Here is how both approaches work to my knowledge (if I am wrong somewhere, please correct me):
...
It remains to be seen how Apple implements Direct Push and Active Sync and what might be implemented on the carrier side as well. I am sure there will be in-depth reviews and comparisons in late Summer.
The cost, support and single failure point of the NOC seems to be the achilles heel for RIM. I can see why Apple is directly going after the Enterprise in this regard
Very informative, especially for a first post. Welcome to AI.
NOC's are here to stay. As I posted earlier they serve a vital function in either a fixed or mobile network environment.
Sorry, I don't see any rationale for NOCs surviving long term or why push e-mail has to drain the battery any faster than being on standby for receiving phone calls.
You make good points. I think most kids these days are so used to stealing software and media that the limitation of their self imposed entitlement offends them when they have to jump through hoops to steal it.
Yes, Gramps, it's all these darn spoiled kids... The future looks dark... In our day yada yada yada...
Give me a fricken break. Obviously the anger over the iPod touch issue is very simple and has nothing to do with an "entitlement" attitude of any generation. See if you can follow along with me. I'll even use bullets to make it concise for your old senile memory.
1) The Iphone and correspondingly the Ipod Touch were repeatedly represented as devices whose functionality can grow over time through firmware updates.
2) Firmware updates for nearly every other popular consumer electronics device have been free of charge, and NOT JUST bug fixes, but new functionality added. Think computer hardware driver updates, game console firmware, and even personal media player firmware updates. A few recent examples would be the Playstation 3 receiving an update to it's Blu-ray profile and media playing capability. The first generation Zune players received the second generation's user interface and functionality. There are many, many more examples I'm sure.
3) The iPhone itself receives these firmware updates free of charge.
Regardless of the SOX accounting issues faced by Apple over the device updates, The problem lies in the fact that other popular companys' products don't seem to have the same problem, and that creates a major problem of perception. In addition, most people believe Apple could choose the upgrade fee, and "legally" make it significantly less than the $20 of the last update.
Sorry, I don't see any rationale for NOCs surviving long term or why push e-mail has to drain the battery any faster than being on standby for receiving phone calls.
I think the problem here is just terminalogy. All, and I mean all Telco's have NOC's. They will be around. RIM/BB could loosely be using the term to discribe their operations center but in a different context. They may do similar things but for different reasons.
Here is how both approaches work to my knowledge (if I am wrong somewhere, please correct me):
Microsoft (Direct Push)
1. Device initiates a TCP connection to server server. Among other things it sets a heartbeat interval.
2. Server holds the TCP connection until the heartbeat expires (TCP IDLE)
3. If no new mail arrives before the heartbeat expires the device sends "ping" (small data packet) to reset the timer
4. if new email arrives before the heartbeat expires, the server will notify the device
5. The device then pulls the email off the server using the Active Sync Protocol
If the network connection is dropped any time (e.g. device was turned off) the server waits until the device initiates a connection. If there is newer mail since the last sync the server notifies the device and it then initiates an Active Sync. Active Sync is reliable and can handle interrupted transfers.
This is similar to the IMAP IDLE.
Blackberry:
The basic difference here is that the carrier needs to support a local NOC. This is why you have specific Blackberry pricing with your carriers. The BES Server monitors the Exchange Server and when new mail is detected it sends it to the NOC (usually the BES is connected over a VPN tunnel to the NOC).
Once mail it as the NOC it informs the device that new messages are waiting. This needs to be supported by the carrier you are using. The message send to the Blackberry is similar to receive a text message or notifying a phone about an incoming call. The the message is send to the Blackberry. This is similar how two-way pagers worked which are the root for Blackberries. As said it needs to be supported by the carriers to some extent.
What about bandwidth and battery life?
The less information is exchanged the longer the battery will hold. Blackberries are very efficient here. But they always require a NOC infrastructure for it and a carrier that is connected to the NOC.
Also there is a significant difference in transmitted bytes when using Microsoft's Direct Push compared to the RIM solution when attachments are involved. This has something do to with the fact that the Blackberry doesn't really download attachments compared to Microsoft's Direct Push, where the information is always downloaded to the device (or at least in part until you want to download the full message). Therefore comparing bandwidth of the two approaches is not really fair. Also the additional BES server handles know file formats different.
