How can you know categorically, that Apple is IN FACT (not just supply line speculation) doing any of the things you described, here let me help you - YOU DON'T.
Strike one.
Your wayback machine is busted, or you are blind. Apple had lines out the doors at most Apple retail store buying up the 1st gen iPhone. It was successful out of the gate. Each subsequent model simply expanded that success into a significant chunk of the smartphone market segment. WinMob was massively undermined by the incursion of Android, not so much the iPhone, and still to this day the idiots in Redmond target Apple for their ire in the smartphone space while Android eats their lunch, craps in their hat, and takes off with their girlfriends (unless of course Microsoft blackmails them back into bed).
Strike two.
Being and underdog does not make any company instantly innovative - Apple either has innovation genes or not. In this case it does and it stepped into a tiny little smartphone market and disrupted it. With Android hard on their heels with a look-alike interface, and sweetheart deals for the handset makers, they owned the rest of the smartphone space and significantly eroded the bread and butter feature phone segment out from under Nokia.
Strike three.
And now up steps the ump. Microsoft is in panic mode. They dismissed the whole "post-PC" idea and stuck to their insistence that the world needs PCs. The Redmond definition of PC is "runs Windows desktop/Office", which is why they are scurrying to get a tablet reference out that will allow them to use that definition for PC tablets, something they failed to accomplish anything with for over a decade. Windows is older than the the current incarnation of the MacOS, so let's talk about some aging mediocrity there, yes? And finally as you are escorted off the field - competition is not a necessity to innovate - success is. Continued success is dependent on the ability to either incrementally improve and/or continue to innovate - Apple does both without nudges from Redmond or Mountain View. You are tossed out of the game for bringing a whiffle bat to a grownup baseball game.
Come back when you are able to play the game with the right equipment.
Can you install iOS6 on iPhone 1 or 2? Can you install Icecream on G1 etc? The answer is NO! There is always a limit on upgrading, and that is true for every device or laptop etc. WTF?
No, but those phones are 4 years or older. The Lumina is Nokia's Flagship Windows 7 phone that was released just months ago and it is now obsolete and can't upgrade to Window phone 8. Why would you spend any money on this phone and be locked in for 2 years? Nokia should had left the price the same, but allowed for an upgrade in 1 year for a moderate fee, say $100 and the cost of the new phone. Of course, that's the carrier's decision, since they're doing the subsidizing.
I just feel bad for the vendors that had bought all of the phones and now can't sell them because any knowledgable buyer would know that they won't be able to upgrade the OS past 7.X
That's precisely why Microsoft will have to develop their own hardware for Windows 8.
Err.
It's not precise nor is it the reason.
the reason is purely one of market and margins. The net outcome is that SW is now only worth about 40% of what it was. MS needs 'everyone' to buy Windows. It's their business plan. They also need to make about $100 per computer(pc/laptop/tablet/phone) to hit their numbers.
Android has undercut them in their old business plan (selling oses to OEMs), and Apple has made the iPad/iPhone cost ineffective at the high end, unless you build both the OS and HW and get the 'profits' from both.
So the reason MS is building hardware is to pocket HW profits, and be able to streamline the SW so it's cheaper/easier to make (the reason why MS software sucks is that they had to build it to support 100's of different components... thus it's generic, and it's buggy). Quite simply, to compete now in a market that is evolving to be a $400 average price (phone, 7/8" tablet, 10" tablet), you need need to be able to build it for $300. You can't be a HW Vendor and do that if your SW costs $100.
MS sees that if the market continues... they will be double cut out of the market... fewer devices running Windows/Office, and the value of windows/office is dropping. They need to start selling hardware to improve the Windows market stickiness, and to get the profit stream from HW sales to bolster the loss of revenue due to the 'software value' approaching zero.
Microsoft just sucks at roadmaps and partnerships. Name me one partnership (outside of Intel) that has 'thrived.' Nokia is just the most recent of many that have been burned by Microsoft's inability to deliver. I would never buy a device with a MS OS on it until it's confirmed it will be upgradable to the next OS.
As for iOS... that argument went in reverse for a long time (people would love Apple HW if it only ran windows). People love their interface... new ones are roadblocks for people to adapt...
I also really like Metro.
But only on a phone.
The problems:
-lack of basic software features
-lack of superior hardware with things like a high quality screen
-no apps
-forced windows features like the xbox crap
Windows 8 is a step in the right direction. But it doesn't matter because this phone isn't getting that anyway.
Can you install iOS6 on iPhone 1 or 2? Can you install Icecream on G1 etc? The answer is NO! There is always a limit on upgrading, and that is true for every device or laptop etc. WTF?
Actually HTC G1 can run ics very badly. As bad as ios 4 on iphone 3G
Hop in the wayback machine to 2007 when the iPhone came out. It hardly made a dent in the mobile sphere and it wasn't until the 3G that it took off. Here we are 5 years later. And Success! Agreed!
