Functional is what it's all about. The icons have a more 3D look to them rather than the pathetic 2D look that Android and windows apps now have. They are doing 2D because their OS would be too sluggish if it had a 3D look to them.
If you keep saying things that can't possibly be true, you are only compromising your own credibility.
...Samsung's move toward Tizen is more a move toward achieving parity. As Apple...success in the new generation of computing is due to its decades of experience handling all aspects of the machines it produces. "If you look at skills," Cook said, "Apple is in a unique and unrivaled position. Apple has skills in software, in hardware, and in services."
Samsung...representatives are saying...now that true quality in the mobile experience comes from a melding of software and hardware...
Is this what people mean when they say Apple likes to control the whole ecosystem? LOL /s
Actually, the Android "ecosystem" doesn't matter very much for most Android users, and there are no strong ties. Carriers would happily push Tizen phones on consumers who don't know what they are buying, just like they push Android now: it would just be, "and here's the latest phone from Samsung, the Galaxy S V," and there wouldn't even be a mention of the OS, except to say, "It's got the latest and greatest OS on it, and it comes with all the apps you will ever need."
some things people insist on can't be faked. like a good Maps app. or Exchange compatibility. or Facebook and the other heavies' apps. and so on.
this is RIM's huge problem right now, and it's killing them.
When companies report number "shipped" in a quarter, they mean "sold" (to end users or retailers). In that context, the words are interchangeable.
No! wrong.
most of those shipments to retailers, telcos, etc. are not "final" sales until a real consumer/business buys the product. the terms of the contracts will vary widely, but how much is paid and when, with what discounts depending, and what can and can't be returned if unsold or returned by a consumer after how much time - all these details are crucial. (plus who pays for what ads, and any perks.)
because there are no standard accounting rules for this - several alternatives instead - we really can't figure out the truth about "final" sales. and few companies will say.
Samsung has two choices: 1. fork Android and create their own proprietary, closed, tuned version of it for their own hardware, or 2. dump Android in favor of Tizen, which they can also tune for their own hardware. This goes back to the "melding" of software and hardware. Something that Google either doesn't know about or doesn't care about. Meanwhile, Samsung could keep their UI more or less the same as it is now, while switching the OS out from under it to Tizen.
The process of switching to Tizen will be made easier by the fact that Tizen can run Android-developed apps. That could work well in the interim, kind of like how emulators like Rosetta worked for Apple during the Intel processor transitions. After that, the Android apps would be replaced with native Tizen apps for performance and to take advantage of Tizen's more advanced features.
BUT if Oracle prevails on its copyright claims (as I think it could) then where does that leave samsung with Tizens ann droid bastard-java emulator.
I thought that was settled and Oracle lost… Maybe that was a different suit.
No that was the first fight. Just like Apple Oracle lost on some meritts that are going to be appealed (which its being done now), maybe to the highest instance possible until possibilities have run out or Oracle prevails. Usually lower courts are often "reluctant" to make big hard decisions (things that are new and unprecedented, its always easier to bang out and just force the litigants to appeal if the issues are hard) and the litigants have to argue the hard questions in higher courts on appeal.
most of those shipments to retailers, telcos, etc. are not "final" sales until a real consumer/business buys the product. the terms of the contracts will vary widely, but how much is paid and when, with what discounts depending, and what can and can't be returned if unsold or returned by a consumer after how much time - all these details are crucial. (plus who pays for what ads, and any perks.)
because there are no standard accounting rules for this - several alternatives instead - we really can't figure out the truth about "final" sales. and few companies will say.
No, KDarling is right. Items that are shipped eventually get sold - even if it's at a discount price. Even the HP Touchpad's shipment numbers eventually turned into sales.
No one is going to continue to ship millions more units than they sell and no retailer is going to allow their warehouses to fill up with millions of unsold phones - and then continue to accept more. I really don't think that the 'shipped' vs 'sold' numbers are that far out of balance. There may be a delay of a month or two (depending on how the company accounts for sales), but it's not going to be dramatically different.
