No its not. That was their downfall before. They want control, but they NEED other manpower to produce this stuff.
To call iPad "not open" like that MS guy did is foolish. 140 000 aps is not "closed"
I think that when they say "open" they mean open to attacks... like virus and trojan horse of the PC world. The whole ethos of Apple is to avoid such openness.... who wants a system that is wide open to attack from 50,000 threats every millisecond of the day.
Also we want something that works, not causes one headache after another because of missing .dll files and xygheeelmnop.sys isn't configured properly yada, yada, yada...... My win7 system is already "missing" files at startup lol, most stupid thing in the world. I can't be bothered to fix it and neither apparently are MS. It still "works" after I close out several windows... but how dumb can an operating system get? I don't want to be an IT guy in order to be productive on my machine... when will you people get that? "Open" is a steaming pile of.........
Don't be ridiculous! Of course the iPhone (and the iPod) are closed. Just because there are 100,000 apps doesn't make it not closed! Apple decides what apps go in and what doesn't. Not you. Apple decides what types of apps get in. You don't. A cage is still a cage, no matter how gilded!
Two points:
1. The obvious reason, to me at least, for a "closed" (your term, not mine) device from Apple is to guarantee, as much as possible, the positive experience designed into all Apple devices. This philosophy,if you agree with it or not, is what makes Apple the successful company that it is. The business model they have chosen has turned Apple into one of the fastest, if not the fastest growing (by revenue) companies in it's field of endeavor. To ignore that success and continue to rant against that philosophy is asinine IMO unless, of course, you have an ulterior motive.
2. There are many examples in the real world of similar "closed" devices that nobody seems to have a problem with ... television being one of them. Nobody wants to tinker with the insides of a TV to "expand" it's capabilities but somehow we expect that of the computing industry. You buy a TV and use it as it comes ... the networks and delivery companies decide what and how much you will pay for each channel and, for the most part, people are happy to just enjoy their TV the way it is.
The solution is obvious ... check out any device and see if it works for you. If it does, buy it and enjoy it ... if it doesn't ... don't buy it. Vote with your wallet ... the marketplace will decide if Apple has a winner or not ... not you or me or any other individual . How arrogant to think that our opinion is the only correct one.
The iPhone has multi-tasking (very good multi-tasking, in fact, as it runs a sibling of Mac OS X based on the Mach kernel). There is a (fully pre-emptive multitasking) Unix OS in any Mac, iPhone, iPod Touch, Apple TV and future iPad.
What iPhone OS does is limit the actual multitasking to a few Apple-provided apps. It does that because it trades off the user experience of having multiple apps running with the user experience of having a long battery life (and app speed).
It would be possible for Apple in the future to open up multitasking to apps that have been reviewed on their effect on energy consumption while running in the background.
First you say it does, then you say it doesn't . Make up your mind. Have you actually ever seen the iPhone switch from Safari to Message or Email and back again in one fell swoop? I doubt it. Playing music and and collecting data are NOT running Apps as we know it on our Mac. Imagine if your music played on your Mac but there was no dock and you had to constantly relaunch the full app over and over again. Not pretty.
Maybe it's just me but I fully understand Apple's positioning here. Flash and other tools like Microsoft's Silverlight are just propietary layers over what should be a non-proprietary.
If I can get most of the benefits of Flash within an open markup language like HTML that's what I want.
Yep. Absolutely. Unfortunately, Apple is fighting the battle nobody wants to fight and they will look bad for it.
what gets me is this guy Kotatsu talking about Apple being closed system because it does not support Flash. Do you actually know that Flash and Sliverlight are closed system apps.
Btw talking of big brother do you walk down your high street and not have every camera looking at you in UK, especially London, so please big brother is already looking at you, stop spouting crap paranoid when you already live in one.
First generation iPad has it's downsides, but if you look at the competition... oh, wait...
do you mean like the iPhone and iPod touch?
Lol, just kidding. I think the troll issue wouldn't be so bad if all over the net, people are reviewing the ipad negitivly, a first in a long time. So polor opposite to what the air got.
Now people are comparing this to ATV. It also would have help if not just Monday and Tuesday that most hear pleaded for a non giant iPod.
I don't know why everyone decided to deny that but most thougt Apples device would have some sort of super osx lite operating system and when some brought up the app store and the comments started coming about the new device being like a giant iPod, most defended Jobs saying after several years there would be no way a giant iPod came out.
