<snip>
I think Apple knows they NEED the jailbreak community, just like how Microsoft and adobe need piracy--marketshare.
Bottom line: People have different needs and one device cannot possibly solve it all.
Re: Piracy - regardless of the rest of your silliness... I will grant you kudos for recognizing and acknowledging this MAJOR differentiating point between iOS devices and Android.
Fact is: outside of the US market, and even in Europe... many people do not have credit cards. Yes, you can purchase Apple Store Gift Certificates rather than use a credit card. However.. for even simple "must have" apps these days like WhatsApp... you have to have some kind of payment possibility through the Apple Store.
On the "other side", many people elect to have their Android App purchases added to their mobile bill, or deducted from their PAYG provider. The vast majority though, especially kids, prefer to "trade and share Apps" using SD cards, much the same way they comfortably "share" their music, movies, TV-shows, etc.
I recently had the eye-opening reality and "street level experience" of setting up an iPhone for an 11-year old amidst her clique of 6 school friends. Without going through a long sequence... another of the girls "shared" a number of her apps with another girl in the clique using their beat up Android 2.3 Samsungs. I asked her to show me how she did this, and then asked them all how many of their friends in school do this. Reply: except for the German equivalent of "Mean Girls (Boys)" and their iPhones... everyone.
So just as rc69 stated above and I've also posted about a few times previously on AI, Android "world wide" marketshare numbers are very similar to the "piracy marketshare" which previously propped up Microsoft for so many years. It really does NOT need any analysis or defensive editorials at all, because it plain doesn't compute into a viable and/or comparable metric between Apple: a hardware profit company vs. Android: a software services/advertisement platform.
I've also been a proponent of coming up with a completely new category of smart phone"or ***smart environment*** (i.e ecosystem) that better reflects the actual differences between the different mobile operating systems and devices. The only problem with this is that it would skew so heavily towards Apple to be almost ungraphable. Similar to tablets and web statistics.
*** No need for the "open source" fans here to tell me that a "smart environment" is one that is free in services, apps and entertainment without constraint. The young ladies did a very good job of that. I just don't want to be their parents when the 4-figure phone bill comes because of a €5,-/SMS-to-the-Caymens Trojan App everytime their kid played a game.
Not to drastically change the subject, but as an aside to my above post.
How is it that Google can continue to offer services, and now an entire platform, that is proliferating, succeeding, and profiting by abetting and aiding in subterfuge* of DRM, DMCA, Copyright and Trademark laws? * Simply stated theft and stealing. Worse yet, most of the stuff being stolen is produced by US companies and developers.
How do developers balance this disregard by Google in protecting their hard work vs. their undying love for Google and "open source"?
How do lawmakers and the justice system make the distinction between who's-helping-who to steal, and who goes to jail for it?
:err: Sincerely, Flummoxed and Gobsmacked in Germany. :smokey:
Why not? Apple still make money selling phones and various services. Use some imagination. For example, Department of Defense can customize Home to suit the needs for combats.
Apple Maps and Siri are doing great.
If <span style="background-color:rgb(241,241,241);color:rgb(24,24,24);font-family:arial, helvetica, sans-serif;line-height:18px;">William Stasior's team can develop a good search engine with integrated </span> <span style="line-height:18px;">advertising, then Apple can remove Google as the default search engine on iOS and Mac OS X.</span>
Do we know whether Stasior is leading development of a full fledged search engine like Bing, or rather improvement of integration of Siri with all available knowledge databases including Google, Wolfram, Yahoo Sports, etc.?
JD Power awards should be taken with a grain of salt -- Apple's products are the most expensive, so it is harder to be dissatisfied. I suspect that Apple wins that comparison anyway, but the margin is not quite as big as it seems.
Well, Let's look at it logically.
1. Apple nabs 70% of global smartphone profits with only 25% of global market share.
2. Logically people do not pay so much profits for devices that they are not satisfied with.
3. The numbers clearly agree with JD Power and Associates
4. The buying frenzy every time a new iDevice is released says it all.
If William Stasior's team can develop a good search engine with integrated advertising…
Why would there be advertising? You're already buying Apple's hardware. I'd think one of the TWO WORD PHRASE, HAS TO DO WITH "BENEFIT" of an "Apple Search" is the fact that it would be everything Google Search isn't. No ads, no "personalized" results, and no theft of your personal information in retaining everything you do everywhere.
What IS it… It's a business term. Three syllables on the first word. Either two or four on the second.
Do we know whether Stasior is leading development of a full fledged search engine like Bing, or rather improvement of integration of Siri with all available knowledge databases including Google, Wolfram, Yahoo Sports, etc.?