But if I put an iPhone in your hands in 2006 what would your reaction be?
Back then Motorola ruled the world, and it's phones sever pretty awesome. Remember the RAZR?
My point is, the Nokia Lumia 900 isn't even 6 months old... and fighting it's way up into the market.
Simply dimissing it as stupid, as dying, as Microsoft sucks - is moronic. There's A LOT of ex-iPhone users using the Nokia Lumia - including me... because it's literally a better OS. No crashes, buttery smooth. And per Steve Wozniak - it's like Steve Job got reincarnated at Microsoft.
And why the hell would Steve Wozniak say that? Because it's that good of a phone/OS.
Step away from the punch gentlemen. Apple NEEDS competition. Apple only makes a great iPad/iPhone NOW because 10 years ago, APPLE was the underdog.
Why is Apple making a 4" phone? Why is Apple making a 7" tablet? Why is Apple making an HDTV?
Because COMPETITION is making them offer it. Sure Amazon maybe sold 6 Million Kindles, but that's 6 million less iPads. Sure Samsung may suck with their 4" phones, but they sell as many phones as Apple does.
Don't root for companies who are innovating and hungry to die gentlemen.
If they succeed and compete, it allows Apple to give you better products.
Or are you guys really that much into mediocrity with your 5 year-old OS?
Only 3 devices. 30% US share. All under one roof. A locked-up, heavily-vetted ecosystem with no "choice", despite an ocean of alternatives.
And 30% US share.
Not "mediocre", but "proven."
Perfection, or something very close to it, doesn't require a great deal of change. The iOS concept - the way the OS functions,
technically and aesthetically, Just Works. Apple nailed the idea of "Mobile Operating System" from Day 1.
His number is 330K. Even if this number is low as some in the comments section have mentioned, this is the reason for the price drop. Not surprising since the phone was obsoleted just after being announced and cut off from much of the new upgrades coming in a couple of months. And being MSFTs partner, Nokia had to know about this. They wanted to get a cheaper phone to market as soon as possible. They could have put a better processor in the Lumia and allowed for it to get the full upgrade. If the numbers are really as bad as HD mentions in his piece, I would not be surprised for these phones to be given away for free soon or as a BOGO soon.
the reason is purely one of market and margins. The net outcome is that SW is now only worth about 40% of what it was. MS needs 'everyone' to buy Windows. It's their business plan. They also need to make about $100 per computer(pc/laptop/tablet/phone) to hit their numbers.
Android has undercut them in their old business plan (selling oses to OEMs), and Apple has made the iPad/iPhone cost ineffective at the high end, unless you build both the OS and HW and get the 'profits' from both.
So the reason MS is building hardware is to pocket HW profits, and be able to streamline the SW so it's cheaper/easier to make (the reason why MS software sucks is that they had to build it to support 100's of different components... thus it's generic, and it's buggy). Quite simply, to compete now in a market that is evolving to be a $400 average price (phone, 7/8" tablet, 10" tablet), you need need to be able to build it for $300. You can't be a HW Vendor and do that if your SW costs $100.
MS sees that if the market continues... they will be double cut out of the market... fewer devices running Windows/Office, and the value of windows/office is dropping. They need to start selling hardware to improve the Windows market stickiness, and to get the profit stream from HW sales to bolster the loss of revenue due to the 'software value' approaching zero.
The reasoning (I hesitate to use the word "strategy") behind Apple's competitors decisions remind me those desperate decisions a management games player takes, when, threatened to be pushed out of the game , has this brilliant idea "Ok, I will lower my price, and kill my competitors"...
Gentlemen, just meditate Steve's recipe : “A lot of companies have chosen to downsize, and maybe that was the right thing for them. We chose a different path. Our belief was that if we kept putting great products in front of customers, they would continue to open their wallets.”
This proves to me that Nokia would have been better off fully committing to MeeGo. If they had their own modern OS they could have set their own destiny. Microsoft has really shafted them with this Win8 business. Another possible advantage of MeeGo, since the UI layer is built on Qt, they could have introduced cross platforms tools to allow MeeGo apps to port easily to iOS and Android. That would be a very attractive proposition to developers, and could have gotten their application portfolio off the ground quickly.
However, from all reports I've read about Nokia, they simply were not a software company. Everything was driven from the hardware side. So, in reality they probably couldn't have made MeeGo work for them. So then, if Windows Phone fails, maybe their best hope is to suck it up and become a generic Android hardware manufacturer like all the other companies.
That analogy doesn't work because Apple didn't have competition from other modern smartphones when the iPhone was launched. They introduced a whole new category of device.
