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.
I have to agree with you here. Switching apps is bit more of pain in the ass on a Phone than on a Computer....
and I really shouldn't have to elaborate for you to get my point.
I can very easily see myself preferring to surf the web while I sit on the couch by using an iPad. If the device provides a good experience, it won't really matter that it doesn't do anything that I can't already do with another device.
Only time will tell, but I'm betting on it being a winner.
Totally agree. When I first saw the product, I didn't like the name, and I couldn't see myself buying it.
But then I realized that it fits my usage patterns! I typically do some emailing/surfing early in the evening on the iMac, but later as I wind down for the night, I plop down on the couch to watch TV and surf the web on the iPhone.
I could see myself just using the iPad in the den to take the place of what I currently use the iPhone for.
And I'm also starting to read more on the iPhone -- and the iPad would be a bigger screen for reading.
I still don't like the name though -- I think the "i" has played out now.
Uh, no. No uninvited malware on Macs, haven't been for years.
Trojans can come in all sorts of ways, in fact on the App Store right now there are Apps gleaming information and sending it online without your knowledge or consent.
You mean like Google Voice?
Because nobody has closed a computers OS before. Phones are one thing, but computers are designed to be open, until now that is.
Pure Koolaid. I want control over my machine.
If I don't like apps calling out over the internet, letting god knows who know exactly when, what and where I run a particular app, it's my choice to block that communication.
If Apple doesn't allow a app to multi-task or blocks the snitching app from the App Store, then that blocks my RIGHT to run what I want ON MY MACHINE.
Just like Google Voice...
Apple decides what is good for you and you can't decide for yourself.
Is that choice? No it's censorship and control.
Apple has been getting too buddy-buddy with China lately.
1. So malware is the big Achilles flaw on Apple platforms? where you been the last 15 years of windows virus history?
2. You should read the "terms and conditions" of each app. Thats the place that will tell you if the app will collect info and how will do it. It is up to you to accept the terms. NOBODY is forcing you.
3. Google voice... so its one rejected app of 140,000 apps, who cares? That is google strategy to undermine Apple & AT&T from inside. It is unfair for the carrier to have a hog that not only allows you to use the cellphone on its OWN network to be used to make calls without pay and also use data bandwidth to achieve it.
4. If you want free for all, get a freaking windows! where the software (windows) don't give a dam about you.. Just their own profit, go spend several hundred thru they years with antivirus, driver hunting and frustration.
5. Control...That is precisely that closed thinking that doen't allow microsoft to come out with original products, services, etc. They can only show from time to time an idea that dies as concept and thats it. No real commitment to what they build and how to make it better and hassle free for the user. Not everyone is a geek/it.
6. "Buddy with China" that one cracked me up! Still LMAO at it. Unless you wasn't at all aware that the every country in the world make business with China since hundred of years ago and almost all technologies in some way are derived from chinese you are just another blind anti comi more in the world. If you tear up your beloved windows machine at least 80% of it was made in china, not to mention your tv, cell phone, car parts, etc etc etc. maybe even your
A carrier that offers a phone with a contract, pays the manufacture of the phone full price. Note that full price is not necessarily the 'full retail price' that a single consumer would pay for the phone, but possibly a 'quantity discount' price.
For example:
Apple lists the iPhone for $440 retail.
A carrier offers the iPhone for $90 plus a 2 year contract.
The carrier pays Apple $440 (less a quantity discount (wholesale) if available.
The carrier recovers the $350 difference which is buried in the monthly fees over the period of the contract.
For a carrier to offer an iPhone for $0, he would still have to pay Apple their 'wholesale' price. In this case, the carrier either increases the monthly fees to recover the $90 difference or take a lower profit.
The previous poster implied that for Apple to go to a $0 phone, it would put itself at a disadvantage to other handset makers, because it would need an extra $100 from the carrier. What I was trying to point out was that the carrier could still subsidize the exact same amount, with Apple taking the hit because Apple would simply reduce the retail (quantity discount) price.
I see it as logical for Google to enter the mobile business, because that's obviously the only way they could have protected their internet advertising business. Now the question is, could they have worked with Apple or is where we are today a logical conclusion. I think Jobs was being a little deceptive when he said that Apple didn't move into Google's search space. Of course Apple wasn't interested in that. But with Apple moving into the mobile market, I think it was rather difficult for Google to anticipate if Apple would co-operate or not when it came to browser design, especially with Apple not allowing outside browsers early on. Did Google have to make their own browser to protect their internet ad business or could they have worked with Google to protect their interests? It's tough to say.