The problem is that most companies don't release shipped numbers, either. Almost all of the reported numbers that you see are estimates from some marketing firm.
Google HAS competition. It's Microsoft. That's the reason Google made Android (and Chrome) a priority in the first place. So far Google's holding their own I think.
Really? That's not the reason Google stated publicly. But maybe you have some inside information and know that they were lying about that?
In fact, this is what Google said about why they released Android:
Quote:
More than 25 years after Apple compared IBM to a totalitarian state in an iconic TV advertisement, Google at this week's I/O conference attempted to suggest Apple is now playing the role of Big Brother with the iPhone.
Vic Gundotra, vice president of engineering for Google, made the comments during his presentation demonstrating "Froyo," the latest update to the company's Google mobile operating system. He suggested that Google's entrance into the mobile phone market was a move meant to directly oppose the likes of Apple and its tightly controlled iPhone platform.
"If Google did not act, we faced a Draconian future where one man, one company, one device, one carrier would be our only choice," Gundotra said. "That's a future we don't want."
Completely at odds with your revisionist version of history, which you and Google would now like us to believe. Android was not only copied directly from iOS, but it was, in their own words, stolen so that Google could maintain control of people's access to information, so that Apple couldn't cut them out of the loop. Ironic that those fears have become a self-fulfilling prophecy.
... If Google really wants to attack Apple at all costs, why do they go to such efforts developing rather decent iOS apps that are sometimes better than the same apps on Android? ...
Because, more than anything, they want to control people's access to information, to be the gatekeeper. Android is one way to do that, but they'll do whatever it takes. Android isn't the goal, it's just a means to an end.
You really think Google is attacking Apple? I've never seen any mainstream article anywhere that claims Google showing any ill-will towards Apple. Ever. The Chrome browser, ChromeOS, Android, Google Docs, GMail were all targeting Microsoft and theirservices, not Apple. Google social products are intended to blunt Facebook, not Apple. Google was never out to start a dispute with them IMO.
Believe it or not everything isn't about Apple all the time. Any ill-will is floating towards Google, not out.
More rewriting of history, already refuted above. You seem a little desperate in response to this article.
Yeah but try telling that to a developer. If I were a small time developer, I would not want have to develop for five different operating systems, and have to purchase dozens of phones/tablets just to make sure the software was compatible. It would drive the price of the software up considerably, not to mention the headache I would have to take on.
The flaw in this line of reasoning is that Samsung's potential customers aren't that big a potential market for apps anyway. Most of them will just take what comes on the phone and be fine with it. it really doesn't matter that much as a factor in this possibility
Android is not going away from Samsung. This Tizen is just an experiment. If it ends up looking mysteriously like iOS 7 or 8, it's their way out of lawsuits by claiming they were working on this long before and it's just the natural evolution of all phone OSs.
One history is certain: Intel and Linux is an embarrassment of execution. Always a custom kernel, always a disaster going back to the late 90s on dozens of failed projects.
most of those shipments to retailers, telcos, etc. are not "final" sales until a real consumer/business buys the product. the terms of the contracts will vary widely, but how much is paid and when, with what discounts depending, and what can and can't be returned if unsold or returned by a consumer after how much time - all these details are crucial. (plus who pays for what ads, and any perks.)
because there are no standard accounting rules for this - several alternatives instead - we really can't figure out the truth about "final" sales. and few companies will say.
But don't all those units eventually reach the hands of the consumer? Just give them time.
Otherwise we'd hear if millions of unsold phones get sent back to the OEM.
Who knows... there might be a ton of misfit Android phones buried in the New Mexico desert next to the remains of all those E.T Atari cartridges...
Comments
Quote:
Originally Posted by drblank
Functional is what it's all about. The icons have a more 3D look to them rather than the pathetic 2D look that Android and windows apps now have. They are doing 2D because their OS would be too sluggish if it had a 3D look to them.
If you keep saying things that can't possibly be true, you are only compromising your own credibility.
Quote:
Originally Posted by SolipsismX
That cuts deep. If I had a feeling it would have been hurt.