I for one am hoping that Microsoft is successful. It would thin the herd. A lot of Apple fans have the knee jerk reaction of wanting Apple to do well at all costs. This is from years of being the underdog and if you were a devote back in '97, there was serious worry that Apple was going to go belly up (they were very much like how RIM is now). Now with Apple's success, there is a developing problem of the company focusing too much on consumer products and gadgets, and ignoring the customers that have supported the company for years. With the death of the Xserve and Raid servers, the FinalCut Pro debacle, the Mac Pro languishing, and the possibility the MacBook Pro 17" is dead, it is looking like Apple is abandoning the professional user to concentrate on the more profitable consumer market. This worries me because I refuse to go back to Windows and Linux doesn't have support from Adobe for it's programs (yet). So I've abandoned the defense mechanism of Apple at all costs. I'd like for the competition to get some market share and keep Apple honest. But, unfortunately, the salad days of 2005 to 2010 for Apple power users may just be a memory.
How much of this is FUD, authored by the collective stupidity of the blogosphere, and how much of it is fact?
Let's dissect your theory that Apple doesn't "care" about "pros" whom are evidently defined by you as people who use "Adobe":
1. Apple sells a workstation / server grade Mac Pro with 12-cores, lots of RAM, and lots of storage. It supports a variety of professional external storage such as fibre channel, PCIe I/O such as SDI and HDI, as well as HDMI boards, MPEG encoder co-processors, and support for dual 27" (or legacy 30") Cinema Display monitors, as well as color calibrated monitors from NEC. If pros were really off their radar, Apple would stop making the Mac Pro altogether. As it stands, the Xeon-based Mac Pro is still a current product, receiving a trickle of updates, but that counts for something. You can be impatient with Apple, but saying they don't care about pros is a collective myth,
2. Xserve is dead. Yup. But did you use Xserve for running Photoshop? I'm guessing no. So what does it say about Apple's supposed attitude towards pros? Nothing. Xserve is a rack-mounted data center product. Data center was never a strong part of Apple's product focus, even when it was just the "pros" keeping Apple alive--before 1996, before The Return of the Great One.
3. RAID servers are dead. Does this mean you can't get RAID from other vendors? Of course not. RAID is strategic for Apple: they sell a solution only if there aren't good alternatives for Mac users. Once the ecosystem has matured, it might not make sense for Apple to stay in that peripheral business. Remember, Apple also exited the laser printing business, and their first LaserWriters defined desktop publishing in the 80s.
4. Final Cut Pro debacle. Here, I think, Apple released a half-finished product. They clearly wanted to innovate, instead of just patching the old code base. They wanted it 64-bit. But the first release of this virtual rewrite came up short in many areas that were only of interest to pros. Apple capitulated by bringing back limited licenses for old FCP. Now would a company that doesn't care about pros do that? And Apple has been adding back pro features to subsequent releases of FCPX. Is that consistent with a company that doesn't care about pros?
5. The 17" MacBook Pro is dead. The ONLY feature of the 17" MBP over the 15" MBP was the 2-inch larger screen and higher resolution screen. This would be missed by programmers. Maybe, if their screen space was crowded with toolbars and chrome. But I can think of advantages of the 15" retina display over the 17" non-retina that matters to pros: higher resolution. Sharper text. Better color fidelity. Less glare. An image that looks like a printed photo, rather than a pixelated computer display. I can't think of any pro applications that won't benefit from the retina display. Even Photoshop, Premeire Pro. Remember: the retina MBP is marketed and priced for pros, not a consumer laptop.
Conclusion? You've managed to become convinced of a myth, spawned by uninformed bloggers and chinwags, who conveniently ignore facts. The Mac is still the best platform for pro work. Prove me wrong.
Can you install iOS6 on iPhone 1 or 2? Can you install Icecream on G1 etc? The answer is NO! There is always a limit on upgrading, and that is true for every device or laptop etc. WTF?
Simple question. Is Apple still selling either of these phones as new today. Each of these phones could be upgraded for two years after it was replaced by a newer model. Androids do have this problem though. As far as computers my 2001 Mac Tower was supported for 8 years, being able to run everything up to and including Leopard. We do like being able to upgrade.
His number is 330K. Even if this number is low as some in the comments section have mentioned, this is the reason for the price drop. Not surprising since the phone was obsoleted just after being announced and cut off from much of the new upgrades coming in a couple of months. And being MSFTs partner, Nokia had to know about this. They wanted to get a cheaper phone to market as soon as possible. They could have put a better processor in the Lumia and allowed for it to get the full upgrade. If the numbers are really as bad as HD mentions in his piece, I would not be surprised for these phones to be given away for free soon or as a BOGO soon.
the double whammy... low initial sales, and then the WP8 announcement where everyone hoped to see the operating system they would be migrating to in 6 months... BAM, the terminal illness diagnosis slaps the Lumia in the face. At this point, full shelves, and no future... It's like a HP TouchPad or RIM PlayBook fire sale.
Simple question. Is Apple still selling either of these phones as new today. Each of these phones could be upgraded for two years after it was replaced by a newer model. Androids do have this problem though. As far as computers my 2001 Mac Tower was supported for 8 years, being able to run everything up to and including Leopard. We do like being able to upgrade.
the mac tower is different animal, in that it's able to be component upgraded (memory, disk, video, even CPUs).