I don't think Apple has a problem with Android being on lots of phones branded by other companies. It's the Google branded phone that's the threat referred to by Jobs because Google could use its advertising revenue to subsidize. Google could offer a Google phone to a carrier for $100 instead of $350 because they would make it up through ads.
So yes, of course, Android is needed for Google. And Apple is fine with that, and has known about it for a long time.
Prior to the rumor of the Google phone, Apple had given Google no reason to worry about having the default search position in Safari or Mobile Safari.
Quote:
Except that dumbphones still outsell smartphones.
Yes, in 2009, there were approx 957m dumbphones and 171m smartphones sold worldwide; smartphones were 15% of all 1.13b phones (total phones down 5% from 2008). But in the 4Q09, smartphones grew 30% yoy, and the same or more is expected for 2010, so forecast for over 250m smartphones out of 1.1b phones in 2010 (or 23%). In US, forecast is 30-40% smartphones sold in 2010 (currently, 17%). In Europe, the forecast is 50% smartphones sold.
In 4Q, the ASP of Nokia's dumbphones was 40 EUR or $55; Nokia sold 364m dumbphones in 2009 (vs 408m in 2008). The ASP for iPhones was $638; Apple sold 25m iPhones in 2009 (vs 13.7m in 2008). Nokia's dumbphone is about $5b more than Apple iPhone revenue in 2009. It wouldn't surprise many people if Apple reaches 40m iPhones in 2010; assuming ASPs decrease to $600, that's still 24b in revenue. Let's say Nokia recovers and dominates dumbphones so it again reaches 400m in 2010. Let's say its dumbphone ASP goes to $50 (same rate of decrease as in 2009), and you get $20b in revenue.
Conclusion: Nokia won't disappear overnight, but it really needs to sell smartphones, as that's the dramatically growing portion of the cellphone market.
Quote:
I think Apple fans look at this wrong. People who buy Nokia phones aren't looking for a once a year device release on a halo phone. They want devices that are released periodically. I'd look at the N97, the N900, etc. as stacking up nicely as a family against the iPhone. I wouldn't expect Nokia to come out with just one halo phone. Their customers would be severely disappointed if they did that.
I don't expect once a year releases from Nokia. You may think they're stacking up nicely, but the N-series phones have declined from 11.4m in 4Q07 to 4.6m in 4Q09 (vs 8.7m iPhones and 10m+ BBs). And Nokia is rumored to have offered a 10% price cut today. Their smartphones have the most advanced "features" but they are just not in demand in the US and Europe.
As for Apple cutting prices, look at the iPad - it's $629 (16GB w/3G). Compared to that, could Apple make a $299 8GB iPhone (free when subsidized)? It's not out of the question.
Like with everything else in capitalism, the price is what the market will bear. If the phone's software [which generate high margins (e.g. Microsoft!)] generate intangible qualities that get people to pay more for comparable hardware, then so be it. If people won't pay because they don't think it's worth it, the price will drop (have you heard of buy 1 get 1 free?)
Quote:
May I ask why you are comparing one subset of Nokia's products, to one phone of Apple. Why don't you compare Nokia's smartphones, or one smartphone to Apple, or have the average sale price of all Nokia's phones, after all Nokia doesn't separate them in their summaries?
If you read the exchange, Jetz was making a point about how Nokia could do well even without smartphones; I was just offering factual data. So here's the data you want: the ASP for all Nokia phones was 63 EUR in 4Q09. And Nokia has begun providing separate data in their summaries - that's exactly where I get the data from. Nokia said the ASP for their converged devices (i.e. smartphones) was 186 EUR in 4Q; and 190 EUR in 3Q.
If you just step back and consider the mindset that would lead to even bothering to write such an article, let alone run with it, you have to assume the iPad is driving the tech press slowly insane. Maybe they could just start running posts that say "It's a witch!"
They wrote the articles to sell advertising. There is no need to assume such bizarre motivations.
Comments
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.
I have to agree with you here. Switching apps is bit more of pain in the ass on a Phone than on a Computer....
and I really shouldn't have to elaborate for you to get my point.