I think Siri search is and will continue to be different and eventually better, easier, more accurate with better advertising.
I don't think Apple is looking to replicate Google, Bing or Yahoo.
Something like Google search would be one component of SIRI search.
I think you misunderstood Daniel's point, which is taken from the original Intercom report. As a matter of fact, the point is better explained in the report itself, so I urge you to follow the link and read it.
The essence of this particular argument is that, disruption at the low-end is not necessarily due to price--in fact, cannot be through price alone--but by offering a product to a market segment that is over-served. That is, the customers do not notice or care about the lower quality of the product, and therefore prefer it due to its lower cost, convenience, or lower barriers to adoption. When this happens, the market shifts to the new offering, at the expense of the established ones.
To illustrate, Intercom compares a high-end hotel like the Four Seasons to a roadside motel. The latter is certainly cheaper, but will never disrupt the former. That is because in order to attract the customers of the Four Seasons, the motel must adopt its model of highly trained staff, improved grounds, and upscale services; which would force it to adopt its cost structure, and by consequence, lose its price advantage. The two can certainly co-exist, but one does not affect the other.
In contrast, Apple disrupted the market of low-end cameras by offering an even lower-cost solution than the Flip. As the report says, it is important to understand that "cost" in this context represents "cost of use," which may include convenience, lower price, ease of use, and other lower barriers to usage. At once, the market dropped the Flip and adopted the iPhone as the most popular consumer camera. Again, it did not matter that it was a poorer product in quality (at least at first).
dZ.
Someone else said that I was wrong because the low-end disruption the article indicates was "collateral" disruption and I think that is closer to the truth.
My point was that the low end disruption described was (in my words), not really a classic low end disruption and (by my implication) therefore not really low end disruption at all. I think if one wanted to be generous and include it as such, that at the very least, it's a completely different kind of so-called "low end disruption." ("collateral" disruption) It's different because of the lack of intent, which I would argue is necessary to the definition of such disruption and therefore my argument that it wasn't low end disruption at all.
I'm just saying that "classic" low end disruption of a market involves an intent to flood the market with low end devices of a type that will undercut the price while duplicating (or replicating to a "good enough" level), the features of a competitor, and that the camera situation the author described either wasn't that at all, or that it was a misrepresentation to describe it as such.
It may have had a market disrupting effect, but because of what I perceive as a lack of intentionality, I don't think it's proper to say that it was low end disruption in the sense of the other examples that set up the article.
Not to drastically change the subject, but as an aside to my above post.
How is it that Google can continue to offer services, and now an entire platform, that is proliferating, succeeding, and profiting by abetting and aiding in subterfuge* of DRM, DMCA, Copyright and Trademark laws? * Simply stated theft and stealing. Worse yet, most of the stuff being stolen is produced by US companies and developers.
How do developers balance this disregard by Google in protecting their hard work vs. their undying love for Google and "open source"?
How do lawmakers and the justice system make the distinction between who's-helping-who to steal, and who goes to jail for it?
Sincerely, Flummoxed and Gobsmacked in Germany.
I've never understood why sideloading is so controversial on android when it has always been not just a feature but also the standard method of program installation on operating systems like OS X and Windows. Are developers closing up shop because you can install programs on your macbook from anywhere you want? With their rapidly increasing power, smartphones and tablets these days are transitioning from "phones with some apps" to general-purpose computers. Besides the form factor, is there an essential difference between a tablet and a laptop that justifies the restrictions on software sources?
I think Siri search is and will continue to be different and eventually better, easier, more accurate with better advertising.
I don't think Apple is looking to replicate Google, Bing or Yahoo.
Something like Google search would be one component of SIRI search.
A "do engine" would very much differentiate an Apple "search engine." In fact, as Google adds services they increasing become more like a "do engine" by preferring their own services over competitor services. Unfortunately, being a search engine, Google Search is often confusing.
I just read the entire article and I have to say that it is nothing more than clickbait/fanboism/wishful thinking.
Apple blew a huge lead in the phone industry and there's nothing to prevent the same thing happening to the tablet industry. iOS is so very very stagnant and locked down. In 2007/8 it was awesome. Now? Meh.
Actually your comment is more link air that we've come to see over the past year. It's anti Apple headlines that get more readers because Apple has already fully disrupted the smartphone market. They cannot re-disrupt the market they awoke. They can only hold their ground from competition which is what they are doing.
Looking back on 2007 and 2008 as some kind of glory years in their product line is short sighted tunnel vision. Their cameras, screens and carrier selection was weak compared to others back then. The App Store was just getting started.