I think had the all you can watch deal had gone through, people would have snapped it up in droves as long as you could get some external out for the future. Plus apple could make os changes before the release that would help it out a lot.
You are correct, it's not 90%, it's 75% but if you look up streaming tv shows it's either flash 98 or silver 2. Again, had Apple gotten the all you can watch fir 30$, you would have seen a lot of sales not to mention the millions that would drop their cable for this package. Satilite people though watch sports live. They would probably not purchas this program unless it was an ad on. But it didn't happen, so many users have nothing to retort back with.
Quote:
Originally Posted by docyoast
Excellent remark.
Quote:
Originally Posted by pmz
Correct, and 90% of Flash implementation is utterly worthless.
Why are we even debating this BS? 75 Million iPhones/iPod touch. They don't give a good damn about Flash. I'd even wager that at least 40 million wouldn't even know what it was if you asked them.
I have to point out, Nintendo has balls to say they're "totally unimpressed" and "just a big iPod Touch." If that's true then its exactly what Nintendo should be worrying about considering the "small iPod touch" ruined their industry-long lead in mobile gaming.
Nintendo is losing to the iPhone OS, and now it just got kicked into overdrive.
Ballmer rudely denounced the iPhone in Jan 2007 and has now made himself look like an ass because of it. The guy is so deluded that he compared the Motorola Q as being a great alternative to the iPhone.
Nokia? Yeah I'm sure the mobile phone market in 3rd world countries is working out great as your back door strategy. When you make $4 phones and dump them on people for free, there are bound to be piles of them everywhere.
iPhone OS is the most popular Mobile OS for web browsing In The World. As millions of iPads begin flying out the door, how will this fact be affected? Gee...I wonder.
pmz makes a great point about Flash that also works for the multitasking debate. 75 million users currently don't have either and seem pretty satisfied.
Some people, however, want to tell those 75 million that they are completely wrong.
Wait a minute. So since I have an iPhone I am part of that 75 right. Well I also have several macs that have flash and never have a problem with it and amable to watch complete shows withittle interuption. For others, they use bittorent and with a product like Perian, you can watch almost anything. I find it intersting that not once was a download show in QuickTime yet ironic that this is how some if the editors work, with QuickTime. The files are just to large. A one hour drama would be huge in HD if it was QuickTime. In xvid it can range from 350MB to 1.37GB. My connection is 30 Meg or 3MB per second. Was told by the end of the year we will see 10-50MB per second. Not bad. That would be a complete show in 7 seconds, downloaded.
I think for the time being, we should all hold off on making judgement though as Apple could do a lot of things software and even hardware changes (stylus), before it's actually released.
We'll see the microscopic camera in the display in the next few years as the transmission speeds get faster (carrier).
As long as they allow other browsers on here that can handle flash, I'm good. It really cripples the experience to browse a page and have a portion you just can't see. Like it or not, till HTML5 becomes more popular (and we are a long ways away from that...particularly in the non-English part of the internet), flash is handy to access content. I don't care what anybody says or whose fault it is. From a user perspective this is indefensible.
For those complaining about pop-ups, there's always pop-up blockers. And if you don't like Flash, then give the user the option to block it. But at the end of the day, Apple and Adobe's inability to work together has crippled the user experience.
...I'll always be a little suspicious that at least some of this had to do with the fact that flash could enable competing media apps that could cost Apple revenue:
Correct, and 90% of Flash implementation is utterly worthless.
Why are we even debating this BS? 75 Million iPhones/iPod touch. They don't give a good damn about Flash. I'd even wager that at least 40 million wouldn't even know what it was if you asked them.
That's a rather disingenuous argument. So buying an iPhone automatically means that you don't care about accessing Flash content? I'd argue that's it's tolerable on an iPhone/iTouch because nobody really spends that long surfing the web on those devices (as they would on a computer), and because the vast majority of those 75 million users have a non-Apple computer as their main platform on which they can regularly access flash content. But on a device that's essentially built to browse the web, and is being portrayed as an alternative to nebooks, this is not relevant?
Quote:
Originally Posted by pmz
Nokia? Yeah I'm sure the mobile phone market in 3rd world countries is working out great as your back door strategy. When you make $4 phones and dump them on people for free, there are bound to be piles of them everywhere.