Blackberries use a proprietary protocol and Microsoft uses SSL. Also Blackberries use UDP and not TCP. All this reduced the network overhead. But again we are talking bytes here. With EDGE and 3G this doesn't make a big difference. The TCO of Blackberries rise as mobile data communication get cheaper and faster.
The longer battery life is more theoretical. In real life it is totally negligible as the data packages for the pings and the initial server communication are very very small.
The downside is that a NOC infrastructure is essential for Blackberries. Which means single point of failure, dependent on a specific vendor, security implications (these are IMHO huge) etc.
With Direct Push you are not dependent on a specific vendor or carrier. You simply rely on your own infrastructure and any available network infrastructure. If it is WLAN, Internet, land line, a cellular net it doesn't matter. In the end it is a TCP connection from and to the device and the medium used doesn't matter.
Also Direct Push could make use of NOCs in a similar way to RIM but doesn't require one. If cellular carries support Direct Push in their networks (handing the heartbeats for example) the advantage of Blackberries are gone regarding the signaling of new messages. But you don't require one which makes it easier to adopt the technology, especially for small and medium sized businesses as well as the individual.
In addition you can implement Active Sync and Direct Push very efficient in a Device to optimize data usage. The implementation in the existing WM devices is far from optimal.
It remains to be seen how Apple implements Direct Push and Active Sync and what might be implemented on the carrier side as well. I am sure there will be in-depth reviews and comparisons in late Summer.
Great post. Just to add, as I read more and more, I realize that the term NOC is misused by RIM to describe its infrastructure. Telco's, GSM operators, hell even Saudi Aramco have NOC, or Network Operations Centers, and all three perform different functions. Telco's use the NOC's to montior network traffic, provision systems, etc.... NOC's will remain an integral part of all network facilities.
It will be interesting to see how Apple implements PUSH in their handsets. Battery life will surely be a factor as with PUSH the phone has to constantly inform the servers that it is alive and ready to receive something. It my be more prudent to use polling at a fixed rate or manually.
[quote=Dave K.;1226636]You ever hear of Windows 7 - Microsoft's next OS. Its probably 3-5 years away. /quote]
Are those dog years or human years?
How many of the features promised for Vista vanished by the time it launched? Can you buy a Mac today with a version before 10.5 pre-installed? How about trying to buy a PC with XP (how long after Vista launched?).
My impression talking to support people who favour Windows is that they would be only too happy if Vista curled up and died.
Try setting your iphone to check email every 5 minutes and compare the battery life to manual email check. It's a huge difference. I'm guessing this is what they are referring to as a longer battery life does lead to an improved user experience. Server outages are temporary annoyances. Short battery life is a permanent annoyance. We will have to wait and see how the battery is affected by push email on the iPhone.
Here's another experiment. Turn your cell phone off unless you are making a call or expecting an incoming call, and compare the time between charges with leaving it on (if you want your phone as a means of being contactable, you won't want to do this). Your phone has to regularly check in with the network to tell it where to route calls. This isn't for free. Same issue with WiFi: even if you are not accurately transmitting, the network needs to know where you are.
I think it's very important to point out that the SDK itself is complete; it's NOT a beta. The iPhone 2.0 software update is in beta, and includes the new firmware with the App Store and enterprise capabilities + the complete SDK. Scott Forrestal said in his presentation that the SDK is the same one Apple has been using to create iPhone apps.
Again, the SDK itself is complete; it's NOT A BETA.
Good point.
Just to clarify, the SDK is also free isn't it?
- you just need to pay the $99/year to publish on the AppStore, right?
And the SDK is fully available today
- so you can write & download apps to your iPhone today, but just not publish?
Quite frankly, the SDK should have been made for Windows as well. If Apple is truly serious about the enterprise they need to do this (while they are at it, they also need to license out Mac OS X Server). I work in IT in an all Windows shop. People outside of IT don't realize how embedded the business world is with Windows...
I see the initial cost of iPhone development very prohibitive. You need to buy a iPhone, Mac, XCODE training (if there is even such a thing), maybe a XSERVE for deployment testing. Seems quite of a lot money just to test out an idea. You better have one hell of an idea.
