LOL, case in point. Either you're choosing to be argumentative, naive, you're a fanboy, or you're one of the people they pander to. Are you telling me that PCs don't come with a camera? Do PCs ask "Allow or Cancel?". No. The commercial is targeted at Windows vs. Mac. Now quit being silly.
If we refuse to read between the lines the way you selectively choose, a Mac *is* a PC making the commercial ever more ridiculous.
Ah, I see where you are going. I misunderstood that you actually thought that the commercials claimed to compare Macs with Windows. I completely agree that the commercials are meant to compare the strengths of the Mac OS with the Perceived Weaknesses of Windows although on the surface the character names are PC and Mac (I point that I also believed that you missed).
My apologies for the self-created confusion.
For the record: no, I wasn't trying to be argumentative (tone is all in how you read it, remember), no I am not naive (I do know that some PCs actually DO come with cameras , including recently released laptops), I don't need pandering to, and n. . . well, yes I'm a fan, I suppose.
What a joke. To characterize a functional web browser as support for third party developers is misleading at best.
It's almost as "clever" as their commercials comparing an operating system to a computer. "Windows doensn't come with a cool camera." Well, duh!!!
I'm picking up an iphone, but their continued efforts to play off the less intelligent people in this country is a turn off for the rest of us.
Eh? There's nothing at all wrong with that ad about the cameras. iMacs and Mac laptops come with built-in cameras. It's a nice little feature that most PCs don't have. How does advertising that fact "play off" the less intelligent people?
Palm isn't doing well because they are up against two juggernauts, MS and Nokia, with Symbian.
That's not the only reason. You cannot dismiss that Palm has made some misteps at critical moments in its history.
MS is able to bully its way into a market. But Nokia has made the right choices at the right times and has been able to become a market leader. But it wasn't always that way and did not necessarily have to happen that way.
Quote:
But, as we all know, the best product doesn't always win.
I've never heard anyone call Palm the best product.
That's not the only reason. You cannot dismiss that Palm has made some misteps at critical moments in its history.
MS is able to bully its way into a market. But Nokia has made the right choices at the right times and has been able to become a market leader. But it wasn't always that way and did not necessarily have to happen that way.
I've never heard anyone call Palm the best product.
Sure, Palm has made nistakes, just as Apple has, before Jobs left, after Jobs left, and now that Jobs is back.
But Apple doesn't compete directly with these other companies. I agree with this article just published on MacWorld Friday.
The one time they are, they will have a problem too.
When a small company such as Palm competes against the gorilla's in the business, it is going to get pummeled.
Netscape made mistakes as well, but they got destroyed because MS can simply afford to wait out its own mistakes, and bury the smaller guy, so can Nokia with Symbian.
When the Palm is compared to Windows Mobile, any version, Palm always wins. Period. Symbian is different enough from the other two, so as to make comparisons more difficult. It also hasn't quite made it big in the US yet, because it's only (or almost only) on GSM, even though it is a good 80+% in Europe.
When a small company such as Palm competes against the gorilla's in the business, it is going to get pummeled.
But they were not always giants. There were Palm Pilots before Windows Mobile even existed or before Nokia was a big player in the US market. Palm had the opportunity to be the market leader but did not make the right choices.
I've been thinking over this Web 2.0 and web applications... basically Apple is just providing a browser that isn't too crippled (if you overlook the FLASH part) and letting any platform that has a browser do what it is capable of... not really "doing a lot" as some have pointed out. This is not such a bad thing, unto itself... but I do have many reservations. I think that it is fine that Apple simply provides a framework and let the code / coders work it out themselves, but I'm not too happy with the path taken.
The world of web apps today and RIA is split amongst the designers and the coders. Really, there are more designers out there (I think) than coders actually creating content. Adobe Flash dominates, but you have MS Silverlight and JavaFX chomping at the bit, trying to get into the game too. Of these three, it would seem intrinsically impossible for Apple to partner with MS and Silverlight - and JavaFX just seems like a sad experiment, trying to unbreak J2ME I guess. So the obvious partner would have seemed to have been Adobe and Flash/Flex/Apollo/AIR. They have the installed runtime base, the rosy future, and are somewhat Apple friendly all things considered... but instead Apple throws a hail mary that Web 2.0 via Safari browser will perform to everyone's expectations and to ensure its success, they release Safari for Windows so that they can say that the majority of the worlds developers (not Mac users) have access to all the tools they need to deploy Web apps for the iPhone. This just doesn't sit well with me.