That does not make Nokia's argument any less relevant. They are the biggest mobile devices maker in the world. Just because Apple got called out on it's intellectual dishonesty does not mean the other side has a less relevant point. I love and use Apple product everyday. But I don't think it does anyone any good to defend their intellectual dishonesty and swallow their marketing whole without any questions.
Quote:
Originally Posted by pmz
iPhone OS is the most popular Mobile OS for web browsing In The World. As millions of iPads begin flying out the door, how will this fact be affected? Gee...I wonder.
That'll change now that the other guys are slowly gearing up. As more and more Android devices head out the door, and more WM7 devices come on stream, Safari mobile's market share is bound to drop. Moreover, if Apple wants to count laptops in this category, than is Safari really the most popular mobile browser 'in the world'?
What 'intellectual dishonesty'? What are you talking about? Care to explain your premise?
Read the article. I think Nokia's fairly pointed out why they sell more mobile devices every year. Plus, I'd argue it's a pretty WAG stat to mix phone, music player, and notebook sales in one stat. If you want that kind of cross-platform comparison, shouldn't you compare an operating system family? For example, let's talk all Windows mobile devices from laptops to cellphones.
And if the other poster is going to talk about Nokia's $4 phones being sold in the third world (and that really should be developing world btw), then are iPod nanos really relevant to this stat? At least every one of Nokia's '$4 phones' can access the web. Last I checked, my Shuffle can't do that.
Yeah, sure. We've been waiting for this 'gearing up' since 2007.
'Slowly' is the operative word. I'd add to that, pathetically so.
Fair point. But does it really matter? In the end it doesn't really matter how long they take. What matters is the impact they have.
I wouldn't write off Android yet, now that Google is more actively driving it's hardware development as well. This year will see lots of Android phones and even a few tablets. And even if not a single one of them does not sell as well as its Apple counterpart, it won't matter if they sell sufficiently in aggregate. They could start driving the popularity of Chrome and Android itself. For now though, Apple has the lead. Though I see it as quite tenuous. Google could easily catch up.
Personally, I would not mind that. Competition is good for the consumer. I hate that Google dominates the web and Apple dominates hardware.
That by the computer's calculator is 6.64 B USD. That's a bit less than 8.46 B EUR. This is according to the SEC filing.
But like I said, I'm no accountant so I don't know why these numbers don't add up.
But if the SEC numbers (and betanews reporting) are the real comparative numbers, then what?
Regs, Jarkko
Anant corrected your Apple numbers above, but I'm not sure why you're comparing it to 8.46B EUR for Nokia. Nokia's own spokesperson only used 8.18B EUR for their devices and services comparison. The remaining NAVTEQ and network divisions were not included. Not that it really matters.
Ah, invoking the fanboy. Surely a quality and logical argument will be presented.
Quote:
I'd much sooner have a Win7 tablet than the iPad. It may not look at pretty but at least it would be able to multi-task, run flash, use Skype video chat, and install any application I like.
I can think of two places (pandora and GPS trails app) where I would actually need multitasking. I have no doubt Apple will one day introduce multitasking - but they will do it in a way that is manageable by non-techies. One of the more popular apps on Android is a utility that helps you manage your phone! Yup, there is a recipe for broad market adoption! There are far more non-technical people in the world than people who are comfortable managing their devices.
Heck, I can manage a device if I have to - I did for years with Windows Mobile - but it was a PITA! I can and even I don't want to. If you want to, fine - Android or WinMo are the platforms for you. Have fun!
Quote:
The iPad is a worrying step in home computing
Really? Worrying? Is Apple going to come to your house and confiscate your other equipment?
Quote:
a move from open platforms to an incredibly closed, restrictive platform.
So don't buy it. The market will decide which model is more appropriate. Why are "open" people so threatened by something different than what they are offering? If the concept for "open" was so superior, it should be able to compete on it's own.
Afraid of a little competition from a different philosophy?
Quote:
People accept limitations on smart phones because they are tiny and underpowered
I don't have any limitations on my iPhone - well, other than being able to run Pandora in the background. On the scale of issues to have to deal with, that's pretty frigging minor. Esp. compared to the historical alternatives.
If you want to talk about restrictive, how about the Windows Mobile phone I ditched for the iPhone? For being an "open" platform it was restrictive in that it was so cumbersome to use that I pretty much gave up and just used it as a phone. But it was "open" - I could download crapware from anywhere on the Internet and install it. Even if I found a decent program, it was still hobbled by the OS that surrounded it.
