Yes, you are correct, it was Trajectory. My apologies. However, this was a negative thread title.
I think the title comes from it only ever being reported that the iPhone has such and such share of the smartphone Market, which isn't really a true reflection of how well it's doing since there are iPhone competitors out there that aren't included in these smartphone sales results, which skews the figures in favour of the iPhone. This in turn explains the 'still only' thread title as it's reining the hysteria in a bit.
Its not hysteria if the data is only looking at phones that are considered "smartphones" and direct competitors of the iPhone. Leaving out featured phones which are not direct competitors. You want to blur the line too broadly.
The iPhone, BlackBerry, and Nokia N97 are all direct competitors. They all roughly have an equal ability and feature set. People would potentially look at all of these to accomplish much the same job.
The people who really feel they need the full functionality of the top tier phone would not bother at all with looking at a lower end feature phone. Someone who does not want to pay for a premium phone with a premium service would not at all bother with top tier phones.
They do not directly compete with each other.
Quote:
Originally Posted by mrochester
I think the title comes from it only ever being reported that the iPhone has such and such share of the smartphone Market, which isn't really a true reflection of how well it's doing since there are iPhone competitors out there that aren't included in these smartphone sales results, which skews the figures in favour of the iPhone. This in turn explains the 'still only' thread title as it's reining the hysteria in a bit.
Its not hysteria if the data is only looking at phones that are considered "smartphones" and direct competitors of the iPhone.
The data looks at smartphone market share, but misses out a whole bucket load of devices that would be considered smartphones by the very definition that the original iPhone set. As such, all of these devices need to be included into that data before any sort of useful information comes from it.
All that's still being under way. No one can say right out of here how it's gonna be in the end. Right now it's not a big deal to find a guy, who lives without internet connection and who needs just simplistic phone to make calls, nothing more. They do exist.
Well sure. Of course.
But what I'm talking about is the transition from "luxury" to "normal." Such a transition doesn't require 100% adoption, or even anywhere close to it. It just requires a change in how "most people" regard a given technology, and by extension how the role such technology plays in "the culture."
So: cell phone-- normal, ubiquitous, you're not obliged to own one but if you don't your either actually elderly or likely to be perceived as sort of retro or fusty or willfully anti "modern times" (obviously I'm talking about the non-abjectly poor here, which is another thing entirely).
And it gets ever more so, and it gets ever easier to regard monthly cellphone expenses as normal. Like paying for power or water or garbage pickup or car insurance.
So arguments that "people don't want to pay for data plans" or that "most people are just fine with just a phone, thanks" are predicated on assuming that exactly what has happened before won't happen again. In the case of "most folks just need a plain cell phone" that argument is pretty ironic, in that "a cellphone" was, until very recently, ruinously expensive and a complete luxury.
Sure, we can agree that tech trends are unpredictable, but does anyone really think that having a small computer on your person at all times that can do 75% of what your laptop can do, plus a bunch of new shit owing to cell radio and new apps, isn't going to become completely mainstream, and very quickly? So called "smartphones" are already showing by far the strongest growth in the cell industry, even though they cost a lot more to purchase and operate and the economy sucks balls, at the moment.
What happens when the economy starts to improve and the hand held computers have matured a bit? Texting was the killer app no one could have predicted that seized a generation and made cellphones an extension of their hands. Do you really think there isn't going to be something just as compelling that takes advantage of the full computational power of the kind of devices we're seeing now?
And it all happens fast. So fast that the first you hear about it is in a blog somewhere that mentions that bunches of high school kids, or middle school kids, are doing something with their iPhone that you've never heard of, and the next thing you know you're doing it. And you sorta can't remember how you got along without it.
I don't think you can define what a smartphone is by the original iPhone. Which is now very different from what it was originally.
This analysis did not compare the phones you think should be considered smartphones. It compares all phone sales.
Quote:
Originally Posted by mrochester
The data looks at smartphone market share, but misses out a whole bucket load of devices that would be considered smartphones by the very definition that the original iPhone set. As such, all of these devices need to be included into that data before any sort of useful information comes from it.
I don't think you can define what a smartphone is by the original iPhone. Which is now very different from what it was originally.
As much as we protested, the original iPhone was jammed down our necks as a smartphone, and thus that definition has to stand today. You can't suddenly change the goal posts just because it suits
But what I'm talking about is the transition from "luxury" to "normal." Such a transition doesn't require 100% adoption, or even anywhere close to it. It just requires a change in how "most people" regard a given technology, and by extension how the role such technology plays in "the culture."
So: cell phone-- normal, ubiquitous, you're not obliged to own one but if you don't your either actually elderly or likely to be perceived as sort of retro or fusty or willfully anti "modern times" (obviously I'm talking about the non-abjectly poor here, which is another thing entirely).
