With so many Nokia smartphones around, don't you think it's disappointing that the uptake of Nokia's free email service is only just above a million after 8 months which is less than 0.5% of Nokia smartphones sold over that period.
No, I don't think it is disapointing, there are plently of free email services around that are already supported on the phones
So it is okay for Apple to make an insane profit per device, but if someone else tries it, it is bad?
Don’t be an ass, I’m fine with Nokia trying to do so, but even Nokia fans realize that the N97 is inferior in every way. It’s only saving grace is that it’s OS is so weak compared to the iPhone and Pre that it doesn’t need modern hardware, but that doesn’t mean that Nokia is doing itself any favours for charging so much for the device.
That also doesn’t mean Nokia is making the sam profit as Apple is or even Palm for the respective devices. Apple has a simpler focus and tighter controls so it’s quite possible Apple can use better components while still turning a higher profit.
You should never begrudge a company for making money, and I’ve read your posts here, you either pooh pooh Apple for being profitable while looking for any chance to see if Apple’s profits dropped at all so you can scream “look, people aren’t buying because they charge too much!” As long as you have a choice to buy or not to buy there is no problem with a company’s profit, i just wish companies like Nokia would restructure with a better focus for the future before they loss the entire profitable part of the segment.
As a consumer, I don't like corporations making such a huge profit of me.
As a consumer you have a choice of what to buy, this is your power.
Quote:
Originally Posted by jfanning
No, I don't think it is disapointing, there are plently of free email services around that are already supported on the phones
Offering "push" and other services along the lines of Mobile Me, with shortcuts built into the phone and advertising with the phone packaging it's mainly been focussed on the E series, once again it points to Nokia padding the figures by selling smartphones which aren't being used as smartphones.
And perhaps that has made them a little complacent.
The market has shifted from hardware to software and Nokia's response has been to wait and see what happens. They have waited too long, and this response is inadequate.
Symbian is too old, odd and fragile to compete with more modern phone OSs.
The move to Maemo is sensible. But should have happened years ago.
A Linux based OS is great. In many ways, Linux is no better or no worse than the Unix-based OS X.
But it isn't Unix that makes the iPhone attractive for users and developers. That's not the important part.
The iPhone has three legs on its stool.
OS X (which has an interface built by...)
Cocoa (which is auto-magically rendered by...)
Hardware acceleration.
These three components work together seamlessly to make the iPhone a very slick platform. When you build an app, you can build it from standard parts, run it in native code, and have all the heavy lifting done for you. All the interface is written. Everything makes use of the GPU without the programmer needing to write a single line of code.
If Maemo had the equivalent of this holy trinity , then Nokia would be able to say that they were competitive with the iPhone. They'd have a fighting chance. Despite being 2 years late to the party.
But Maemo does not.
Maemo is just the OS. Not the application UI framework. Not the free hardware acceleration. 3rd party developers would be a little better off than with Symbian. But not by much.
Worst still, Nokia themselves will be less able to create applications. Each app is going to cost them more. It will take longer to develop.
Trying to catch up is difficult.
But if are forced to proceed slower than the leader, it is impossible.
Aonce again it points to Nokia padding the figures by selling smartphones which aren't being used as smartphones.
It doesn't matter what they are being used for, they are a smart phone, and Nokia has sold them.
If you wanted to get into that argument, what about all the laptop manufactures that are selling more of them, but I bet most of them just sit on someones desk and are never used in a portable situation.
Don?t be an ass, I?m fine with Nokia trying to do so, but even Nokia fans realize that the N97 is inferior in every way. It?s only saving grace is that it?s OS is so weak compared to the iPhone and Pre that it doesn?t need modern hardware, but that doesn?t mean that Nokia is doing itself any favours for charging so much for the device.
99.9% of consumers won't care what is in the device hardware wise, they just want the functionality.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Logisticaldron
You should never begrudge a company for making money, and I?ve read your posts here, you either pooh pooh Apple for being profitable while looking for any chance to see if Apple?s profits dropped at all so you can scream ?look, people aren?t buying because they charge too much!? As long as you have a choice to buy or not to buy there is no problem with a company?s profit, i just wish companies like Nokia would restructure with a better focus for the future before they loss the entire profitable part of the segment.
I don't 'pooh pooh' Apple for being profitable, I 'pooh pooh' the people on this site that seem excited by the large profit that Apple is making on the device.
99.9% of consumers won't care what is in the device hardware wise, they just want the functionality.