I couldn't disagree more
- the cost of trying out the idea is the cost of a Mac & an iPhone
- which isn't going to be prohibitive for anyone with an idea
I think it's a good trojan horse to get more Macs into previously Windows-only shops
A NOC is a room filled with hardware. Along with that comes the IT personnel and software. Think of the room that every data line in the enterprise runs to filled with rack mounted servers and cord trays needing dedicated AC due to the heavy heat output. RIM ask you to buy a proprietary piece of equipment from them to install in your NOC, if you want the enterprise features, that routes all your traffic to their NOC, located in Ontario, and then they push the traffic to the devices. Apple's solution allows the Enterprise Server sitting in your NOC to handle the heavy lifting of managing your traffic and sending it over the internet to the cell network connected equipment that sends it immediately (pushes) to the users. My guess is that the phone battery life won't be an issue as it is not constantly reaching out and checking just can be reached and updated instantly as needed.
Yes, Gramps, it's all these darn spoiled kids... The future looks dark... In our day yada yada yada...
Give me a fricken break. Obviously the anger over the iPod touch issue is very simple and has nothing to do with an "entitlement" attitude of any generation. See if you can follow along with me. I'll even use bullets to make it concise for your old senile memory.
1) The Iphone and correspondingly the Ipod Touch were repeatedly represented as devices whose functionality can grow over time through firmware updates.
2) Firmware updates for nearly every other popular consumer electronics device have been free of charge, and NOT JUST bug fixes, but new functionality added. Think computer hardware driver updates, game console firmware, and even personal media player firmware updates. A few recent examples would be the Playstation 3 receiving an update to it's Blu-ray profile and media playing capability. The first generation Zune players received the second generation's user interface and functionality. There are many, many more examples I'm sure.
3) The iPhone itself receives these firmware updates free of charge.
Regardless of the SOX accounting issues faced by Apple over the device updates, The problem lies in the fact that other popular companys' products don't seem to have the same problem, and that creates a major problem of perception. In addition, most people believe Apple could choose the upgrade fee, and "legally" make it significantly less than the $20 of the last update.
No little boy, this is how it works...
1) true, and they do
2) if other devices provide firmware enhancements 'free' its because they see that as the only way they can get the feature distributed, and most likely as a way to enable some other revenue stream. But they are not 'free'... you pay for them in the form of the feature enabled by the update, or in future product. Also, firmware enhancements to enable features are different than bug fixes. bug fixes should be free. I have no expectation that feature enhancements must be.
3) iPHONE UPDATES ARE NOT FREE! THEY'RE PAID FOR OUT OF THE MONTHLY SUBSCRIPTION CHARGES!
Do we have to include pictures so that you children can understand that? Nothing's free.
Some companies don't charge you directly (like apple) but actually indirectly (sony/ps3/blu-ray).
Apple is selling you hardware + limited software at a base price. You want more you pay.
Sony sells you a PS3 and what do you know FREE firmware updates. THEY ARE NOT FREE, the price is included in every game and every movie (blu-ray) you buy. You Still pay for the software. Just like with Apple.
Are you under the impression that those handsets are "free?"
Depends on how you look at it. Sure, the costs are built in to the price of the service plan. It might not be truly free, but with the iPhone it's still extra.
Some companies don't charge you directly (like apple) but actually indirectly (sony/ps3/blu-ray).
Apple is selling you hardware + limited software at a base price. You want more you pay.
Sony sells you a PS3 and what do you know FREE firmware updates. THEY ARE NOT FREE, the price is included in every game and every movie (blu-ray) you buy. You Still pay for the software. Just like with Apple.
The costs are embedded as are the R&D cost. Things cost money. Apple is not in the biz of giving anything away for free, and I recognize this. My only gripe might be in the price they charge or the way they go about getting money. This "accounting" issue is just plain stupid the way they explained it. The thing to do would have been to embed the cost somewhere else and be done with it.
Depends on how you look at it. Sure, the costs are built in to the price of the service plan. It might not be truly free, but with the iPhone it's still extra.
By 'extra' I assume you actually mean "more upfront costs", because there is a lot of internet evidence that suggests the total cost of ownership is cheaper for the iPhone.
Though, now that the major US carriers have lowered the cost of unlimited data rates things may be different. I believe AT&T wen't from $40 to $35 recently after Verizona nd Sprint altered their plans.
It's the iPhone software that is being updated to version 2, not the iPhone. It's a software upgrade. From your posting, it sounds like you think that iPhone 2 is a new iPhone? That's coming, but this is all about upgrading the features of the existing hardware.
Mark
Hi Mark,
Welcome to AI.
