apple has tried out the sandbox method a lot times in the past, you will find a lot of businesses will do that.
I think the more correct term would be to call it the "World dumbest Smartphone" Don't get me wrong, I love the device but it's so lacking in basic smartphone functionality that it isn't even funny. So in that sense, I think there is an argument to be made for someone who says it's not a smartphone.
http://www.pbs.org/cringely/pulpit/2...23_005500.html
I think he over-estimates Apple's potential market share.
C.
There's your problem statement since not everyone will agree with you on that. You might just have to accept that not everyone thinks or wants the future to be software.
Doesn't matter what I think it's a fact. Things have been software for decades now... Gates saw that before most did but just didn't innovate just stole, copied, etc. We are rapidly approaching a point where our hardware is no longer the weak link our software is the problem. The iPhone and iPod are examples of "better" software on the same hardware is whats really needed. That doesn't mean I think the iPhone's software is the best in class just an example of how the same hardware with better software is gets you a better product. Everything is software interacting with hardware and hardware can only do so much.
Frankly I can't see what the problem is. Symbian works and it works well. I don't see why Nokia need huge plans to move away from Symbian, or why if they don't it'll be the end of Nokia as we know it. S60 just needs a bit of jazzing up which it is slowly but surely getting.
The problem with Symbian is that is was designed with the thought that mobile devices would not use software similar to desktop software. Apple raised the bar by bringing an OS and its API's designed for the desktop to the mobile space. The foundation of Symbian is not really built to compete with this at all.
Apple will continue to advance mobile OS X in ways that Symbian cannot, unless it went through a complete rewrite. With Apple raising the bar others will bring new mobile OS such as Andriod to compete with the iPhone. Symbian is not well positioned to compete.
I think Nokia would have a lot to worry about if Apple had a whole range of devices with OSX mobile on them but until then, more people than not are going to want features in their phone that Apple currently doesn't offer
Looking at iPhone sales over 18 months, how many people do you believe are waiting?
I think the more correct term would be to call it the "World dumbest Smartphone" Don't get me wrong, I love the device but it's so lacking in basic smartphone functionality that it isn't even funny. So in that sense, I think there is an argument to be made for someone who says it's not a smartphone.
What exactly is the list of features a smartphone has to have to officially be a smartphone? I've never seen such a list.
At best we can look at sales to account for what features are required for a phone to be viable.
Not really, Apple didn't have a history of mobile phones, but they did hire/buy a lot of people that did
And your point? What does that matter? If they bought an existing product and then got the same results maybe your statement would have merit. They designed and entered a market with no presence and are doing well.
Actually most people on this site claim that Apple will distroy Nokia.
Also, you have to use the 10,000,000 figure, as Apple might of hit 1% of the market of a few years ago, but that 1% has grown a lot since then
As for destroying Nokia I never said nor do I agree with that...
As for the 1% now your just arguing for the sake of being right or whatever your motive is...
The point is what I said and their numbers are impressive...
As for destroying Nokia I never said nor do I agree with that...
As for the 1% now your just arguing for the sake of being right or whatever your motive is...
The point is what I said and their numbers are impressive...
Completely disagree with you on this one.
The problem with the 1% goal is twofold.
One is that the market grew --- it went from 1 billion cell phones a year to an (estimated) 1.25 billion cell phones this year (the year hasn't ended yet). So Apple need to go 12.5 million iphones in order to get a 1% market share.
The second problem is that the original 1% goal as announced by Steve Jobs at the keynote is that the iphone came with a original price tag of $600. Selling 12.5 million iphones at $600 each is a lot different than selling 12.5 million iphones at $200 each.
The second problem is that the original 1% goal as announced by Steve Jobs at the keynote is that the iphone came with a original price tag of $600. Selling 12.5 million iphones at $600 each is a lot different than selling 12.5 million iphones at $200 each.
Don't forget that the $200/$300 price tag is for a subsidized device.