I would have rather have had Flash/Flex/Apollo/Air support, with either locally stored or remotely served executables... and just use XMLSocket objects to handle external communications, so at that point, you are just dealing with security sandbox limitations as to what you can and can't do. If you assume that giving Windows users Safari is not a well thought out plan for solidifying a developer base for iPhone and that Safari is not going to take over the world as a browser (or at least become relevant)... it would seem to me that by not partnering / helping Adobe's efforts is more or less directly helping Microsoft's advancement into RIA with Silverlight.
But they were not always giants. There were Palm Pilots before Windows Mobile even existed or before Nokia was a big player in the US market. Palm had the opportunity to be the market leader but did not make the right choices.
I'm amazed at how many people don't understand how this works.
It makes absolutely no difference whether these giant companies were in the business at the time, or not.
Netscape had almost 90% of the browser market when MS belatedly came on the scene. What happened?
Going back further, Apple had most of the enterprise personal computer market when IBM wised up, and decided that they didn't like that fact. What happened there? Don't forget, that, in the beginning, IBM's machines comprised as closed a market model, as Apple's did. They still took the market from Apple in short order.
The point is that a very large company, or a monopoly, has the funding to make their product a success, no matter how popular a competing product may be, as long as they already have built-in customers, or can afford to lose money on vast scales, as MS is willing to do. That's why we have laws limiting what monopolies can do.
The XBox, and the entire games division at MS, has lost at least $6 billion since the first XBox came out. That hasn't stopped MS from continuing in the business. The only reason the Wii, right now, is so popular, is because it is so cheap. Otherwise, MS is number two in sales. Nintendo hasn't the money to compete with either MS, or Sony, so it doesn't. The game machine market that MS and Sony SEEM to be competing in, is only a distraction. It isn't what they really care about, so they spend billions building it up, so that what they DO care about, which is the online game component that will eventually take over, will be under their control. Nintendo can't compete there.
They also want the consoles to be an entertainment networking center. Nintendo can't compete there either. In the long run, this might kill Nintendo.
You may not remember, but Palm was killing Windows CE PDA's for years. In fact, the PDA market still exists, and Palm is still killing Windows CE!
But, as the market has moved to smartphones, Palm has not got the money to pour into that market that MS has. Despite the fact that not even one review has given any version of Windows Mobile a good rating, esp. when compared to Palms' offerings, whether made by Palm or not, it has surged ahead of Palm in marketshare, after lagging for years. Why is that?. Because, even though the accounts were that MS lost considerable money on CE and Mobile, they kept pounding away at it.
You may have heard the, now, old expression:
Microsoft's products aren't good, but they're good enough.
With enough money, and reach, companies like that don't have to be in a market when others dominate, they can be very successful, and when the other players are small, dominate it, because they can afford to lose the money that the other, smaller, players can't afford to lose.
Palm could have done everything right, as far as their small size, and limited reach, would have allowed, but the outcome would still be the same, even though it might have taken a bit longer.
I'm amazed at how many people don't understand how this works.
I said this earlier, "MS is able to bully its way into a market." Which isn't any different from your diatribe.
But at the same time you cannot dismiss the mistakes Palm has made. Things could be different right now if Palm had made better choices. Yes MS would still be a leader because of vast resources. But that does not mean Palm had to be in the situation its in right now.
I said this earlier, "MS is able to bully its way into a market." Which isn't any different from your diatribe.
But at the same time you cannot dismiss the mistakes Palm has made. Things could be different right now if Palm had made better choices. Yes MS would still be a leader because of vast resources. But that does not mean Palm had to be in the situation its in right now.
Look up diatribe.
From your post. The entire relevent quote:
Quote:
That's not the only reason. You cannot dismiss that Palm has made some misteps at critical moments in its history.
MS is able to bully its way into a market. But Nokia has made the right choices at the right times and has been able to become a market leader. But it wasn't always that way and did not necessarily have to happen that way.
Not quite the same thing as I said.
And, no, I don't agree. Nothing that Palm could ever have done could have stopped MS.