No. I know the update coming in June is not a new phone. I was simply referring to the fact that historically Apple doesn't let anyone know of when new products or product updates are on the way.
How can Windows 7 screenshots help you plan to purchase your next computer? Furthermore, Microsoft allowed many PC manufacturers to claim they were Vista enabled when in reality they weren't.
Let's compare that scenario with Apple's announcement of OSX, it worked with the iMac as announced by SJ.
Product road maps are very important for business customers as they give reassurance to enterprise customer of the company's direction before they spend big $$$ on one company's offering. Road maps aren't intended to be "this is exactly what our future will look like".
Historically, Apple has never really provided product roadmaps. For instance, when is the 3G iPhone going to be released (general terms, not guessing)? What about Blu-Ray support? Again not guessing but rough ideas.
Apple doesn't have to provide such information to consumers. Apple does have to in the business world because competition does.
You ever hear of Windows 7 - Microsoft's next OS. Its probably 3-5 years away. /quote]
Are those dog years or human years?
How many of the features promised for Vista vanished by the time it launched? Can you buy a Mac today with a version before 10.5 pre-installed? How about trying to buy a PC with XP (how long after Vista launched?).
My impression talking to support people who favour Windows is that they would be only too happy if Vista curled up and died.
A road map is only as good as the destination.
Business rely on them before they spend money as one way they don't get screwed over.
- the cost of trying out the idea is the cost of a Mac & an iPhone
- which isn't going to be prohibitive for anyone with an idea
I think it's a good trojan horse to get more Macs into previously Windows-only shops
Remember, Apple would not be in the position they are in if they never offered the iPod to Windows users. Even today, I would bet that Apple sells upwards of 90% of its iPods to Windows users not Mac users.
Safari for Windows was released not for consumer browsing but for business applications. Think about it. It goes along with the iPhone SDK. Safari for Windows bridges the gap between iPhone and the notebook/desktop. Something Apple needs to be considered in business. Right now, the iPhone isn't intended to replace a notebook/desktop but rather to work in conjunction with it.
If Apple released the iPhone SDK for Windows what harm could have come out of it? Less Mac's sold in the enterprise realm? Guess what they weren't being sold to begin with. I would like to see the market research that suggests that Windows shops will buy Macs just to try out a free development tool.
If Apple announced the iPhone SDK for Windows what would happen is that Apple would have many, many more potential iPhone developers on their hands. I really don't think that many people aren't going to buy a Mac just to play with the iPhone SDK.
Comments
Here is how both approaches work to my knowledge (if I am wrong somewhere, please correct me):
...
It remains to be seen how Apple implements Direct Push and Active Sync and what might be implemented on the carrier side as well. I am sure there will be in-depth reviews and comparisons in late Summer.
The cost, support and single failure point of the NOC seems to be the achilles heel for RIM. I can see why Apple is directly going after the Enterprise in this regard
Very informative, especially for a first post. Welcome to AI.
NOC's are here to stay. As I posted earlier they serve a vital function in either a fixed or mobile network environment.
Sorry, I don't see any rationale for NOCs surviving long term or why push e-mail has to drain the battery any faster than being on standby for receiving phone calls.
You make good points. I think most kids these days are so used to stealing software and media that the limitation of their self imposed entitlement offends them when they have to jump through hoops to steal it.
Yes, Gramps, it's all these darn spoiled kids... The future looks dark... In our day yada yada yada...
Give me a fricken break. Obviously the anger over the iPod touch issue is very simple and has nothing to do with an "entitlement" attitude of any generation. See if you can follow along with me. I'll even use bullets to make it concise for your old senile memory.
1) The Iphone and correspondingly the Ipod Touch were repeatedly represented as devices whose functionality can grow over time through firmware updates.
2) Firmware updates for nearly every other popular consumer electronics device have been free of charge, and NOT JUST bug fixes, but new functionality added. Think computer hardware driver updates, game console firmware, and even personal media player firmware updates. A few recent examples would be the Playstation 3 receiving an update to it's Blu-ray profile and media playing capability. The first generation Zune players received the second generation's user interface and functionality. There are many, many more examples I'm sure.
3) The iPhone itself receives these firmware updates free of charge.
Regardless of the SOX accounting issues faced by Apple over the device updates, The problem lies in the fact that other popular companys' products don't seem to have the same problem, and that creates a major problem of perception. In addition, most people believe Apple could choose the upgrade fee, and "legally" make it significantly less than the $20 of the last update.