Which is why the iPhone is such a popular smartphone and why it has, on two fronts, taken the smartphone market segment from a place where only hardcore business users and sexless geeks were consumers and made it into the focus of the average consumer. All the smartphone vendors are benefiting from this in sales, even if they are losing some marketshare and higher-end customers to better devices with more functionality. And now the smartphone vendors are actually making their devices more functional by taking cues from Apple.
Note: functionality is not just simply having a feature that you jerk off to on a spec sheet. It?s about a feature that us actually useful and functional. Web browsing on a smartphone is a prime example of this.
Quote:
I don't 'pooh pooh' Apple for being profitable, I 'pooh pooh' the people on this site that seem excited by the large profit that Apple is making on the device.
RiM makes more gross profit than Apple on their devices and yet their net profit is lower. This is what happens when you have devices that are more prone to breaking due to do cheap plastic and more moving parts, when you have a multitude of devices that are built for various regions and countries and carriers you reduce your net profit. You pooh pooh Apple for being more efficient and you come down on people that are happy to see Apple turn a profit which positively affects our stock holdings in the company. I also hold Amazon and RiM so I like when they do well too.
Which is why the iPhone is such a popular smartphone and why it has, on two fronts, taken the smartphone market segment from a place where only hardcore business users and sexless geeks were consumers and made it into the focus of the average consumer. All the smartphone vendors are benefiting from this in sales, even if they are losing some marketshare and higher-end customers to better devices with more functionality. And now the smartphone vendors are actually making their devices more functional by taking cues from Apple.
Popular smart phone in the USA. Remember 50% of the sales are in the US which has 5% of the population, that doesn't make it popular.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Logisticaldron
Note: functionality is not just simply having a feature that you jerk off to on a spec sheet. It?s about a feature that us actually useful and functional. Web browsing on a smartphone is a prime example of this.
You will have to expand on this statement a bit more, it doesn't say anything.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Logisticaldron
RiM makes more gross profit than Apple on their devices and yet their net profit is lower. This is what happens when you have devices that are more prone to breaking due to do cheap plastic and more moving parts, when you have a multitude of devices that are built for various regions and countries and carriers you reduce your net profit. You pooh pooh Apple for being more efficient and you come down on people that are happy to see Apple turn a profit which positively affects our stock holdings in the company. I also hold Amazon and RiM so I like when they do well too.
I don't care how much money RIM makes, I don't own, and have no intention of purchasing a RIM device.
I don't 'pooh pooh' Apple for being more efficient (your words not mine, you haven't provided anything to quantify your efficiency guess), and I don't care how much money Apple makes on something, I just don't want to have to spend more money for something than I have to.
Except that in the mobile space, the overwhelming majority of applications do not make low level API calls. They all call higher-level API calls which are different for each distro. So essentially this is more like three different OSes, each of which just happens to be based on Linux. It isn't like the desktop space where applications will run on pretty much any distro. Each of these variants will have its unique ecosystem which won't overlap with the other. If the companies behind them play their cards right they could succeed in becoming a significant presence in the mobile space.
How does that fragmentation help Linux? It's not like it is easy to develop for more than one Linux distro anyway. Software vendors target RHES, SLES and Ubuntu LTS and let the rest of the users figure out installs themselves.
Quote:
Your statement implies that somehow BSD, as the result of some legacy Unix code, is Unix and Linux isn't.
Yes. BSDs can trace back directly to the unix codebase. As can most uncertified unixes. Linux was a clean code base built against Unix APIs.
Quote:
I frankly don't see why - the two systems diverged over 15 years ago and have changed significantly since. Not to mention the fact, that ever since 1992 when the lawsuit was settled, every other Unix-like OS (Linux included) has been free to incorporate BSD code while BSD itself cannot appropriate code covered by more restrictive licenses (which effectively means that it cannot appropriate any other "Unix" code at all).
That GPL is a one-way street is well understood by BSD users. On the plus side, BSDs have zfs and linux doesn't.
Quote:
Also, in one sense, OS X is the least-Unixy of the lot because it is architecturally quite different from all the other Unixes. It comes from NextStep which was based on the Mach microkernel, which has nothing to do with the original AT&T source code. Everything else has a monolithic kernel like the original Bell Labs version did.
The userland is from FreeBSD and NeXTStep which also inherited BSD code. OSF/1 was also mach based and a true unix. These are all "genetic" unix systems that can trace to code from original unix systems (SysV or BSD).
Quote:
Well, it isn't, as you say, that easy - it is going to require a non-trivial amount of time and effort, not to mention money - but, in the larger scheme of things, it is not terribly hard. I have seen news reports that say that Red Hat and Novell are, regardless, in favor of the idea but the final arbiter of all kernel changes is Linus and he is adamantly against it.