Android isn't bad, but it has some pretty glaring deficiencies and isn't nearly as polished as the iPhone. But it has lots of features and it's "open"!
Quote:
but on a laptop/netbook type system, no chance. It's either open or not worth considering for a second.
I have a funny suspicion there aren't as many people who are concerned about "open" as you are.
Quote:
Apple should have just sold it as a Kindle competitor (although not of course outside the US, where Apple will not sell ebooks at all).
Yup, that's the way to be successful - try to share a niche market with a device that's just as limited.
Brilliant.
Quote:
By going after the netbook market all the do is illustrate how incredibly primative and limited the iPad is. My first computer ever (a Commodore 64) was more open than an iPad.
1) The iPad isn't going after the netbook market.
2) There is no netbook market. It's the "I think I can get a full notebook for $300" market - and it's drying up as people find out that netbooks are not a replacement for a full blown laptop. Yes, netbooks have a niche but the real irony is the netbook niche is smaller than the iPad niche.
But don't take my word for it - let's bookmark this thread and come back in a year
3) Most people don't care about "open".
Philosophy doesn't do work for me. Computers and devices like the iPhone and soon to be iPad are tools. If they do what I want, they are good. If they don't, I won't use them. I couldn't care less if a device is "open", I'm far more interested in if it's "useful". "useful" is a good concept - it translates into accomplishing things. Hand wringing over "open" may be exciting for pontificating on the Internet and an interesting philosophy to live by, but it's not interesting enough for me to be a slave to the dogma. If it works for you, use it. If it doesn't, great -but enough with the "open" crap already. Talk about a total red herring.
Comments
No its not. That was their downfall before. They want control, but they NEED other manpower to produce this stuff.
To call iPad "not open" like that MS guy did is foolish. 140 000 aps is not "closed"
I think that when they say "open" they mean open to attacks... like virus and trojan horse of the PC world. The whole ethos of Apple is to avoid such openness.... who wants a system that is wide open to attack from 50,000 threats every millisecond of the day.
Also we want something that works, not causes one headache after another because of missing .dll files and xygheeelmnop.sys isn't configured properly yada, yada, yada...... My win7 system is already "missing" files at startup lol, most stupid thing in the world. I can't be bothered to fix it and neither apparently are MS. It still "works" after I close out several windows... but how dumb can an operating system get? I don't want to be an IT guy in order to be productive on my machine... when will you people get that? "Open" is a steaming pile of.........
Um, you should not bring up Disney when discussing the iPad. You get the blue lego brick where video normally appears. Yeah, Flash.
As the major shareholder of Disney, I do think The Steve should pioneer the non flash computing world on this site at least..
Don't be ridiculous! Of course the iPhone (and the iPod) are closed. Just because there are 100,000 apps doesn't make it not closed! Apple decides what apps go in and what doesn't. Not you. Apple decides what types of apps get in. You don't. A cage is still a cage, no matter how gilded!
Two points:
1. The obvious reason, to me at least, for a "closed" (your term, not mine) device from Apple is to guarantee, as much as possible, the positive experience designed into all Apple devices. This philosophy,if you agree with it or not, is what makes Apple the successful company that it is. The business model they have chosen has turned Apple into one of the fastest, if not the fastest growing (by revenue) companies in it's field of endeavor. To ignore that success and continue to rant against that philosophy is asinine IMO unless, of course, you have an ulterior motive.
2. There are many examples in the real world of similar "closed" devices that nobody seems to have a problem with ... television being one of them. Nobody wants to tinker with the insides of a TV to "expand" it's capabilities but somehow we expect that of the computing industry. You buy a TV and use it as it comes ... the networks and delivery companies decide what and how much you will pay for each channel and, for the most part, people are happy to just enjoy their TV the way it is.
The solution is obvious ... check out any device and see if it works for you. If it does, buy it and enjoy it ... if it doesn't ... don't buy it. Vote with your wallet ... the marketplace will decide if Apple has a winner or not ... not you or me or any other individual . How arrogant to think that our opinion is the only correct one.
The iPhone has multi-tasking (very good multi-tasking, in fact, as it runs a sibling of Mac OS X based on the Mach kernel). There is a (fully pre-emptive multitasking) Unix OS in any Mac, iPhone, iPod Touch, Apple TV and future iPad.
What iPhone OS does is limit the actual multitasking to a few Apple-provided apps. It does that because it trades off the user experience of having multiple apps running with the user experience of having a long battery life (and app speed).