Sorry, I don't see any rationale for NOCs surviving long term or why push e-mail has to drain the battery any faster than being on standby for receiving phone calls.
I think the problem here is just terminalogy. All, and I mean all Telco's have NOC's. They will be around. RIM/BB could loosely be using the term to discribe their operations center but in a different context. They may do similar things but for different reasons.
Here is how both approaches work to my knowledge (if I am wrong somewhere, please correct me):
Microsoft (Direct Push)
1. Device initiates a TCP connection to server server. Among other things it sets a heartbeat interval.
2. Server holds the TCP connection until the heartbeat expires (TCP IDLE)
3. If no new mail arrives before the heartbeat expires the device sends "ping" (small data packet) to reset the timer
4. if new email arrives before the heartbeat expires, the server will notify the device
5. The device then pulls the email off the server using the Active Sync Protocol
If the network connection is dropped any time (e.g. device was turned off) the server waits until the device initiates a connection. If there is newer mail since the last sync the server notifies the device and it then initiates an Active Sync. Active Sync is reliable and can handle interrupted transfers.
This is similar to the IMAP IDLE.
Blackberry:
The basic difference here is that the carrier needs to support a local NOC. This is why you have specific Blackberry pricing with your carriers. The BES Server monitors the Exchange Server and when new mail is detected it sends it to the NOC (usually the BES is connected over a VPN tunnel to the NOC).
Once mail it as the NOC it informs the device that new messages are waiting. This needs to be supported by the carrier you are using. The message send to the Blackberry is similar to receive a text message or notifying a phone about an incoming call. The the message is send to the Blackberry. This is similar how two-way pagers worked which are the root for Blackberries. As said it needs to be supported by the carriers to some extent.
What about bandwidth and battery life?
The less information is exchanged the longer the battery will hold. Blackberries are very efficient here. But they always require a NOC infrastructure for it and a carrier that is connected to the NOC.
Also there is a significant difference in transmitted bytes when using Microsoft's Direct Push compared to the RIM solution when attachments are involved. This has something do to with the fact that the Blackberry doesn't really download attachments compared to Microsoft's Direct Push, where the information is always downloaded to the device (or at least in part until you want to download the full message). Therefore comparing bandwidth of the two approaches is not really fair. Also the additional BES server handles know file formats different.
Blackberries use a proprietary protocol and Microsoft uses SSL. Also Blackberries use UDP and not TCP. All this reduced the network overhead. But again we are talking bytes here. With EDGE and 3G this doesn't make a big difference. The TCO of Blackberries rise as mobile data communication get cheaper and faster.
The longer battery life is more theoretical. In real life it is totally negligible as the data packages for the pings and the initial server communication are very very small.
The downside is that a NOC infrastructure is essential for Blackberries. Which means single point of failure, dependent on a specific vendor, security implications (these are IMHO huge) etc.
With Direct Push you are not dependent on a specific vendor or carrier. You simply rely on your own infrastructure and any available network infrastructure. If it is WLAN, Internet, land line, a cellular net it doesn't matter. In the end it is a TCP connection from and to the device and the medium used doesn't matter.
Also Direct Push could make use of NOCs in a similar way to RIM but doesn't require one. If cellular carries support Direct Push in their networks (handing the heartbeats for example) the advantage of Blackberries are gone regarding the signaling of new messages. But you don't require one which makes it easier to adopt the technology, especially for small and medium sized businesses as well as the individual.
In addition you can implement Active Sync and Direct Push very efficient in a Device to optimize data usage. The implementation in the existing WM devices is far from optimal.
It remains to be seen how Apple implements Direct Push and Active Sync and what might be implemented on the carrier side as well. I am sure there will be in-depth reviews and comparisons in late Summer.
Great post. Just to add, as I read more and more, I realize that the term NOC is misused by RIM to describe its infrastructure. Telco's, GSM operators, hell even Saudi Aramco have NOC, or Network Operations Centers, and all three perform different functions. Telco's use the NOC's to montior network traffic, provision systems, etc.... NOC's will remain an integral part of all network facilities.
It will be interesting to see how Apple implements PUSH in their handsets. Battery life will surely be a factor as with PUSH the phone has to constantly inform the servers that it is alive and ready to receive something. It my be more prudent to use polling at a fixed rate or manually.