He's simply using you for alpha testing.
Quote:
Originally Posted by dasanman69
Could be they only have one finger.
Quote:
Originally Posted by ankleskater
Oh, I could so work with that but am too classy.
Quote:
Originally Posted by dasanman69
Have at it.
Stay classy, people.
Quote:
Originally Posted by AppleInsider
...Samsung's move toward Tizen is more a move toward achieving parity. As Apple...success in the new generation of computing is due to its decades of experience handling all aspects of the machines it produces. "If you look at skills," Cook said, "Apple is in a unique and unrivaled position. Apple has skills in software, in hardware, and in services."
Samsung...representatives are saying...now that true quality in the mobile experience comes from a melding of software and hardware...
Is this what people mean when they say Apple likes to control the whole ecosystem? LOL /s
Quote:
Originally Posted by malax
Samsung is 100% dependent on Android
What's this then?
http://www.samsung.com/global/ativ/ativ_s.html
Quote:
Originally Posted by anonymouse
Actually, the Android "ecosystem" doesn't matter very much for most Android users, and there are no strong ties. Carriers would happily push Tizen phones on consumers who don't know what they are buying, just like they push Android now: it would just be, "and here's the latest phone from Samsung, the Galaxy S V," and there wouldn't even be a mention of the OS, except to say, "It's got the latest and greatest OS on it, and it comes with all the apps you will ever need."
some things people insist on can't be faked. like a good Maps app. or Exchange compatibility. or Facebook and the other heavies' apps. and so on.
this is RIM's huge problem right now, and it's killing them.
Quote:
Originally Posted by KDarling
When companies report number "shipped" in a quarter, they mean "sold" (to end users or retailers). In that context, the words are interchangeable.
No! wrong.
most of those shipments to retailers, telcos, etc. are not "final" sales until a real consumer/business buys the product. the terms of the contracts will vary widely, but how much is paid and when, with what discounts depending, and what can and can't be returned if unsold or returned by a consumer after how much time - all these details are crucial. (plus who pays for what ads, and any perks.)
because there are no standard accounting rules for this - several alternatives instead - we really can't figure out the truth about "final" sales. and few companies will say.
Quote:
Originally Posted by SolipsismX
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dick Applebaum
How come you know so much about comedy -- and so little about computers?
That cuts deep. If I had a feeling it would have been hurt.
I knew you'd appreciate the implied /s
Quote:
Originally Posted by SockRolid
Samsung has two choices: 1. fork Android and create their own proprietary, closed, tuned version of it for their own hardware, or 2. dump Android in favor of Tizen, which they can also tune for their own hardware. This goes back to the "melding" of software and hardware. Something that Google either doesn't know about or doesn't care about. Meanwhile, Samsung could keep their UI more or less the same as it is now, while switching the OS out from under it to Tizen.
The process of switching to Tizen will be made easier by the fact that Tizen can run Android-developed apps. That could work well in the interim, kind of like how emulators like Rosetta worked for Apple during the Intel processor transitions. After that, the Android apps would be replaced with native Tizen apps for performance and to take advantage of Tizen's more advanced features.
BUT if Oracle prevails on its copyright claims (as I think it could) then where does that leave samsung with Tizens ann droid bastard-java emulator.
Originally Posted by habi
BUT if Oracle prevails on its copyright claims (as I think it could) then where does that leave samsung with Tizens ann droid bastard-java emulator.
I thought that was settled and Oracle lost… Maybe that was a different suit.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tallest Skil
I thought that was settled and Oracle lost… Maybe that was a different suit.
No that was the first fight. Just like Apple Oracle lost on some meritts that are going to be appealed (which its being done now), maybe to the highest instance possible until possibilities have run out or Oracle prevails. Usually lower courts are often "reluctant" to make big hard decisions (things that are new and unprecedented, its always easier to bang out and just force the litigants to appeal if the issues are hard) and the litigants have to argue the hard questions in higher courts on appeal.