Historically, Phones have rarely been upgraded. Prior to the iPhone, getting a new OS (not just a 'firmware' upgrade) was a rare event. OS is 'married' to the HW build (partly because too much change requires recertification cycle by the FCC). This is why your classic 'WinPhone OEM's' who now do Android, build their phones with the current OS (not the next one), tweak it to work, then sell it to a Carrier. Neither the Carrier or the OEM care to upgrade... they'd rather get a new phone with the new OS and sell that one.
And, 'we,' is a big term. MOST PEOPLE WHO BUY PHONES COULD CARE LESS about upgrades, unless they are sold a phone in the store with the 'promise' feature X will be on the phone 'the next upgrade'. My son (4th Year med school student, after working Wall Street as a Quant, so somewhat intelligent) calls me to ask 'what's in the New OS... should I upgrade?' every year. Most people just want their Apps and their Facetime... and they are happy.
The people who chat on AI, the cognizant few (at least some of us), do like new things....
the mac tower is different animal, in that it's able to be component upgraded (memory, disk, video, even CPUs).
Historically, Phones have rarely been upgraded. Prior to the iPhone, getting a new OS (not just a 'firmware' upgrade) was a rare event. OS is 'married' to the HW build (partly because too much change requires recertification cycle by the FCC). This is why your classic 'WinPhone OEM's' who now do Android, build their phones with the current OS (not the next one), tweak it to work, then sell it to a Carrier. Neither the Carrier or the OEM care to upgrade... they'd rather get a new phone with the new OS and sell that one.
And, 'we,' is a big term. MOST PEOPLE WHO BUY PHONES COULD CARE LESS about upgrades, unless they are sold a phone in the store with the 'promise' feature X will be on the phone 'the next upgrade'. My son (4th Year med school student, after working Wall Street as a Quant, so somewhat intelligent) calls me to ask 'what's in the New OS... should I upgrade?' every year. Most people just want their Apps and their Facetime... and they are happy.
The people who chat on AI, the cognizant few (at least some of us), do like new things....
I wouldnt call it rare event. Window smart phones were able to update their OS to the next version. I was able to update one of my windows smart phones at the time to the next windows smart phone via CD from microsoft
-lack of superior hardware with things like a high quality screen
-no apps
-forced windows features like the xbox crap
Windows 8 is a step in the right direction. But it doesn't matter because this phone isn't getting that anyway.
lack of basic software features- what features would those be?
lack of superior hardware with things like a high quality screen- agreed
no apps- 100,000 thats hardly no apps
forced windows features like the xbox crap- no one is forcing you to play games on the phone
Windows 8 is a step in the right direction. But it doesn't matter because this phone isn't getting that anyway. True but it will get WP7.8 which will be the parts of WP8 that are supported by the hardware
the mac tower is different animal, in that it's able to be component upgraded (memory, disk, video, even CPUs).
Historically, Phones have rarely been upgraded. Prior to the iPhone, getting a new OS (not just a 'firmware' upgrade) was a rare event. OS is 'married' to the HW build (partly because too much change requires recertification cycle by the FCC). This is why your classic 'WinPhone OEM's' who now do Android, build their phones with the current OS (not the next one), tweak it to work, then sell it to a Carrier. Neither the Carrier or the OEM care to upgrade... they'd rather get a new phone with the new OS and sell that one.
And, 'we,' is a big term. MOST PEOPLE WHO BUY PHONES COULD CARE LESS about upgrades, unless they are sold a phone in the store with the 'promise' feature X will be on the phone 'the next upgrade'. My son (4th Year med school student, after working Wall Street as a Quant, so somewhat intelligent) calls me to ask 'what's in the New OS... should I upgrade?' every year. Most people just want their Apps and their Facetime... and they are happy.
The people who chat on AI, the cognizant few (at least some of us), do like new things....
I disagree. I know people from many walks of life. The ones who buy an IPhone tend to upgrade their phones because they want the new features talked about on the news. They get lots of new capabilities and appe ensures they know it. The expectation is that since these other OSs are suppose to be what Apple's is but only better, that they wouldn't buy a phone that would be obsolete next month.
As far as my first Mac. It had nothing to do with being able to upgrade it. I never changed a part. The same hardware from 2001 is running Leopard and is listed as supported on the apple site. It will also run on the G4 flat panel iMac too
the mac tower is different animal, in that it's able to be component upgraded (memory, disk, video, even CPUs).
Historically, Phones have rarely been upgraded. Prior to the iPhone, getting a new OS (not just a 'firmware' upgrade) was a rare event. OS is 'married' to the HW build (partly because too much change requires recertification cycle by the FCC). This is why your classic 'WinPhone OEM's' who now do Android, build their phones with the current OS (not the next one), tweak it to work, then sell it to a Carrier. Neither the Carrier or the OEM care to upgrade... they'd rather get a new phone with the new OS and sell that one.