Are those dog years or human years?
How many of the features promised for Vista vanished by the time it launched? Can you buy a Mac today with a version before 10.5 pre-installed? How about trying to buy a PC with XP (how long after Vista launched?).
My impression talking to support people who favour Windows is that they would be only too happy if Vista curled up and died.
A road map is only as good as the destination.
Try setting your iphone to check email every 5 minutes and compare the battery life to manual email check. It's a huge difference. I'm guessing this is what they are referring to as a longer battery life does lead to an improved user experience. Server outages are temporary annoyances. Short battery life is a permanent annoyance. We will have to wait and see how the battery is affected by push email on the iPhone.
Here's another experiment. Turn your cell phone off unless you are making a call or expecting an incoming call, and compare the time between charges with leaving it on (if you want your phone as a means of being contactable, you won't want to do this). Your phone has to regularly check in with the network to tell it where to route calls. This isn't for free. Same issue with WiFi: even if you are not accurately transmitting, the network needs to know where you are.
I think it's very important to point out that the SDK itself is complete; it's NOT a beta. The iPhone 2.0 software update is in beta, and includes the new firmware with the App Store and enterprise capabilities + the complete SDK. Scott Forrestal said in his presentation that the SDK is the same one Apple has been using to create iPhone apps.
Again, the SDK itself is complete; it's NOT A BETA.
Good point.
Just to clarify, the SDK is also free isn't it?
- you just need to pay the $99/year to publish on the AppStore, right?
And the SDK is fully available today
- so you can write & download apps to your iPhone today, but just not publish?
Quite frankly, the SDK should have been made for Windows as well. If Apple is truly serious about the enterprise they need to do this (while they are at it, they also need to license out Mac OS X Server). I work in IT in an all Windows shop. People outside of IT don't realize how embedded the business world is with Windows...
I see the initial cost of iPhone development very prohibitive. You need to buy a iPhone, Mac, XCODE training (if there is even such a thing), maybe a XSERVE for deployment testing. Seems quite of a lot money just to test out an idea. You better have one hell of an idea.
I couldn't disagree more
- the cost of trying out the idea is the cost of a Mac & an iPhone
- which isn't going to be prohibitive for anyone with an idea
I think it's a good trojan horse to get more Macs into previously Windows-only shops
Good point.
Just to clarify, the SDK is also free isn't it?
- you just need to pay the $99/year to publish on the AppStore, right?
And the SDK is fully available today
- so you can write & download apps to your iPhone today, but just not publish?
The SDK only allows you to work via a emulator, you can't put the apps onto the iphone hardware.
Yes, Gramps, it's all these darn spoiled kids... The future looks dark... In our day yada yada yada...
Give me a fricken break. Obviously the anger over the iPod touch issue is very simple and has nothing to do with an "entitlement" attitude of any generation. See if you can follow along with me. I'll even use bullets to make it concise for your old senile memory.
1) The Iphone and correspondingly the Ipod Touch were repeatedly represented as devices whose functionality can grow over time through firmware updates.
2) Firmware updates for nearly every other popular consumer electronics device have been free of charge, and NOT JUST bug fixes, but new functionality added. Think computer hardware driver updates, game console firmware, and even personal media player firmware updates. A few recent examples would be the Playstation 3 receiving an update to it's Blu-ray profile and media playing capability. The first generation Zune players received the second generation's user interface and functionality. There are many, many more examples I'm sure.
3) The iPhone itself receives these firmware updates free of charge.
Regardless of the SOX accounting issues faced by Apple over the device updates, The problem lies in the fact that other popular companys' products don't seem to have the same problem, and that creates a major problem of perception. In addition, most people believe Apple could choose the upgrade fee, and "legally" make it significantly less than the $20 of the last update.
No little boy, this is how it works...
1) true, and they do
2) if other devices provide firmware enhancements 'free' its because they see that as the only way they can get the feature distributed, and most likely as a way to enable some other revenue stream. But they are not 'free'... you pay for them in the form of the feature enabled by the update, or in future product. Also, firmware enhancements to enable features are different than bug fixes. bug fixes should be free. I have no expectation that feature enhancements must be.
3) iPHONE UPDATES ARE NOT FREE! THEY'RE PAID FOR OUT OF THE MONTHLY SUBSCRIPTION CHARGES!
Do we have to include pictures so that you children can understand that? Nothing's free.