It would be possible for Apple in the future to open up multitasking to apps that have been reviewed on their effect on energy consumption while running in the background.
First you say it does, then you say it doesn't . Make up your mind. Have you actually ever seen the iPhone switch from Safari to Message or Email and back again in one fell swoop? I doubt it. Playing music and and collecting data are NOT running Apps as we know it on our Mac. Imagine if your music played on your Mac but there was no dock and you had to constantly relaunch the full app over and over again. Not pretty.
Maybe it's just me but I fully understand Apple's positioning here. Flash and other tools like Microsoft's Silverlight are just propietary layers over what should be a non-proprietary.
If I can get most of the benefits of Flash within an open markup language like HTML that's what I want.
Yep. Absolutely. Unfortunately, Apple is fighting the battle nobody wants to fight and they will look bad for it.
Btw talking of big brother do you walk down your high street and not have every camera looking at you in UK, especially London, so please big brother is already looking at you, stop spouting crap paranoid when you already live in one.
Excellent remark.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Povilas
First generation iPad has it's downsides, but if you look at the competition... oh, wait...
do you mean like the iPhone and iPod touch?
Lol, just kidding. I think the troll issue wouldn't be so bad if all over the net, people are reviewing the ipad negitivly, a first in a long time. So polor opposite to what the air got.
Now people are comparing this to ATV. It also would have help if not just Monday and Tuesday that most hear pleaded for a non giant iPod.
I don't know why everyone decided to deny that but most thougt Apples device would have some sort of super osx lite operating system and when some brought up the app store and the comments started coming about the new device being like a giant iPod, most defended Jobs saying after several years there would be no way a giant iPod came out.
I think had the all you can watch deal had gone through, people would have snapped it up in droves as long as you could get some external out for the future. Plus apple could make os changes before the release that would help it out a lot.
Excellent remark.
Correct, and 90% of Flash implementation is utterly worthless.
Why are we even debating this BS? 75 Million iPhones/iPod touch. They don't give a good damn about Flash. I'd even wager that at least 40 million wouldn't even know what it was if you asked them.
I have to point out, Nintendo has balls to say they're "totally unimpressed" and "just a big iPod Touch." If that's true then its exactly what Nintendo should be worrying about considering the "small iPod touch" ruined their industry-long lead in mobile gaming.
Nintendo is losing to the iPhone OS, and now it just got kicked into overdrive.
Ballmer rudely denounced the iPhone in Jan 2007 and has now made himself look like an ass because of it. The guy is so deluded that he compared the Motorola Q as being a great alternative to the iPhone.
Nokia? Yeah I'm sure the mobile phone market in 3rd world countries is working out great as your back door strategy. When you make $4 phones and dump them on people for free, there are bound to be piles of them everywhere.
iPhone OS is the most popular Mobile OS for web browsing In The World. As millions of iPads begin flying out the door, how will this fact be affected? Gee...I wonder.
pmz makes a great point about Flash that also works for the multitasking debate. 75 million users currently don't have either and seem pretty satisfied.
Some people, however, want to tell those 75 million that they are completely wrong.
Wait a minute. So since I have an iPhone I am part of that 75 right. Well I also have several macs that have flash and never have a problem with it and amable to watch complete shows withittle interuption. For others, they use bittorent and with a product like Perian, you can watch almost anything. I find it intersting that not once was a download show in QuickTime yet ironic that this is how some if the editors work, with QuickTime. The files are just to large. A one hour drama would be huge in HD if it was QuickTime. In xvid it can range from 350MB to 1.37GB. My connection is 30 Meg or 3MB per second. Was told by the end of the year we will see 10-50MB per second. Not bad. That would be a complete show in 7 seconds, downloaded.
I think for the time being, we should all hold off on making judgement though as Apple could do a lot of things software and even hardware changes (stylus), before it's actually released.
We'll see the microscopic camera in the display in the next few years as the transmission speeds get faster (carrier).
I'll be the first to admit I'm bad at finding fiscal data for Apple (couldn't see a product based layout on Apple's site), but according to:
http://www.betanews.com/joewilcox/ar...fit/1255985794
Portables = 2,78 B USD
iPods = 1,56 B USD
iPhones = 2,3 B USD
That by the computer's calculator is 6.64 B USD. That's a bit less than 8.46 B EUR. This is according to the SEC filing.