I can very easily see myself preferring to surf the web while I sit on the couch by using an iPad. If the device provides a good experience, it won't really matter that it doesn't do anything that I can't already do with another device.
Only time will tell, but I'm betting on it being a winner.
Totally agree. When I first saw the product, I didn't like the name, and I couldn't see myself buying it.
But then I realized that it fits my usage patterns! I typically do some emailing/surfing early in the evening on the iMac, but later as I wind down for the night, I plop down on the couch to watch TV and surf the web on the iPhone.
I could see myself just using the iPad in the den to take the place of what I currently use the iPhone for.
And I'm also starting to read more on the iPhone -- and the iPad would be a bigger screen for reading.
I still don't like the name though -- I think the "i" has played out now.
Uh, no. No uninvited malware on Macs, haven't been for years.
Trojans can come in all sorts of ways, in fact on the App Store right now there are Apps gleaming information and sending it online without your knowledge or consent.
You mean like Google Voice?
Because nobody has closed a computers OS before. Phones are one thing, but computers are designed to be open, until now that is.
Pure Koolaid. I want control over my machine.
If I don't like apps calling out over the internet, letting god knows who know exactly when, what and where I run a particular app, it's my choice to block that communication.
If Apple doesn't allow a app to multi-task or blocks the snitching app from the App Store, then that blocks my RIGHT to run what I want ON MY MACHINE.
Just like Google Voice...
Apple decides what is good for you and you can't decide for yourself.
Is that choice? No it's censorship and control.
Apple has been getting too buddy-buddy with China lately.
1. So malware is the big Achilles flaw on Apple platforms? where you been the last 15 years of windows virus history?
2. You should read the "terms and conditions" of each app. Thats the place that will tell you if the app will collect info and how will do it. It is up to you to accept the terms. NOBODY is forcing you.
3. Google voice... so its one rejected app of 140,000 apps, who cares? That is google strategy to undermine Apple & AT&T from inside. It is unfair for the carrier to have a hog that not only allows you to use the cellphone on its OWN network to be used to make calls without pay and also use data bandwidth to achieve it.
4. If you want free for all, get a freaking windows! where the software (windows) don't give a dam about you.. Just their own profit, go spend several hundred thru they years with antivirus, driver hunting and frustration.
5. Control...That is precisely that closed thinking that doen't allow microsoft to come out with original products, services, etc. They can only show from time to time an idea that dies as concept and thats it. No real commitment to what they build and how to make it better and hassle free for the user. Not everyone is a geek/it.
6. "Buddy with China" that one cracked me up! Still LMAO at it. Unless you wasn't at all aware that the every country in the world make business with China since hundred of years ago and almost all technologies in some way are derived from chinese you are just another blind anti comi more in the world. If you tear up your beloved windows machine at least 80% of it was made in china, not to mention your tv, cell phone, car parts, etc etc etc. maybe even your
underwear.
Please get real.
Just a slight clarification on subsidization.
It is the carrier that does the subsidizing.
A carrier that offers a phone with a contract, pays the manufacture of the phone full price. Note that full price is not necessarily the 'full retail price' that a single consumer would pay for the phone, but possibly a 'quantity discount' price.
For example:
Apple lists the iPhone for $440 retail.
A carrier offers the iPhone for $90 plus a 2 year contract.
The carrier pays Apple $440 (less a quantity discount (wholesale) if available.
The carrier recovers the $350 difference which is buried in the monthly fees over the period of the contract.
For a carrier to offer an iPhone for $0, he would still have to pay Apple their 'wholesale' price. In this case, the carrier either increases the monthly fees to recover the $90 difference or take a lower profit.
The previous poster implied that for Apple to go to a $0 phone, it would put itself at a disadvantage to other handset makers, because it would need an extra $100 from the carrier. What I was trying to point out was that the carrier could still subsidize the exact same amount, with Apple taking the hit because Apple would simply reduce the retail (quantity discount) price.
I see it as logical for Google to enter the mobile business, because that's obviously the only way they could have protected their internet advertising business. Now the question is, could they have worked with Apple or is where we are today a logical conclusion. I think Jobs was being a little deceptive when he said that Apple didn't move into Google's search space. Of course Apple wasn't interested in that. But with Apple moving into the mobile market, I think it was rather difficult for Google to anticipate if Apple would co-operate or not when it came to browser design, especially with Apple not allowing outside browsers early on. Did Google have to make their own browser to protect their internet ad business or could they have worked with Google to protect their interests? It's tough to say.