Apple is selling you hardware + limited software at a base price. You want more you pay.
Sony sells you a PS3 and what do you know FREE firmware updates. THEY ARE NOT FREE, the price is included in every game and every movie (blu-ray) you buy. You Still pay for the software. Just like with Apple.
Are you under the impression that those handsets are "free?"
Depends on how you look at it. Sure, the costs are built in to the price of the service plan. It might not be truly free, but with the iPhone it's still extra.
Some companies don't charge you directly (like apple) but actually indirectly (sony/ps3/blu-ray).
Apple is selling you hardware + limited software at a base price. You want more you pay.
Sony sells you a PS3 and what do you know FREE firmware updates. THEY ARE NOT FREE, the price is included in every game and every movie (blu-ray) you buy. You Still pay for the software. Just like with Apple.
The costs are embedded as are the R&D cost. Things cost money. Apple is not in the biz of giving anything away for free, and I recognize this. My only gripe might be in the price they charge or the way they go about getting money. This "accounting" issue is just plain stupid the way they explained it. The thing to do would have been to embed the cost somewhere else and be done with it.
Depends on how you look at it. Sure, the costs are built in to the price of the service plan. It might not be truly free, but with the iPhone it's still extra.
By 'extra' I assume you actually mean "more upfront costs", because there is a lot of internet evidence that suggests the total cost of ownership is cheaper for the iPhone.
Though, now that the major US carriers have lowered the cost of unlimited data rates things may be different. I believe AT&T wen't from $40 to $35 recently after Verizona nd Sprint altered their plans.
Dave,
It's the iPhone software that is being updated to version 2, not the iPhone. It's a software upgrade. From your posting, it sounds like you think that iPhone 2 is a new iPhone? That's coming, but this is all about upgrading the features of the existing hardware.
Mark
Hi Mark,
Welcome to AI.
No. I know the update coming in June is not a new phone. I was simply referring to the fact that historically Apple doesn't let anyone know of when new products or product updates are on the way.
Dave
How can Windows 7 screenshots help you plan to purchase your next computer? Furthermore, Microsoft allowed many PC manufacturers to claim they were Vista enabled when in reality they weren't.
Let's compare that scenario with Apple's announcement of OSX, it worked with the iMac as announced by SJ.
Product road maps are very important for business customers as they give reassurance to enterprise customer of the company's direction before they spend big $$$ on one company's offering. Road maps aren't intended to be "this is exactly what our future will look like".
Historically, Apple has never really provided product roadmaps. For instance, when is the 3G iPhone going to be released (general terms, not guessing)? What about Blu-Ray support? Again not guessing but rough ideas.
Apple doesn't have to provide such information to consumers. Apple does have to in the business world because competition does.
You ever hear of Windows 7 - Microsoft's next OS. Its probably 3-5 years away. /quote]
Are those dog years or human years?
How many of the features promised for Vista vanished by the time it launched? Can you buy a Mac today with a version before 10.5 pre-installed? How about trying to buy a PC with XP (how long after Vista launched?).
My impression talking to support people who favour Windows is that they would be only too happy if Vista curled up and died.
A road map is only as good as the destination.
Business rely on them before they spend money as one way they don't get screwed over.
I couldn't disagree more
- the cost of trying out the idea is the cost of a Mac & an iPhone
- which isn't going to be prohibitive for anyone with an idea
I think it's a good trojan horse to get more Macs into previously Windows-only shops
Remember, Apple would not be in the position they are in if they never offered the iPod to Windows users. Even today, I would bet that Apple sells upwards of 90% of its iPods to Windows users not Mac users.
Safari for Windows was released not for consumer browsing but for business applications. Think about it. It goes along with the iPhone SDK. Safari for Windows bridges the gap between iPhone and the notebook/desktop. Something Apple needs to be considered in business. Right now, the iPhone isn't intended to replace a notebook/desktop but rather to work in conjunction with it.
If Apple released the iPhone SDK for Windows what harm could have come out of it? Less Mac's sold in the enterprise realm? Guess what they weren't being sold to begin with. I would like to see the market research that suggests that Windows shops will buy Macs just to try out a free development tool.
If Apple announced the iPhone SDK for Windows what would happen is that Apple would have many, many more potential iPhone developers on their hands. I really don't think that many people aren't going to buy a Mac just to play with the iPhone SDK.
Dave