But like I said, I'm no accountant so I don't know why these numbers don't add up.
But if the SEC numbers (and betanews reporting) are the real comparative numbers, then what?
Regs, Jarkko
Your numbers are incorrect. Here's the actual data, from p. 35 of their 10Q of January 25, 2010 (USD millions):
Mac Portables: $2,758
iPod: $3,391
iPhone: $5,578
TOTAL: $11,727 (~8.4 billion Euros, at an exchange rate of $1.40/Euro).
Source: http://phx.corporate-ir.net/External...xUeXBlPTM=&t=1
For those complaining about pop-ups, there's always pop-up blockers. And if you don't like Flash, then give the user the option to block it. But at the end of the day, Apple and Adobe's inability to work together has crippled the user experience.
...I'll always be a little suspicious that at least some of this had to do with the fact that flash could enable competing media apps that could cost Apple revenue:
http://www.wired.com/gadgetlab/2008/11/adobe-flash-on/
But it's still hard to tell whose fault this really is. So I blame them both.
Correct, and 90% of Flash implementation is utterly worthless.
Why are we even debating this BS? 75 Million iPhones/iPod touch. They don't give a good damn about Flash. I'd even wager that at least 40 million wouldn't even know what it was if you asked them.
That's a rather disingenuous argument. So buying an iPhone automatically means that you don't care about accessing Flash content? I'd argue that's it's tolerable on an iPhone/iTouch because nobody really spends that long surfing the web on those devices (as they would on a computer), and because the vast majority of those 75 million users have a non-Apple computer as their main platform on which they can regularly access flash content. But on a device that's essentially built to browse the web, and is being portrayed as an alternative to nebooks, this is not relevant?
Nokia? Yeah I'm sure the mobile phone market in 3rd world countries is working out great as your back door strategy. When you make $4 phones and dump them on people for free, there are bound to be piles of them everywhere.
That does not make Nokia's argument any less relevant. They are the biggest mobile devices maker in the world. Just because Apple got called out on it's intellectual dishonesty does not mean the other side has a less relevant point. I love and use Apple product everyday. But I don't think it does anyone any good to defend their intellectual dishonesty and swallow their marketing whole without any questions.
iPhone OS is the most popular Mobile OS for web browsing In The World. As millions of iPads begin flying out the door, how will this fact be affected? Gee...I wonder.
That'll change now that the other guys are slowly gearing up. As more and more Android devices head out the door, and more WM7 devices come on stream, Safari mobile's market share is bound to drop. Moreover, if Apple wants to count laptops in this category, than is Safari really the most popular mobile browser 'in the world'?
Just because Apple got called out on it's intellectual dishonesty does not mean the other side has a less relevant point.
What 'intellectual dishonesty'? What are you talking about? Care to explain your premise?
That'll change now that the other guys are slowly gearing up.
Yeah, sure. We've been waiting for this 'gearing up' since 2007.
'Slowly' is the operative word. I'd add to that, pathetically so.
What 'intellectual dishonesty'? What are you talking about? Care to explain your premise?
Read the article. I think Nokia's fairly pointed out why they sell more mobile devices every year. Plus, I'd argue it's a pretty WAG stat to mix phone, music player, and notebook sales in one stat. If you want that kind of cross-platform comparison, shouldn't you compare an operating system family? For example, let's talk all Windows mobile devices from laptops to cellphones.
And if the other poster is going to talk about Nokia's $4 phones being sold in the third world (and that really should be developing world btw), then are iPod nanos really relevant to this stat? At least every one of Nokia's '$4 phones' can access the web. Last I checked, my Shuffle can't do that.
Yeah, sure. We've been waiting for this 'gearing up' since 2007.
'Slowly' is the operative word. I'd add to that, pathetically so.
Fair point. But does it really matter? In the end it doesn't really matter how long they take. What matters is the impact they have.
I wouldn't write off Android yet, now that Google is more actively driving it's hardware development as well. This year will see lots of Android phones and even a few tablets. And even if not a single one of them does not sell as well as its Apple counterpart, it won't matter if they sell sufficiently in aggregate. They could start driving the popularity of Chrome and Android itself. For now though, Apple has the lead. Though I see it as quite tenuous. Google could easily catch up.
Personally, I would not mind that. Competition is good for the consumer. I hate that Google dominates the web and Apple dominates hardware.
Can anyone explain the HateBois?
Their mamas didn't luv 'em!