And it gets ever more so, and it gets ever easier to regard monthly cellphone expenses as normal. Like paying for power or water or garbage pickup or car insurance.
So arguments that "people don't want to pay for data plans" or that "most people are just fine with just a phone, thanks" are predicated on assuming that exactly what has happened before won't happen again. In the case of "most folks just need a plain cell phone" that argument is pretty ironic, in that "a cellphone" was, until very recently, ruinously expensive and a complete luxury.
Sure, we can agree that tech trends are unpredictable, but does anyone really think that having a small computer on your person at all times that can do 75% of what your laptop can do, plus a bunch of new shit owing to cell radio and new apps, isn't going to become completely mainstream, and very quickly? So called "smartphones" are already showing by far the strongest growth in the cell industry, even though they cost a lot more to purchase and operate and the economy sucks balls, at the moment.
What happens when the economy starts to improve and the hand held computers have matured a bit? Texting was the killer app no one could have predicted that seized a generation and made cellphones an extension of their hands. Do you really think there isn't going to be something just as compelling that takes advantage of the full computational power of the kind of devices we're seeing now?
And it all happens fast. So fast that the first you hear about it is in a blog somewhere that mentions that bunches of high school kids, or middle school kids, are doing something with their iPhone that you've never heard of, and the next thing you know you're doing it. And you sorta can't remember how you got along without it.
OK, I can agree, gadget choice is about "luxury", fashion, price, etc. It's so to certain extent.
Yet, there are still folks nowadays, which just have no vaguest idea of what they're supposed to do with laptop, be it of 10", or of 2" screen. They grew and got educated without that stuff, they don't use it daily. They are efficient enough without it.
This will, sure, change (we can't say, how exactly, but the trend of the development is obvious). But the article discusses present situation on the market. What's the value of all those foresights?
Pre-pay is growing to some degree and mostly at the lower end. The far majority of people buy subsidized phones. Those $50 for everything services have not proven all that popular or profitable in the long run.
Um, are you aware that in some countries pre-pay is major part of customer base? And some providers will subsidise a pre-pay phone?
Quote:
Originally Posted by TenoBell
It makes no sense to compare sales of a $90,000 car to an $18,000 car. They don't target the same consumer or compete directly against each other.
Acura and BMW are not in the same class either.
Um, are you aware that BMW markets a range of vehicles in the US ranging from $29,000 to over $100,000?
I agree with those who say that the 'smartphones' will become the norm at some point. This is exactly why the market share study discussed in this thread is extremely valuable.
Looking at the Nokia share year over year you can not tell anything regarding the trend towards smartphones. Apple (and RIM as far as I am aware) are making 'smartphones' only. So the figures are really interesting.
The two year old 679MHz ARM 11 underclocked to prolong battery life of the iPhone?
I wonder how well the Samsung Omnia HD will go with it's 800MHz ARM 8 and 256MB RAM, it should eat the N97's performance for breakfast then spit out the pieces, after all they both have the same OS.
Any new iPhone wouldn't have to add too much to do the same.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Chucker
So, then, what about the 412 MHz ARM 11 in the iPhone (also 128 MB RAM)?
The iPhone OS was built from the beginning to extend and grow to become what it is today and what it will be in the future. That is what makes it different from low end feature phones. The goal posts were never set from the beginning.
Quote:
Originally Posted by mrochester
As much as we protested, the original iPhone was jammed down our necks as a smartphone, and thus that definition has to stand today. You can't suddenly change the goal posts just because it suits
The iPhone OS was built from the beginning to extend and grow to become what it is today and what it will be in the future. That is what makes it different from low end feature phones. The goal posts were never set from the beginning.
the original iPhone, with everything that it could and couldn't do, was defined as a smartphone. Being able to add programs was NOT something it could do, so that cannot be a requirement now all of a sudden
Clearly being able to add apps was something that was apart of the iPhone OS. It was a functionality Apple had not yet enabled. The SDK was announced in October, four months after the iPhone's launch. Clearly it was something Apple had been working on all along it just wasn't ready yet.
My main point is that the difference between a smartphone and a low end feature phone is not only the ability to add apps, but an OS that is built on an architecture designed to grow for many years.
Quote:
Originally Posted by mrochester
the original iPhone, with everything that it could and couldn't do, was defined as a smartphone. Being able to add programs was NOT something it could do, so that cannot be a requirement now all of a sudden
Comments
Please point me to where I said that. I think you'll have an awfully hard time.
Yes, you are correct, it was Trajectory. My apologies. However, this was a negative thread title.
Yes, you are correct, it was Trajectory. My apologies. However, this was a negative thread title.