And, 'we,' is a big term. MOST PEOPLE WHO BUY PHONES COULD CARE LESS about upgrades, unless they are sold a phone in the store with the 'promise' feature X will be on the phone 'the next upgrade'. My son (4th Year med school student, after working Wall Street as a Quant, so somewhat intelligent) calls me to ask 'what's in the New OS... should I upgrade?' every year. Most people just want their Apps and their Facetime... and they are happy.
The people who chat on AI, the cognizant few (at least some of us), do like new things....
???
Prior to the iPhone anyone that could be bothered/was inclined could easilly upgrade their Windows Mobile. I was able to reflash my WM2003 BlueAngel with every single Windows Mobile OS upgrade. MS were very open with WinCE and didn't mind owners/communities cooking their own roms. Nor did firms such as HTC mind, so long as their own features (eg truFlo) weren't being ported to different brands.
Perhaps most people can't be "bothered" because their first experience of a smartphone wasn't until after 2007 and they were presented with a phone that pretty much worked out of the box.
Comments
Seriously?
How can you know categorically, that Apple is IN FACT (not just supply line speculation) doing any of the things you described, here let me help you - YOU DON'T.
Strike one.
Your wayback machine is busted, or you are blind. Apple had lines out the doors at most Apple retail store buying up the 1st gen iPhone. It was successful out of the gate. Each subsequent model simply expanded that success into a significant chunk of the smartphone market segment. WinMob was massively undermined by the incursion of Android, not so much the iPhone, and still to this day the idiots in Redmond target Apple for their ire in the smartphone space while Android eats their lunch, craps in their hat, and takes off with their girlfriends (unless of course Microsoft blackmails them back into bed).
Strike two.
Being and underdog does not make any company instantly innovative - Apple either has innovation genes or not. In this case it does and it stepped into a tiny little smartphone market and disrupted it. With Android hard on their heels with a look-alike interface, and sweetheart deals for the handset makers, they owned the rest of the smartphone space and significantly eroded the bread and butter feature phone segment out from under Nokia.
Strike three.
And now up steps the ump. Microsoft is in panic mode. They dismissed the whole "post-PC" idea and stuck to their insistence that the world needs PCs. The Redmond definition of PC is "runs Windows desktop/Office", which is why they are scurrying to get a tablet reference out that will allow them to use that definition for PC tablets, something they failed to accomplish anything with for over a decade. Windows is older than the the current incarnation of the MacOS, so let's talk about some aging mediocrity there, yes? And finally as you are escorted off the field - competition is not a necessity to innovate - success is. Continued success is dependent on the ability to either incrementally improve and/or continue to innovate - Apple does both without nudges from Redmond or Mountain View. You are tossed out of the game for bringing a whiffle bat to a grownup baseball game.
Come back when you are able to play the game with the right equipment.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sijun Jia
Can you install iOS6 on iPhone 1 or 2? Can you install Icecream on G1 etc? The answer is NO! There is always a limit on upgrading, and that is true for every device or laptop etc. WTF?
No, but those phones are 4 years or older. The Lumina is Nokia's Flagship Windows 7 phone that was released just months ago and it is now obsolete and can't upgrade to Window phone 8. Why would you spend any money on this phone and be locked in for 2 years? Nokia should had left the price the same, but allowed for an upgrade in 1 year for a moderate fee, say $100 and the cost of the new phone. Of course, that's the carrier's decision, since they're doing the subsidizing.
I just feel bad for the vendors that had bought all of the phones and now can't sell them because any knowledgable buyer would know that they won't be able to upgrade the OS past 7.X
Quote:
Originally Posted by blackbook
That's precisely why Microsoft will have to develop their own hardware for Windows 8.
Err.
It's not precise nor is it the reason.
the reason is purely one of market and margins. The net outcome is that SW is now only worth about 40% of what it was. MS needs 'everyone' to buy Windows. It's their business plan. They also need to make about $100 per computer(pc/laptop/tablet/phone) to hit their numbers.
Android has undercut them in their old business plan (selling oses to OEMs), and Apple has made the iPad/iPhone cost ineffective at the high end, unless you build both the OS and HW and get the 'profits' from both.
So the reason MS is building hardware is to pocket HW profits, and be able to streamline the SW so it's cheaper/easier to make (the reason why MS software sucks is that they had to build it to support 100's of different components... thus it's generic, and it's buggy). Quite simply, to compete now in a market that is evolving to be a $400 average price (phone, 7/8" tablet, 10" tablet), you need need to be able to build it for $300. You can't be a HW Vendor and do that if your SW costs $100.
MS sees that if the market continues... they will be double cut out of the market... fewer devices running Windows/Office, and the value of windows/office is dropping. They need to start selling hardware to improve the Windows market stickiness, and to get the profit stream from HW sales to bolster the loss of revenue due to the 'software value' approaching zero.