Enterprise wants MS. Period. Their concern about being all Windows, even though Win Mobile isn't actually Windows, is Palm's problem. MS offers connectivity with their own software that Palm simply can't offer.
Marketshare numbers from late 2006 had Symbian at 13 million users, Linux at 2 million users, Win Mobile at a little over a million users, RIM around half a million users, and Palm at 300,000 users.
I keep hearing about these "normal ones", or "laymen", that the people arguing for the correctness of going with just the webapps to protect the phone's integrity mention. They say that we need to have only the basic apps because we need to protect these people from breaking their phones by adding "dirty" apps. But then they turn around and say that these same "lay people" are the ones who get winmobile and other smartphones, but never add 3rd party programs anyway (when arguing the importance of the core programs). If these so called "techno luddites" never even add 3rd party programs to their phones, who are we kidding by saying keeping 3rd party apps off the phone protects them...?
They don't know what a third party app is... Let's not kid ourselves, we are the ones who will use the third party apps, everyone else is clueless doesn't even know about them.
Also, this is OSX right? I mean, i don't even care if someone wants to argue mobile blah blah, OSX right? One of the reasons i switched to Mac this year was because of OSX's stability (like when you kill a stalled program, generally it doesn't take forever to actually die...) Is OSX suddenly weaker now...
I understand the logic of going with the webapp thing if thy're not ready, but Stevie needs to stop piling bs on till the last moment and then switching positions (yeah yeah, business businessman )
I have been looking forward to the iphone ever since it was anounced. I even bought an ipod to tide me over tide me over till the phone came out (when my other mp3 player broke, was planning to sell it on ebay...) but now, i'm seriously debating waiting for the second revision. Especially since i'm in japan now, it's not coming out over here till it at least gets 3g, maybe not even until the rest of asia gets it too, and softbank just announced the x01t/toshiba g900(august release, 800x480, 119x61x21.5mm) which has me seriously doubting whether or no to just get that and keep the ipod...
Marketshare numbers from late 2006 had Symbian at 13 million users, Linux at 2 million users, Win Mobile at a little over a million users, RIM around half a million users, and Palm at 300,000 users.
As I've said, most Linux phones are not smartphones.
Comments
LOL, case in point. Either you're choosing to be argumentative, naive, you're a fanboy, or you're one of the people they pander to. Are you telling me that PCs don't come with a camera? Do PCs ask "Allow or Cancel?". No. The commercial is targeted at Windows vs. Mac. Now quit being silly.
If we refuse to read between the lines the way you selectively choose, a Mac *is* a PC making the commercial ever more ridiculous.
Ah, I see where you are going. I misunderstood that you actually thought that the commercials claimed to compare Macs with Windows. I completely agree that the commercials are meant to compare the strengths of the Mac OS with the Perceived Weaknesses of Windows although on the surface the character names are PC and Mac (I point that I also believed that you missed).
My apologies for the self-created confusion.
For the record: no, I wasn't trying to be argumentative (tone is all in how you read it, remember), no I am not naive (I do know that some PCs actually DO come with cameras , including recently released laptops), I don't need pandering to, and n. . . well, yes I'm a fan, I suppose.
Have a good day!
What a joke. To characterize a functional web browser as support for third party developers is misleading at best.
It's almost as "clever" as their commercials comparing an operating system to a computer. "Windows doensn't come with a cool camera." Well, duh!!!
I'm picking up an iphone, but their continued efforts to play off the less intelligent people in this country is a turn off for the rest of us.
Eh? There's nothing at all wrong with that ad about the cameras. iMacs and Mac laptops come with built-in cameras. It's a nice little feature that most PCs don't have. How does advertising that fact "play off" the less intelligent people?
Holding your breath will turn you blue. That's a pun. Just sayin'.
~ CB
??? I mean I guess, but I'm still buying an iPhone (when it comes to Canada) so it's not like I'm holding out on it or anything.
I'm not developing apps for the iPhone with or without an SDK anyway.
Well, topic:
So what do you think Apples does in the future:
the iTunes Store/we vet your app method (iPod games)?
widget SDK?
real SDK?
Palm isn't doing well because they are up against two juggernauts, MS and Nokia, with Symbian.