I think the title comes from it only ever being reported that the iPhone has such and such share of the smartphone Market, which isn't really a true reflection of how well it's doing since there are iPhone competitors out there that aren't included in these smartphone sales results, which skews the figures in favour of the iPhone. This in turn explains the 'still only' thread title as it's reining the hysteria in a bit.
The iPhone, BlackBerry, and Nokia N97 are all direct competitors. They all roughly have an equal ability and feature set. People would potentially look at all of these to accomplish much the same job.
The people who really feel they need the full functionality of the top tier phone would not bother at all with looking at a lower end feature phone. Someone who does not want to pay for a premium phone with a premium service would not at all bother with top tier phones.
They do not directly compete with each other.
I think the title comes from it only ever being reported that the iPhone has such and such share of the smartphone Market, which isn't really a true reflection of how well it's doing since there are iPhone competitors out there that aren't included in these smartphone sales results, which skews the figures in favour of the iPhone. This in turn explains the 'still only' thread title as it's reining the hysteria in a bit.
Its not hysteria if the data is only looking at phones that are considered "smartphones" and direct competitors of the iPhone.
The data looks at smartphone market share, but misses out a whole bucket load of devices that would be considered smartphones by the very definition that the original iPhone set. As such, all of these devices need to be included into that data before any sort of useful information comes from it.
All that's still being under way. No one can say right out of here how it's gonna be in the end. Right now it's not a big deal to find a guy, who lives without internet connection and who needs just simplistic phone to make calls, nothing more. They do exist.
Well sure. Of course.
But what I'm talking about is the transition from "luxury" to "normal." Such a transition doesn't require 100% adoption, or even anywhere close to it. It just requires a change in how "most people" regard a given technology, and by extension how the role such technology plays in "the culture."
So: cell phone-- normal, ubiquitous, you're not obliged to own one but if you don't your either actually elderly or likely to be perceived as sort of retro or fusty or willfully anti "modern times" (obviously I'm talking about the non-abjectly poor here, which is another thing entirely).
And it gets ever more so, and it gets ever easier to regard monthly cellphone expenses as normal. Like paying for power or water or garbage pickup or car insurance.
So arguments that "people don't want to pay for data plans" or that "most people are just fine with just a phone, thanks" are predicated on assuming that exactly what has happened before won't happen again. In the case of "most folks just need a plain cell phone" that argument is pretty ironic, in that "a cellphone" was, until very recently, ruinously expensive and a complete luxury.
Sure, we can agree that tech trends are unpredictable, but does anyone really think that having a small computer on your person at all times that can do 75% of what your laptop can do, plus a bunch of new shit owing to cell radio and new apps, isn't going to become completely mainstream, and very quickly? So called "smartphones" are already showing by far the strongest growth in the cell industry, even though they cost a lot more to purchase and operate and the economy sucks balls, at the moment.
What happens when the economy starts to improve and the hand held computers have matured a bit? Texting was the killer app no one could have predicted that seized a generation and made cellphones an extension of their hands. Do you really think there isn't going to be something just as compelling that takes advantage of the full computational power of the kind of devices we're seeing now?
And it all happens fast. So fast that the first you hear about it is in a blog somewhere that mentions that bunches of high school kids, or middle school kids, are doing something with their iPhone that you've never heard of, and the next thing you know you're doing it. And you sorta can't remember how you got along without it.
Yes, you are correct, it was Trajectory. My apologies. However, this was a negative thread title.
The title of the thread is the title of the article I posted in the first message of this thread. Not my wording.
This analysis did not compare the phones you think should be considered smartphones. It compares all phone sales.
The data looks at smartphone market share, but misses out a whole bucket load of devices that would be considered smartphones by the very definition that the original iPhone set. As such, all of these devices need to be included into that data before any sort of useful information comes from it.
I don't think you can define what a smartphone is by the original iPhone. Which is now very different from what it was originally.
As much as we protested, the original iPhone was jammed down our necks as a smartphone, and thus that definition has to stand today. You can't suddenly change the goal posts just because it suits
Well sure. Of course.
But what I'm talking about is the transition from "luxury" to "normal." Such a transition doesn't require 100% adoption, or even anywhere close to it. It just requires a change in how "most people" regard a given technology, and by extension how the role such technology plays in "the culture."
So: cell phone-- normal, ubiquitous, you're not obliged to own one but if you don't your either actually elderly or likely to be perceived as sort of retro or fusty or willfully anti "modern times" (obviously I'm talking about the non-abjectly poor here, which is another thing entirely).
And it gets ever more so, and it gets ever easier to regard monthly cellphone expenses as normal. Like paying for power or water or garbage pickup or car insurance.