It isn't as if there hasn't been kernel changes to make RHEL EAL 4+. That they don't get into the official kernel is just something that RH has to deal with when patching.
You are utterly wrong here! Not only is Linux not derived from Minix but it *is* UNIX! I forget which company it was that payed for the UNIX certification.
That would be because none have. IBM dumped a lot of AIX code into Linux to kill Sun. They succeeded. But they never paid for unix certification of Linux and neither has anyone else.
Not really, if you exclude the US, there is only an install base of around 20 million within 6 billion people, statistically it would be rare to see one.
Not really, if you exclude the US, there is only an install base of around 20 million within 6 billion people, statistically it would be rare to see one.
The move to Maemo is sensible. But should have happened years ago.
Maemo has been around for years.
With the N900 they have added a phone application and made the UI and hardware even
more attractive.
Quote:
The iPhone has three legs on its stool.
OS X (which has an interface built by...)
Cocoa (which is auto-magically rendered by...)
Hardware acceleration.
These three components work together seamlessly to make the iPhone a very slick platform. When you build an app, you can build it from standard parts, run it in native code, and have all the heavy lifting done for you. All the interface is written. Everything makes use of the GPU without the programmer needing to write a single line of code.
If Maemo had the equivalent of this holy trinity , then Nokia would be able to say that they were competitive with the iPhone. They'd have a fighting chance. Despite being 2 years late to the party.
But Maemo does not.
Maemo is just the OS. Not the application UI framework. Not the free hardware acceleration. 3rd party developers would be a little better off than with Symbian. But not by much.
Have you ever looked up what Maemo is before spreading such FUD?
Maemo has free OpenGL ES hardware acceleration, it's main component
is the the easy to use and programm Hildon UI framework.
It's build upon mature components which have been around for much
Comments
With so many Nokia smartphones around, don't you think it's disappointing that the uptake of Nokia's free email service is only just above a million after 8 months which is less than 0.5% of Nokia smartphones sold over that period.
No, I don't think it is disapointing, there are plently of free email services around that are already supported on the phones
So it is okay for Apple to make an insane profit per device, but if someone else tries it, it is bad?
Don’t be an ass, I’m fine with Nokia trying to do so, but even Nokia fans realize that the N97 is inferior in every way. It’s only saving grace is that it’s OS is so weak compared to the iPhone and Pre that it doesn’t need modern hardware, but that doesn’t mean that Nokia is doing itself any favours for charging so much for the device.
That also doesn’t mean Nokia is making the sam profit as Apple is or even Palm for the respective devices. Apple has a simpler focus and tighter controls so it’s quite possible Apple can use better components while still turning a higher profit.
You should never begrudge a company for making money, and I’ve read your posts here, you either pooh pooh Apple for being profitable while looking for any chance to see if Apple’s profits dropped at all so you can scream “look, people aren’t buying because they charge too much!” As long as you have a choice to buy or not to buy there is no problem with a company’s profit, i just wish companies like Nokia would restructure with a better focus for the future before they loss the entire profitable part of the segment.
As a consumer, I don't like corporations making such a huge profit of me.
As a consumer you have a choice of what to buy, this is your power.
No, I don't think it is disapointing, there are plently of free email services around that are already supported on the phones
Offering "push" and other services along the lines of Mobile Me, with shortcuts built into the phone and advertising with the phone packaging it's mainly been focussed on the E series, once again it points to Nokia padding the figures by selling smartphones which aren't being used as smartphones.
And perhaps that has made them a little complacent.
The market has shifted from hardware to software and Nokia's response has been to wait and see what happens. They have waited too long, and this response is inadequate.
Symbian is too old, odd and fragile to compete with more modern phone OSs.
The move to Maemo is sensible. But should have happened years ago.
A Linux based OS is great. In many ways, Linux is no better or no worse than the Unix-based OS X.
But it isn't Unix that makes the iPhone attractive for users and developers. That's not the important part.
The iPhone has three legs on its stool.
OS X (which has an interface built by...)
Cocoa (which is auto-magically rendered by...)
Hardware acceleration.
These three components work together seamlessly to make the iPhone a very slick platform. When you build an app, you can build it from standard parts, run it in native code, and have all the heavy lifting done for you. All the interface is written. Everything makes use of the GPU without the programmer needing to write a single line of code.
If Maemo had the equivalent of this holy trinity , then Nokia would be able to say that they were competitive with the iPhone. They'd have a fighting chance. Despite being 2 years late to the party.
But Maemo does not.