That's not the only reason. You cannot dismiss that Palm has made some misteps at critical moments in its history.
MS is able to bully its way into a market. But Nokia has made the right choices at the right times and has been able to become a market leader. But it wasn't always that way and did not necessarily have to happen that way.
But, as we all know, the best product doesn't always win.
I've never heard anyone call Palm the best product.
That's not the only reason. You cannot dismiss that Palm has made some misteps at critical moments in its history.
MS is able to bully its way into a market. But Nokia has made the right choices at the right times and has been able to become a market leader. But it wasn't always that way and did not necessarily have to happen that way.
I've never heard anyone call Palm the best product.
Sure, Palm has made nistakes, just as Apple has, before Jobs left, after Jobs left, and now that Jobs is back.
But Apple doesn't compete directly with these other companies. I agree with this article just published on MacWorld Friday.
http://www.macworld.com/news/2007/06...ight/index.php
The one time they are, they will have a problem too.
When a small company such as Palm competes against the gorilla's in the business, it is going to get pummeled.
Netscape made mistakes as well, but they got destroyed because MS can simply afford to wait out its own mistakes, and bury the smaller guy, so can Nokia with Symbian.
When the Palm is compared to Windows Mobile, any version, Palm always wins. Period. Symbian is different enough from the other two, so as to make comparisons more difficult. It also hasn't quite made it big in the US yet, because it's only (or almost only) on GSM, even though it is a good 80+% in Europe.
When a small company such as Palm competes against the gorilla's in the business, it is going to get pummeled.
But they were not always giants. There were Palm Pilots before Windows Mobile even existed or before Nokia was a big player in the US market. Palm had the opportunity to be the market leader but did not make the right choices.
The world of web apps today and RIA is split amongst the designers and the coders. Really, there are more designers out there (I think) than coders actually creating content. Adobe Flash dominates, but you have MS Silverlight and JavaFX chomping at the bit, trying to get into the game too. Of these three, it would seem intrinsically impossible for Apple to partner with MS and Silverlight - and JavaFX just seems like a sad experiment, trying to unbreak J2ME I guess. So the obvious partner would have seemed to have been Adobe and Flash/Flex/Apollo/AIR. They have the installed runtime base, the rosy future, and are somewhat Apple friendly all things considered... but instead Apple throws a hail mary that Web 2.0 via Safari browser will perform to everyone's expectations and to ensure its success, they release Safari for Windows so that they can say that the majority of the worlds developers (not Mac users) have access to all the tools they need to deploy Web apps for the iPhone. This just doesn't sit well with me.
I would have rather have had Flash/Flex/Apollo/Air support, with either locally stored or remotely served executables... and just use XMLSocket objects to handle external communications, so at that point, you are just dealing with security sandbox limitations as to what you can and can't do. If you assume that giving Windows users Safari is not a well thought out plan for solidifying a developer base for iPhone and that Safari is not going to take over the world as a browser (or at least become relevant)... it would seem to me that by not partnering / helping Adobe's efforts is more or less directly helping Microsoft's advancement into RIA with Silverlight.
Good job Apple.
But they were not always giants. There were Palm Pilots before Windows Mobile even existed or before Nokia was a big player in the US market. Palm had the opportunity to be the market leader but did not make the right choices.
I'm amazed at how many people don't understand how this works.
It makes absolutely no difference whether these giant companies were in the business at the time, or not.
Netscape had almost 90% of the browser market when MS belatedly came on the scene. What happened?
Going back further, Apple had most of the enterprise personal computer market when IBM wised up, and decided that they didn't like that fact. What happened there? Don't forget, that, in the beginning, IBM's machines comprised as closed a market model, as Apple's did. They still took the market from Apple in short order.
The point is that a very large company, or a monopoly, has the funding to make their product a success, no matter how popular a competing product may be, as long as they already have built-in customers, or can afford to lose money on vast scales, as MS is willing to do. That's why we have laws limiting what monopolies can do.
The XBox, and the entire games division at MS, has lost at least $6 billion since the first XBox came out. That hasn't stopped MS from continuing in the business. The only reason the Wii, right now, is so popular, is because it is so cheap. Otherwise, MS is number two in sales. Nintendo hasn't the money to compete with either MS, or Sony, so it doesn't. The game machine market that MS and Sony SEEM to be competing in, is only a distraction. It isn't what they really care about, so they spend billions building it up, so that what they DO care about, which is the online game component that will eventually take over, will be under their control. Nintendo can't compete there.