Its not over until the fat lady sings.
http://www.fosspatents.com/2013/02/oracles-appeal-brief-likens-google-to.html
No, KDarling is right. Items that are shipped eventually get sold - even if it's at a discount price. Even the HP Touchpad's shipment numbers eventually turned into sales.
No one is going to continue to ship millions more units than they sell and no retailer is going to allow their warehouses to fill up with millions of unsold phones - and then continue to accept more. I really don't think that the 'shipped' vs 'sold' numbers are that far out of balance. There may be a delay of a month or two (depending on how the company accounts for sales), but it's not going to be dramatically different.
The problem is that most companies don't release shipped numbers, either. Almost all of the reported numbers that you see are estimates from some marketing firm.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gatorguy
Google HAS competition. It's Microsoft. That's the reason Google made Android (and Chrome) a priority in the first place. So far Google's holding their own I think.
Really? That's not the reason Google stated publicly. But maybe you have some inside information and know that they were lying about that?
In fact, this is what Google said about why they released Android:
Quote:
More than 25 years after Apple compared IBM to a totalitarian state in an iconic TV advertisement, Google at this week's I/O conference attempted to suggest Apple is now playing the role of Big Brother with the iPhone.
Vic Gundotra, vice president of engineering for Google, made the comments during his presentation demonstrating "Froyo," the latest update to the company's Google mobile operating system. He suggested that Google's entrance into the mobile phone market was a move meant to directly oppose the likes of Apple and its tightly controlled iPhone platform.
"If Google did not act, we faced a Draconian future where one man, one company, one device, one carrier would be our only choice," Gundotra said. "That's a future we don't want."
-- http://forums.appleinsider.com/t/109708/google-compares-apple-to-big-brother-from-iconic-1984-ad
Completely at odds with your revisionist version of history, which you and Google would now like us to believe. Android was not only copied directly from iOS, but it was, in their own words, stolen so that Google could maintain control of people's access to information, so that Apple couldn't cut them out of the loop. Ironic that those fears have become a self-fulfilling prophecy.
Quote:
Originally Posted by ankleskater
... If Google really wants to attack Apple at all costs, why do they go to such efforts developing rather decent iOS apps that are sometimes better than the same apps on Android? ...
Because, more than anything, they want to control people's access to information, to be the gatekeeper. Android is one way to do that, but they'll do whatever it takes. Android isn't the goal, it's just a means to an end.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gatorguy
You really think Google is attacking Apple? I've never seen any mainstream article anywhere that claims Google showing any ill-will towards Apple. Ever. The Chrome browser, ChromeOS, Android, Google Docs, GMail were all targeting Microsoft and their services, not Apple. Google social products are intended to blunt Facebook, not Apple. Google was never out to start a dispute with them IMO.
Believe it or not everything isn't about Apple all the time. Any ill-will is floating towards Google, not out.
More rewriting of history, already refuted above. You seem a little desperate in response to this article.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Feynman
Yeah but try telling that to a developer. If I were a small time developer, I would not want have to develop for five different operating systems, and have to purchase dozens of phones/tablets just to make sure the software was compatible. It would drive the price of the software up considerably, not to mention the headache I would have to take on.
The flaw in this line of reasoning is that Samsung's potential customers aren't that big a potential market for apps anyway. Most of them will just take what comes on the phone and be fine with it. it really doesn't matter that much as a factor in this possibility
Quote:
Originally Posted by Alfiejr
some things people insist on can't be faked. like a good Maps app. or Exchange compatibility. or Facebook and the other heavies' apps. and so on.
this is RIM's huge problem right now, and it's killing them.
That's because Blackberry, nee RIM, is still stuck in their old ways. None of this will be a serious obstacle.
One history is certain: Intel and Linux is an embarrassment of execution. Always a custom kernel, always a disaster going back to the late 90s on dozens of failed projects.
But don't all those units eventually reach the hands of the consumer? Just give them time.
Otherwise we'd hear if millions of unsold phones get sent back to the OEM.
Who knows... there might be a ton of misfit Android phones buried in the New Mexico desert next to the remains of all those E.T Atari cartridges...
http://www.snopes.com/business/market/atari.asp