Maemo is just the OS. Not the application UI framework. Not the free hardware acceleration. 3rd party developers would be a little better off than with Symbian. But not by much.
Worst still, Nokia themselves will be less able to create applications. Each app is going to cost them more. It will take longer to develop.
Trying to catch up is difficult.
But if are forced to proceed slower than the leader, it is impossible.
C.
Aonce again it points to Nokia padding the figures by selling smartphones which aren't being used as smartphones.
It doesn't matter what they are being used for, they are a smart phone, and Nokia has sold them.
If you wanted to get into that argument, what about all the laptop manufactures that are selling more of them, but I bet most of them just sit on someones desk and are never used in a portable situation.
Don?t be an ass, I?m fine with Nokia trying to do so, but even Nokia fans realize that the N97 is inferior in every way. It?s only saving grace is that it?s OS is so weak compared to the iPhone and Pre that it doesn?t need modern hardware, but that doesn?t mean that Nokia is doing itself any favours for charging so much for the device.
99.9% of consumers won't care what is in the device hardware wise, they just want the functionality.
You should never begrudge a company for making money, and I?ve read your posts here, you either pooh pooh Apple for being profitable while looking for any chance to see if Apple?s profits dropped at all so you can scream ?look, people aren?t buying because they charge too much!? As long as you have a choice to buy or not to buy there is no problem with a company?s profit, i just wish companies like Nokia would restructure with a better focus for the future before they loss the entire profitable part of the segment.
I don't 'pooh pooh' Apple for being profitable, I 'pooh pooh' the people on this site that seem excited by the large profit that Apple is making on the device.
99.9% of consumers won't care what is in the device hardware wise, they just want the functionality.
Which is why the iPhone is such a popular smartphone and why it has, on two fronts, taken the smartphone market segment from a place where only hardcore business users and sexless geeks were consumers and made it into the focus of the average consumer. All the smartphone vendors are benefiting from this in sales, even if they are losing some marketshare and higher-end customers to better devices with more functionality. And now the smartphone vendors are actually making their devices more functional by taking cues from Apple.
Note: functionality is not just simply having a feature that you jerk off to on a spec sheet. It?s about a feature that us actually useful and functional. Web browsing on a smartphone is a prime example of this.
I don't 'pooh pooh' Apple for being profitable, I 'pooh pooh' the people on this site that seem excited by the large profit that Apple is making on the device.
RiM makes more gross profit than Apple on their devices and yet their net profit is lower. This is what happens when you have devices that are more prone to breaking due to do cheap plastic and more moving parts, when you have a multitude of devices that are built for various regions and countries and carriers you reduce your net profit. You pooh pooh Apple for being more efficient and you come down on people that are happy to see Apple turn a profit which positively affects our stock holdings in the company. I also hold Amazon and RiM so I like when they do well too.
Which is why the iPhone is such a popular smartphone and why it has, on two fronts, taken the smartphone market segment from a place where only hardcore business users and sexless geeks were consumers and made it into the focus of the average consumer. All the smartphone vendors are benefiting from this in sales, even if they are losing some marketshare and higher-end customers to better devices with more functionality. And now the smartphone vendors are actually making their devices more functional by taking cues from Apple.
Popular smart phone in the USA. Remember 50% of the sales are in the US which has 5% of the population, that doesn't make it popular.
Note: functionality is not just simply having a feature that you jerk off to on a spec sheet. It?s about a feature that us actually useful and functional. Web browsing on a smartphone is a prime example of this.
You will have to expand on this statement a bit more, it doesn't say anything.
RiM makes more gross profit than Apple on their devices and yet their net profit is lower. This is what happens when you have devices that are more prone to breaking due to do cheap plastic and more moving parts, when you have a multitude of devices that are built for various regions and countries and carriers you reduce your net profit. You pooh pooh Apple for being more efficient and you come down on people that are happy to see Apple turn a profit which positively affects our stock holdings in the company. I also hold Amazon and RiM so I like when they do well too.
I don't care how much money RIM makes, I don't own, and have no intention of purchasing a RIM device.
I don't 'pooh pooh' Apple for being more efficient (your words not mine, you haven't provided anything to quantify your efficiency guess), and I don't care how much money Apple makes on something, I just don't want to have to spend more money for something than I have to.
You raise good points but right now in the org it is pretty exciting
.
.
.
That's a lot of smileys..
That's a lot of smileys..
It's good to be observant.