Quote:
Originally Posted by TheOtherGeoff
Actually Metro is pretty nice.
Microsoft just sucks at roadmaps and partnerships. Name me one partnership (outside of Intel) that has 'thrived.' Nokia is just the most recent of many that have been burned by Microsoft's inability to deliver. I would never buy a device with a MS OS on it until it's confirmed it will be upgradable to the next OS.
As for iOS... that argument went in reverse for a long time (people would love Apple HW if it only ran windows). People love their interface... new ones are roadblocks for people to adapt...
I also really like Metro.
But only on a phone.
The problems:
-lack of basic software features
-lack of superior hardware with things like a high quality screen
-no apps
-forced windows features like the xbox crap
Windows 8 is a step in the right direction. But it doesn't matter because this phone isn't getting that anyway.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sijun Jia
Can you install iOS6 on iPhone 1 or 2? Can you install Icecream on G1 etc? The answer is NO! There is always a limit on upgrading, and that is true for every device or laptop etc. WTF?
Actually HTC G1 can run ics very badly. As bad as ios 4 on iphone 3G
http://www.engadget.com/2011/11/24/htc-g1-gets-a-taste-of-ice-cream-sandwich-video/
This isn't 2006 or 2007. MS/Nokia have entered an already saturated market with nothing really compelling to offer.
Only 3 devices. 30% US share. All under one roof. A locked-up, heavily-vetted ecosystem with no "choice", despite an ocean of alternatives.
And 30% US share.
Not "mediocre", but "proven."
Perfection, or something very close to it, doesn't require a great deal of change. The iOS concept - the way the OS functions,
technically and aesthetically, Just Works. Apple nailed the idea of "Mobile Operating System" from Day 1.
Horace Dedieu's estimate on the number of phones sold by Nokia/MSFT
http://www.asymco.com/2012/07/13/how-many-lumia/
His number is 330K. Even if this number is low as some in the comments section have mentioned, this is the reason for the price drop. Not surprising since the phone was obsoleted just after being announced and cut off from much of the new upgrades coming in a couple of months. And being MSFTs partner, Nokia had to know about this. They wanted to get a cheaper phone to market as soon as possible. They could have put a better processor in the Lumia and allowed for it to get the full upgrade. If the numbers are really as bad as HD mentions in his piece, I would not be surprised for these phones to be given away for free soon or as a BOGO soon.
Quote:
Originally Posted by TheOtherGeoff
Err.
It's not precise nor is it the reason.
the reason is purely one of market and margins. The net outcome is that SW is now only worth about 40% of what it was. MS needs 'everyone' to buy Windows. It's their business plan. They also need to make about $100 per computer(pc/laptop/tablet/phone) to hit their numbers.
Android has undercut them in their old business plan (selling oses to OEMs), and Apple has made the iPad/iPhone cost ineffective at the high end, unless you build both the OS and HW and get the 'profits' from both.
So the reason MS is building hardware is to pocket HW profits, and be able to streamline the SW so it's cheaper/easier to make (the reason why MS software sucks is that they had to build it to support 100's of different components... thus it's generic, and it's buggy). Quite simply, to compete now in a market that is evolving to be a $400 average price (phone, 7/8" tablet, 10" tablet), you need need to be able to build it for $300. You can't be a HW Vendor and do that if your SW costs $100.
MS sees that if the market continues... they will be double cut out of the market... fewer devices running Windows/Office, and the value of windows/office is dropping. They need to start selling hardware to improve the Windows market stickiness, and to get the profit stream from HW sales to bolster the loss of revenue due to the 'software value' approaching zero.
The reasoning (I hesitate to use the word "strategy") behind Apple's competitors decisions remind me those desperate decisions a management games player takes, when, threatened to be pushed out of the game , has this brilliant idea "Ok, I will lower my price, and kill my competitors"...
Gentlemen, just meditate Steve's recipe : “A lot of companies have chosen to downsize, and maybe that was the right thing for them. We chose a different path. Our belief was that if we kept putting great products in front of customers, they would continue to open their wallets.”
This proves to me that Nokia would have been better off fully committing to MeeGo. If they had their own modern OS they could have set their own destiny. Microsoft has really shafted them with this Win8 business. Another possible advantage of MeeGo, since the UI layer is built on Qt, they could have introduced cross platforms tools to allow MeeGo apps to port easily to iOS and Android. That would be a very attractive proposition to developers, and could have gotten their application portfolio off the ground quickly.
However, from all reports I've read about Nokia, they simply were not a software company. Everything was driven from the hardware side. So, in reality they probably couldn't have made MeeGo work for them. So then, if Windows Phone fails, maybe their best hope is to suck it up and become a generic Android hardware manufacturer like all the other companies.
here I thought that the funeral procession at MS was for the iPhone, it was a Nokia phone that they were leading to the grave.