I don't think Apple has a problem with Android being on lots of phones branded by other companies. It's the Google branded phone that's the threat referred to by Jobs because Google could use its advertising revenue to subsidize. Google could offer a Google phone to a carrier for $100 instead of $350 because they would make it up through ads.
So yes, of course, Android is needed for Google. And Apple is fine with that, and has known about it for a long time.
Prior to the rumor of the Google phone, Apple had given Google no reason to worry about having the default search position in Safari or Mobile Safari.
Except that dumbphones still outsell smartphones.
Yes, in 2009, there were approx 957m dumbphones and 171m smartphones sold worldwide; smartphones were 15% of all 1.13b phones (total phones down 5% from 2008). But in the 4Q09, smartphones grew 30% yoy, and the same or more is expected for 2010, so forecast for over 250m smartphones out of 1.1b phones in 2010 (or 23%). In US, forecast is 30-40% smartphones sold in 2010 (currently, 17%). In Europe, the forecast is 50% smartphones sold.
In 4Q, the ASP of Nokia's dumbphones was 40 EUR or $55; Nokia sold 364m dumbphones in 2009 (vs 408m in 2008). The ASP for iPhones was $638; Apple sold 25m iPhones in 2009 (vs 13.7m in 2008). Nokia's dumbphone is about $5b more than Apple iPhone revenue in 2009. It wouldn't surprise many people if Apple reaches 40m iPhones in 2010; assuming ASPs decrease to $600, that's still 24b in revenue. Let's say Nokia recovers and dominates dumbphones so it again reaches 400m in 2010. Let's say its dumbphone ASP goes to $50 (same rate of decrease as in 2009), and you get $20b in revenue.
Conclusion: Nokia won't disappear overnight, but it really needs to sell smartphones, as that's the dramatically growing portion of the cellphone market.
I think Apple fans look at this wrong. People who buy Nokia phones aren't looking for a once a year device release on a halo phone. They want devices that are released periodically. I'd look at the N97, the N900, etc. as stacking up nicely as a family against the iPhone. I wouldn't expect Nokia to come out with just one halo phone. Their customers would be severely disappointed if they did that.
I don't expect once a year releases from Nokia. You may think they're stacking up nicely, but the N-series phones have declined from 11.4m in 4Q07 to 4.6m in 4Q09 (vs 8.7m iPhones and 10m+ BBs). And Nokia is rumored to have offered a 10% price cut today. Their smartphones have the most advanced "features" but they are just not in demand in the US and Europe.
As for Apple cutting prices, look at the iPad - it's $629 (16GB w/3G). Compared to that, could Apple make a $299 8GB iPhone (free when subsidized)? It's not out of the question.
As a consumer, that is the totally wrong.
Like with everything else in capitalism, the price is what the market will bear. If the phone's software [which generate high margins (e.g. Microsoft!)] generate intangible qualities that get people to pay more for comparable hardware, then so be it. If people won't pay because they don't think it's worth it, the price will drop (have you heard of buy 1 get 1 free?)
May I ask why you are comparing one subset of Nokia's products, to one phone of Apple. Why don't you compare Nokia's smartphones, or one smartphone to Apple, or have the average sale price of all Nokia's phones, after all Nokia doesn't separate them in their summaries?
If you read the exchange, Jetz was making a point about how Nokia could do well even without smartphones; I was just offering factual data. So here's the data you want: the ASP for all Nokia phones was 63 EUR in 4Q09. And Nokia has begun providing separate data in their summaries - that's exactly where I get the data from. Nokia said the ASP for their converged devices (i.e. smartphones) was 186 EUR in 4Q; and 190 EUR in 3Q.
http://reviews.cnet.com/2300-3121_7-...tag=mncol;thum
above reasons why i should buy a netbook over a iPad, then I should just buy a laptop?
Choosing a laptop vs a netbook is a different decision. Choosing a good netbook over the iPad is an easy decision.
I see no advantages in the iPad over a good netbook for me. I'm still waiting for a great tablet computer.
If you just step back and consider the mindset that would lead to even bothering to write such an article, let alone run with it, you have to assume the iPad is driving the tech press slowly insane. Maybe they could just start running posts that say "It's a witch!"
They wrote the articles to sell advertising. There is no need to assume such bizarre motivations.