They also want the consoles to be an entertainment networking center. Nintendo can't compete there either. In the long run, this might kill Nintendo.
You may not remember, but Palm was killing Windows CE PDA's for years. In fact, the PDA market still exists, and Palm is still killing Windows CE!
But, as the market has moved to smartphones, Palm has not got the money to pour into that market that MS has. Despite the fact that not even one review has given any version of Windows Mobile a good rating, esp. when compared to Palms' offerings, whether made by Palm or not, it has surged ahead of Palm in marketshare, after lagging for years. Why is that?. Because, even though the accounts were that MS lost considerable money on CE and Mobile, they kept pounding away at it.
You may have heard the, now, old expression:
Microsoft's products aren't good, but they're good enough.
With enough money, and reach, companies like that don't have to be in a market when others dominate, they can be very successful, and when the other players are small, dominate it, because they can afford to lose the money that the other, smaller, players can't afford to lose.
Palm could have done everything right, as far as their small size, and limited reach, would have allowed, but the outcome would still be the same, even though it might have taken a bit longer.
I'm amazed at how many people don't understand how this works.
I said this earlier, "MS is able to bully its way into a market." Which isn't any different from your diatribe.
But at the same time you cannot dismiss the mistakes Palm has made. Things could be different right now if Palm had made better choices. Yes MS would still be a leader because of vast resources. But that does not mean Palm had to be in the situation its in right now.
I said this earlier, "MS is able to bully its way into a market." Which isn't any different from your diatribe.
But at the same time you cannot dismiss the mistakes Palm has made. Things could be different right now if Palm had made better choices. Yes MS would still be a leader because of vast resources. But that does not mean Palm had to be in the situation its in right now.
Look up diatribe.
From your post. The entire relevent quote:
That's not the only reason. You cannot dismiss that Palm has made some misteps at critical moments in its history.
MS is able to bully its way into a market. But Nokia has made the right choices at the right times and has been able to become a market leader. But it wasn't always that way and did not necessarily have to happen that way.
Not quite the same thing as I said.
And, no, I don't agree. Nothing that Palm could ever have done could have stopped MS.
Enterprise wants MS. Period. Their concern about being all Windows, even though Win Mobile isn't actually Windows, is Palm's problem. MS offers connectivity with their own software that Palm simply can't offer.
Nokia, Symbian, and Linux are all larger in the smartphone market than Win Mobile.
Symbian, as I mentioned earlier IS Nokia, the other gorilla.
Linux phones don't have much marketshare in the smartphone business.
They don't know what a third party app is... Let's not kid ourselves, we are the ones who will use the third party apps, everyone else is clueless doesn't even know about them.
Also, this is OSX right? I mean, i don't even care if someone wants to argue mobile blah blah, OSX right? One of the reasons i switched to Mac this year was because of OSX's stability (like when you kill a stalled program, generally it doesn't take forever to actually die...) Is OSX suddenly weaker now...
I understand the logic of going with the webapp thing if thy're not ready, but Stevie needs to stop piling bs on till the last moment and then switching positions (yeah yeah, business businessman
I have been looking forward to the iphone ever since it was anounced. I even bought an ipod to tide me over tide me over till the phone came out (when my other mp3 player broke, was planning to sell it on ebay...) but now, i'm seriously debating waiting for the second revision. Especially since i'm in japan now, it's not coming out over here till it at least gets 3g, maybe not even until the rest of asia gets it too, and softbank just announced the x01t/toshiba g900(august release, 800x480, 119x61x21.5mm) which has me seriously doubting whether or no to just get that and keep the ipod...
Marketshare numbers from late 2006 had Symbian at 13 million users, Linux at 2 million users, Win Mobile at a little over a million users, RIM around half a million users, and Palm at 300,000 users.
As I've said, most Linux phones are not smartphones.
^ If you say so. Those market share numbers are from Canalys smartphone sales numbers.
I doubt the numbers. There are to many Win Mobile phones out, and too many that have just been announced, for those numbers to, er, ring true.