Quote:
Originally Posted by 2oh1
That analogy doesn't work because Apple didn't have competition from other modern smartphones when the iPhone was launched. They introduced a whole new category of device.
???? How old are you?
How much of this is FUD, authored by the collective stupidity of the blogosphere, and how much of it is fact?
Let's dissect your theory that Apple doesn't "care" about "pros" whom are evidently defined by you as people who use "Adobe":
1. Apple sells a workstation / server grade Mac Pro with 12-cores, lots of RAM, and lots of storage. It supports a variety of professional external storage such as fibre channel, PCIe I/O such as SDI and HDI, as well as HDMI boards, MPEG encoder co-processors, and support for dual 27" (or legacy 30") Cinema Display monitors, as well as color calibrated monitors from NEC. If pros were really off their radar, Apple would stop making the Mac Pro altogether. As it stands, the Xeon-based Mac Pro is still a current product, receiving a trickle of updates, but that counts for something. You can be impatient with Apple, but saying they don't care about pros is a collective myth,
2. Xserve is dead. Yup. But did you use Xserve for running Photoshop? I'm guessing no. So what does it say about Apple's supposed attitude towards pros? Nothing. Xserve is a rack-mounted data center product. Data center was never a strong part of Apple's product focus, even when it was just the "pros" keeping Apple alive--before 1996, before The Return of the Great One.
3. RAID servers are dead. Does this mean you can't get RAID from other vendors? Of course not. RAID is strategic for Apple: they sell a solution only if there aren't good alternatives for Mac users. Once the ecosystem has matured, it might not make sense for Apple to stay in that peripheral business. Remember, Apple also exited the laser printing business, and their first LaserWriters defined desktop publishing in the 80s.
4. Final Cut Pro debacle. Here, I think, Apple released a half-finished product. They clearly wanted to innovate, instead of just patching the old code base. They wanted it 64-bit. But the first release of this virtual rewrite came up short in many areas that were only of interest to pros. Apple capitulated by bringing back limited licenses for old FCP. Now would a company that doesn't care about pros do that? And Apple has been adding back pro features to subsequent releases of FCPX. Is that consistent with a company that doesn't care about pros?
5. The 17" MacBook Pro is dead. The ONLY feature of the 17" MBP over the 15" MBP was the 2-inch larger screen and higher resolution screen. This would be missed by programmers. Maybe, if their screen space was crowded with toolbars and chrome. But I can think of advantages of the 15" retina display over the 17" non-retina that matters to pros: higher resolution. Sharper text. Better color fidelity. Less glare. An image that looks like a printed photo, rather than a pixelated computer display. I can't think of any pro applications that won't benefit from the retina display. Even Photoshop, Premeire Pro. Remember: the retina MBP is marketed and priced for pros, not a consumer laptop.
Conclusion? You've managed to become convinced of a myth, spawned by uninformed bloggers and chinwags, who conveniently ignore facts. The Mac is still the best platform for pro work. Prove me wrong.
Simple question. Is Apple still selling either of these phones as new today. Each of these phones could be upgraded for two years after it was replaced by a newer model. Androids do have this problem though. As far as computers my 2001 Mac Tower was supported for 8 years, being able to run everything up to and including Leopard. We do like being able to upgrade.
Quote:
Originally Posted by nealg
Horace Dedieu's estimate on the number of phones sold by Nokia/MSFT
http://www.asymco.com/2012/07/13/how-many-lumia/
His number is 330K. Even if this number is low as some in the comments section have mentioned, this is the reason for the price drop. Not surprising since the phone was obsoleted just after being announced and cut off from much of the new upgrades coming in a couple of months. And being MSFTs partner, Nokia had to know about this. They wanted to get a cheaper phone to market as soon as possible. They could have put a better processor in the Lumia and allowed for it to get the full upgrade. If the numbers are really as bad as HD mentions in his piece, I would not be surprised for these phones to be given away for free soon or as a BOGO soon.
the double whammy... low initial sales, and then the WP8 announcement where everyone hoped to see the operating system they would be migrating to in 6 months... BAM, the terminal illness diagnosis slaps the Lumia in the face. At this point, full shelves, and no future... It's like a HP TouchPad or RIM PlayBook fire sale.
I think you give MS too much credit.
Quote:
Originally Posted by genovelle
Simple question. Is Apple still selling either of these phones as new today. Each of these phones could be upgraded for two years after it was replaced by a newer model. Androids do have this problem though. As far as computers my 2001 Mac Tower was supported for 8 years, being able to run everything up to and including Leopard. We do like being able to upgrade.
the mac tower is different animal, in that it's able to be component upgraded (memory, disk, video, even CPUs).