I'll be the first to admit I'm bad at finding fiscal data for Apple (couldn't see a product based layout on Apple's site), but according to:
http://www.betanews.com/joewilcox/ar...fit/1255985794
Portables = 2,78 B USD
iPods = 1,56 B USD
iPhones = 2,3 B USD
That by the computer's calculator is 6.64 B USD. That's a bit less than 8.46 B EUR. This is according to the SEC filing.
But like I said, I'm no accountant so I don't know why these numbers don't add up.
But if the SEC numbers (and betanews reporting) are the real comparative numbers, then what?
Regs, Jarkko
Anant corrected your Apple numbers above, but I'm not sure why you're comparing it to 8.46B EUR for Nokia. Nokia's own spokesperson only used 8.18B EUR for their devices and services comparison. The remaining NAVTEQ and network divisions were not included. Not that it really matters.
Oh the fanboys are out already I see.
Ah, invoking the fanboy. Surely a quality and logical argument will be presented.
I'd much sooner have a Win7 tablet than the iPad. It may not look at pretty but at least it would be able to multi-task, run flash, use Skype video chat, and install any application I like.
I can think of two places (pandora and GPS trails app) where I would actually need multitasking. I have no doubt Apple will one day introduce multitasking - but they will do it in a way that is manageable by non-techies. One of the more popular apps on Android is a utility that helps you manage your phone! Yup, there is a recipe for broad market adoption! There are far more non-technical people in the world than people who are comfortable managing their devices.
Heck, I can manage a device if I have to - I did for years with Windows Mobile - but it was a PITA! I can and even I don't want to. If you want to, fine - Android or WinMo are the platforms for you. Have fun!
The iPad is a worrying step in home computing
Really? Worrying? Is Apple going to come to your house and confiscate your other equipment?
a move from open platforms to an incredibly closed, restrictive platform.
So don't buy it. The market will decide which model is more appropriate. Why are "open" people so threatened by something different than what they are offering? If the concept for "open" was so superior, it should be able to compete on it's own.
Afraid of a little competition from a different philosophy?
People accept limitations on smart phones because they are tiny and underpowered
I don't have any limitations on my iPhone - well, other than being able to run Pandora in the background. On the scale of issues to have to deal with, that's pretty frigging minor. Esp. compared to the historical alternatives.
If you want to talk about restrictive, how about the Windows Mobile phone I ditched for the iPhone? For being an "open" platform it was restrictive in that it was so cumbersome to use that I pretty much gave up and just used it as a phone. But it was "open" - I could download crapware from anywhere on the Internet and install it. Even if I found a decent program, it was still hobbled by the OS that surrounded it.
Android isn't bad, but it has some pretty glaring deficiencies and isn't nearly as polished as the iPhone. But it has lots of features and it's "open"!
but on a laptop/netbook type system, no chance. It's either open or not worth considering for a second.
I have a funny suspicion there aren't as many people who are concerned about "open" as you are.
Apple should have just sold it as a Kindle competitor (although not of course outside the US, where Apple will not sell ebooks at all).
Yup, that's the way to be successful - try to share a niche market with a device that's just as limited.
Brilliant.
By going after the netbook market all the do is illustrate how incredibly primative and limited the iPad is. My first computer ever (a Commodore 64) was more open than an iPad.
1) The iPad isn't going after the netbook market.
2) There is no netbook market. It's the "I think I can get a full notebook for $300" market - and it's drying up as people find out that netbooks are not a replacement for a full blown laptop. Yes, netbooks have a niche but the real irony is the netbook niche is smaller than the iPad niche.
But don't take my word for it - let's bookmark this thread and come back in a year
3) Most people don't care about "open".
Philosophy doesn't do work for me. Computers and devices like the iPhone and soon to be iPad are tools. If they do what I want, they are good. If they don't, I won't use them. I couldn't care less if a device is "open", I'm far more interested in if it's "useful". "useful" is a good concept - it translates into accomplishing things. Hand wringing over "open" may be exciting for pontificating on the Internet and an interesting philosophy to live by, but it's not interesting enough for me to be a slave to the dogma. If it works for you, use it. If it doesn't, great -but enough with the "open" crap already. Talk about a total red herring.
Serious question. It's the direction Apple are moving in, so it's not impossible to imagine that happening.
No, it's not a serious question - it's a ridiculous question. But it certainly is fun to cast Apple as evil, isn't it!