So arguments that "people don't want to pay for data plans" or that "most people are just fine with just a phone, thanks" are predicated on assuming that exactly what has happened before won't happen again. In the case of "most folks just need a plain cell phone" that argument is pretty ironic, in that "a cellphone" was, until very recently, ruinously expensive and a complete luxury.
Sure, we can agree that tech trends are unpredictable, but does anyone really think that having a small computer on your person at all times that can do 75% of what your laptop can do, plus a bunch of new shit owing to cell radio and new apps, isn't going to become completely mainstream, and very quickly? So called "smartphones" are already showing by far the strongest growth in the cell industry, even though they cost a lot more to purchase and operate and the economy sucks balls, at the moment.
What happens when the economy starts to improve and the hand held computers have matured a bit? Texting was the killer app no one could have predicted that seized a generation and made cellphones an extension of their hands. Do you really think there isn't going to be something just as compelling that takes advantage of the full computational power of the kind of devices we're seeing now?
And it all happens fast. So fast that the first you hear about it is in a blog somewhere that mentions that bunches of high school kids, or middle school kids, are doing something with their iPhone that you've never heard of, and the next thing you know you're doing it. And you sorta can't remember how you got along without it.
OK, I can agree, gadget choice is about "luxury", fashion, price, etc. It's so to certain extent.
Yet, there are still folks nowadays, which just have no vaguest idea of what they're supposed to do with laptop, be it of 10", or of 2" screen. They grew and got educated without that stuff, they don't use it daily. They are efficient enough without it.
This will, sure, change (we can't say, how exactly, but the trend of the development is obvious). But the article discusses present situation on the market. What's the value of all those foresights?
Pre-pay is growing to some degree and mostly at the lower end. The far majority of people buy subsidized phones. Those $50 for everything services have not proven all that popular or profitable in the long run.
Um, are you aware that in some countries pre-pay is major part of customer base? And some providers will subsidise a pre-pay phone?
It makes no sense to compare sales of a $90,000 car to an $18,000 car. They don't target the same consumer or compete directly against each other.
Acura and BMW are not in the same class either.
Um, are you aware that BMW markets a range of vehicles in the US ranging from $29,000 to over $100,000?
Which particular BMW model are you referring to?
Um, are you aware that in some countries pre-pay is major part of customer base? And some providers will subsidise a pre-pay phone?
Um, are you aware that BMW markets a range of vehicles in the US ranging from $29,000 to over $100,000?
Which particular BMW model are you referring to?
I was under the impression that PAYG outsells pay monthly? PAYG phones are also subsidised.
Looking at the Nokia share year over year you can not tell anything regarding the trend towards smartphones. Apple (and RIM as far as I am aware) are making 'smartphones' only. So the figures are really interesting.
Nokia recently announced the CPU and RAM of the N97, a single 464MHz ARM 11 with 128MB RAM, I'd say such a mediocre offering is a not so smart phone.
So, then, what about the 412 MHz ARM 11 in the iPhone (also 128 MB RAM)?
Nokia recently announced the CPU and RAM of the N97, a single 464MHz ARM 11 with 128MB RAM, I'd say such a mediocre offering is a not so smart phone.
Yeah. They all are so obsessed with idea to crunch phone size, that it's kinda surprise they're not trying to sell phones without CPUs...
I wonder how well the Samsung Omnia HD will go with it's 800MHz ARM 8 and 256MB RAM, it should eat the N97's performance for breakfast then spit out the pieces, after all they both have the same OS.
Any new iPhone wouldn't have to add too much to do the same.
So, then, what about the 412 MHz ARM 11 in the iPhone (also 128 MB RAM)?
As much as we protested, the original iPhone was jammed down our necks as a smartphone, and thus that definition has to stand today. You can't suddenly change the goal posts just because it suits
Um, are you aware that in some countries pre-pay is major part of customer base? And some providers will subsidise a pre-pay phone?
We were specifically talking about carriers in the US.
Um, are you aware that BMW markets a range of vehicles in the US ranging from $29,000 to over $100,000?
Which particular BMW model are you referring to?
For $29,000 a stripped down no frills car is the hook. Once you begin to add any creature comforts the price quickly grows.
The iPhone OS was built from the beginning to extend and grow to become what it is today and what it will be in the future. That is what makes it different from low end feature phones. The goal posts were never set from the beginning.
the original iPhone, with everything that it could and couldn't do, was defined as a smartphone. Being able to add programs was NOT something it could do, so that cannot be a requirement now all of a sudden
My main point is that the difference between a smartphone and a low end feature phone is not only the ability to add apps, but an OS that is built on an architecture designed to grow for many years.
the original iPhone, with everything that it could and couldn't do, was defined as a smartphone. Being able to add programs was NOT something it could do, so that cannot be a requirement now all of a sudden