Historically, Phones have rarely been upgraded. Prior to the iPhone, getting a new OS (not just a 'firmware' upgrade) was a rare event. OS is 'married' to the HW build (partly because too much change requires recertification cycle by the FCC). This is why your classic 'WinPhone OEM's' who now do Android, build their phones with the current OS (not the next one), tweak it to work, then sell it to a Carrier. Neither the Carrier or the OEM care to upgrade... they'd rather get a new phone with the new OS and sell that one.
And, 'we,' is a big term. MOST PEOPLE WHO BUY PHONES COULD CARE LESS about upgrades, unless they are sold a phone in the store with the 'promise' feature X will be on the phone 'the next upgrade'. My son (4th Year med school student, after working Wall Street as a Quant, so somewhat intelligent) calls me to ask 'what's in the New OS... should I upgrade?' every year. Most people just want their Apps and their Facetime... and they are happy.
The people who chat on AI, the cognizant few (at least some of us), do like new things....
Quote:
Originally Posted by TheOtherGeoff
the mac tower is different animal, in that it's able to be component upgraded (memory, disk, video, even CPUs).
Historically, Phones have rarely been upgraded. Prior to the iPhone, getting a new OS (not just a 'firmware' upgrade) was a rare event. OS is 'married' to the HW build (partly because too much change requires recertification cycle by the FCC). This is why your classic 'WinPhone OEM's' who now do Android, build their phones with the current OS (not the next one), tweak it to work, then sell it to a Carrier. Neither the Carrier or the OEM care to upgrade... they'd rather get a new phone with the new OS and sell that one.
And, 'we,' is a big term. MOST PEOPLE WHO BUY PHONES COULD CARE LESS about upgrades, unless they are sold a phone in the store with the 'promise' feature X will be on the phone 'the next upgrade'. My son (4th Year med school student, after working Wall Street as a Quant, so somewhat intelligent) calls me to ask 'what's in the New OS... should I upgrade?' every year. Most people just want their Apps and their Facetime... and they are happy.
The people who chat on AI, the cognizant few (at least some of us), do like new things....
I wouldnt call it rare event. Window smart phones were able to update their OS to the next version. I was able to update one of my windows smart phones at the time to the next windows smart phone via CD from microsoft
Quote:
Originally Posted by MaroonMushroom
I also really like Metro.
But only on a phone.
The problems:
-lack of basic software features
-lack of superior hardware with things like a high quality screen
-no apps
-forced windows features like the xbox crap
Windows 8 is a step in the right direction. But it doesn't matter because this phone isn't getting that anyway.
lack of basic software features- what features would those be?
lack of superior hardware with things like a high quality screen- agreed
no apps- 100,000 thats hardly no apps
forced windows features like the xbox crap- no one is forcing you to play games on the phone
Windows 8 is a step in the right direction. But it doesn't matter because this phone isn't getting that anyway. True but it will get WP7.8 which will be the parts of WP8 that are supported by the hardware
I disagree. I know people from many walks of life. The ones who buy an IPhone tend to upgrade their phones because they want the new features talked about on the news. They get lots of new capabilities and appe ensures they know it. The expectation is that since these other OSs are suppose to be what Apple's is but only better, that they wouldn't buy a phone that would be obsolete next month.
As far as my first Mac. It had nothing to do with being able to upgrade it. I never changed a part. The same hardware from 2001 is running Leopard and is listed as supported on the apple site. It will also run on the G4 flat panel iMac too
Quote:
Originally Posted by TheOtherGeoff
the mac tower is different animal, in that it's able to be component upgraded (memory, disk, video, even CPUs).
Historically, Phones have rarely been upgraded. Prior to the iPhone, getting a new OS (not just a 'firmware' upgrade) was a rare event. OS is 'married' to the HW build (partly because too much change requires recertification cycle by the FCC). This is why your classic 'WinPhone OEM's' who now do Android, build their phones with the current OS (not the next one), tweak it to work, then sell it to a Carrier. Neither the Carrier or the OEM care to upgrade... they'd rather get a new phone with the new OS and sell that one.
And, 'we,' is a big term. MOST PEOPLE WHO BUY PHONES COULD CARE LESS about upgrades, unless they are sold a phone in the store with the 'promise' feature X will be on the phone 'the next upgrade'. My son (4th Year med school student, after working Wall Street as a Quant, so somewhat intelligent) calls me to ask 'what's in the New OS... should I upgrade?' every year. Most people just want their Apps and their Facetime... and they are happy.
The people who chat on AI, the cognizant few (at least some of us), do like new things....
???
Prior to the iPhone anyone that could be bothered/was inclined could easilly upgrade their Windows Mobile. I was able to reflash my WM2003 BlueAngel with every single Windows Mobile OS upgrade. MS were very open with WinCE and didn't mind owners/communities cooking their own roms. Nor did firms such as HTC mind, so long as their own features (eg truFlo) weren't being ported to different brands.
Perhaps most people can't be "bothered" because their first experience of a smartphone wasn't until after 2007 and they were presented with a phone that pretty much worked out of the box.