Except that in the mobile space, the overwhelming majority of applications do not make low level API calls. They all call higher-level API calls which are different for each distro. So essentially this is more like three different OSes, each of which just happens to be based on Linux. It isn't like the desktop space where applications will run on pretty much any distro. Each of these variants will have its unique ecosystem which won't overlap with the other. If the companies behind them play their cards right they could succeed in becoming a significant presence in the mobile space.
How does that fragmentation help Linux? It's not like it is easy to develop for more than one Linux distro anyway. Software vendors target RHES, SLES and Ubuntu LTS and let the rest of the users figure out installs themselves.
Your statement implies that somehow BSD, as the result of some legacy Unix code, is Unix and Linux isn't.
Yes. BSDs can trace back directly to the unix codebase. As can most uncertified unixes. Linux was a clean code base built against Unix APIs.
I frankly don't see why - the two systems diverged over 15 years ago and have changed significantly since. Not to mention the fact, that ever since 1992 when the lawsuit was settled, every other Unix-like OS (Linux included) has been free to incorporate BSD code while BSD itself cannot appropriate code covered by more restrictive licenses (which effectively means that it cannot appropriate any other "Unix" code at all).
That GPL is a one-way street is well understood by BSD users. On the plus side, BSDs have zfs and linux doesn't.
Also, in one sense, OS X is the least-Unixy of the lot because it is architecturally quite different from all the other Unixes. It comes from NextStep which was based on the Mach microkernel, which has nothing to do with the original AT&T source code. Everything else has a monolithic kernel like the original Bell Labs version did.
The userland is from FreeBSD and NeXTStep which also inherited BSD code. OSF/1 was also mach based and a true unix. These are all "genetic" unix systems that can trace to code from original unix systems (SysV or BSD).
Well, it isn't, as you say, that easy - it is going to require a non-trivial amount of time and effort, not to mention money - but, in the larger scheme of things, it is not terribly hard. I have seen news reports that say that Red Hat and Novell are, regardless, in favor of the idea but the final arbiter of all kernel changes is Linus and he is adamantly against it.
It isn't as if there hasn't been kernel changes to make RHEL EAL 4+. That they don't get into the official kernel is just something that RH has to deal with when patching.
You are utterly wrong here! Not only is Linux not derived from Minix but it *is* UNIX! I forget which company it was that payed for the UNIX certification.
That would be because none have. IBM dumped a lot of AIX code into Linux to kill Sun. They succeeded. But they never paid for unix certification of Linux and neither has anyone else.
I could say the same thing about the iPhone, especially since it has been over a year since I have seen one in public.
Seen what? An iPhone?
Seen what? An iPhone?
Yes, I haven't seen an iPhone in public since last year.
Yes, I haven't seen an iPhone in public since last year.
WOW! That's a miracle..
WOW! That's a miracle..
Not really, if you exclude the US, there is only an install base of around 20 million within 6 billion people, statistically it would be rare to see one.
Not really, if you exclude the US, there is only an install base of around 20 million within 6 billion people, statistically it would be rare to see one.
I see. Nice calculation BTW.
The move to Maemo is sensible. But should have happened years ago.
Maemo has been around for years.
With the N900 they have added a phone application and made the UI and hardware even
more attractive.
The iPhone has three legs on its stool.
OS X (which has an interface built by...)
Cocoa (which is auto-magically rendered by...)
Hardware acceleration.
These three components work together seamlessly to make the iPhone a very slick platform. When you build an app, you can build it from standard parts, run it in native code, and have all the heavy lifting done for you. All the interface is written. Everything makes use of the GPU without the programmer needing to write a single line of code.
If Maemo had the equivalent of this holy trinity , then Nokia would be able to say that they were competitive with the iPhone. They'd have a fighting chance. Despite being 2 years late to the party.
But Maemo does not.
Maemo is just the OS. Not the application UI framework. Not the free hardware acceleration. 3rd party developers would be a little better off than with Symbian. But not by much.
Have you ever looked up what Maemo is before spreading such FUD?
Maemo has free OpenGL ES hardware acceleration, it's main component
is the the easy to use and programm Hildon UI framework.
It's build upon mature components which have been around for much
longer than 2 years.
http://maemo.org/intro/platform/
Maemo has been around for years.
..SNIP..
It's build upon mature components which have been around for much
longer than 2 years.
.. SNIP..
While I have to agree with Maemo is way nicer than Symbian Touch, it's still leagues behind iPhone/iPod Touch OS and WebOS. No match.
While I have to agree with Maemo is way nicer than Symbian Touch, it's still leagues behind iPhone/iPod Touch OS and WebOS. No match.
How do you know given that Maemo 5 will only be released when the N900 is shipping?