You sound like most analysts and consumers. If you not get excited by headlines and lines of consumers outside the store, there's nothing for you to remember. Meanwhile technology marches on and competition pushes Apple so much further than they could've gotten without it back in '07.
JD Power awards should be taken with a grain of salt -- Apple's products are the most expensive, so it is harder to be dissatisfied. I suspect that Apple wins that comparison anyway, but the margin is not quite as big as it seems.
It only sounds that way because your fingers are in your ears and you're screaming "lalalalala I can't heeeear you"
JD Power awards should be taken with a grain of salt -- Apple's products are the most expensive, so it is harder to be dissatisfied. I suspect that Apple wins that comparison anyway, but the margin is not quite as big as it seems.
What kind if logic is that? If I'm spending that much money (although the iDevice prices are comparable to other non-Apple devices) it better be good. No margins for error there. Cheap crap gets easily replaced if there's a problem while higher priced items don't.
Google is losing some edge of searches to Wikipedia. Wikipedia is constantly expanding its contents. More and more people will use it to find useful facts.
Google is losing some edge of searches to Wikipedia. Wikipedia is constantly expanding its contents. More and more people will use it to find useful facts.
One of the big reasons for Google Now and recent changes to voice search. You'll often get a verbal answer now rather than a link to a written one.
Google Now is different from Wikipedia. Google Now only gets information related to me. Wikipedia collects facts that are universal.
,,,, and recent changes to voice searches.
if I ask how old Jimmy Carter is I'm verbally given the answer instead of just offered a list of written links. Other questions like "what time is sunset today", "what is Arrmageddon", "what is a compound bow" and "When was the iPhone first released" are other questions that all got verbal answers instead of just links to the answer.
Comments
A look at the link I provided will show you it's different.
Re: Piracy - regardless of the rest of your silliness... I will grant you kudos for recognizing and acknowledging this MAJOR differentiating point between iOS devices and Android.
Fact is: outside of the US market, and even in Europe... many people do not have credit cards. Yes, you can purchase Apple Store Gift Certificates rather than use a credit card. However.. for even simple "must have" apps these days like WhatsApp... you have to have some kind of payment possibility through the Apple Store.
On the "other side", many people elect to have their Android App purchases added to their mobile bill, or deducted from their PAYG provider. The vast majority though, especially kids, prefer to "trade and share Apps" using SD cards, much the same way they comfortably "share" their music, movies, TV-shows, etc.
I recently had the eye-opening reality and "street level experience" of setting up an iPhone for an 11-year old amidst her clique of 6 school friends. Without going through a long sequence... another of the girls "shared" a number of her apps with another girl in the clique using their beat up Android 2.3 Samsungs. I asked her to show me how she did this, and then asked them all how many of their friends in school do this. Reply: except for the German equivalent of "Mean Girls (Boys)" and their iPhones... everyone.
So just as rc69 stated above and I've also posted about a few times previously on AI, Android "world wide" marketshare numbers are very similar to the "piracy marketshare" which previously propped up Microsoft for so many years. It really does NOT need any analysis or defensive editorials at all, because it plain doesn't compute into a viable and/or comparable metric between Apple: a hardware profit company vs. Android: a software services/advertisement platform.
I've also been a proponent of coming up with a completely new category of smart phone"or ***smart environment*** (i.e ecosystem) that better reflects the actual differences between the different mobile operating systems and devices. The only problem with this is that it would skew so heavily towards Apple to be almost ungraphable. Similar to tablets and web statistics.
*** No need for the "open source" fans here to tell me that a "smart environment" is one that is free in services, apps and entertainment without constraint. The young ladies did a very good job of that. I just don't want to be their parents when the 4-figure phone bill comes because of a €5,-/SMS-to-the-Caymens Trojan App everytime their kid played a game.
How is it that Google can continue to offer services, and now an entire platform, that is proliferating, succeeding, and profiting by abetting and aiding in subterfuge* of DRM, DMCA, Copyright and Trademark laws? * Simply stated theft and stealing. Worse yet, most of the stuff being stolen is produced by US companies and developers.
How do developers balance this disregard by Google in protecting their hard work vs. their undying love for Google and "open source"?
How do lawmakers and the justice system make the distinction between who's-helping-who to steal, and who goes to jail for it?
:err: Sincerely, Flummoxed and Gobsmacked in Germany. :smokey:
Excellent stuff, now you made me hungry. Lol
Not happening
Do we know whether Stasior is leading development of a full fledged search engine like Bing, or rather improvement of integration of Siri with all available knowledge databases including Google, Wolfram, Yahoo Sports, etc.?
Quote:
Originally Posted by igriv
JD Power awards should be taken with a grain of salt -- Apple's products are the most expensive, so it is harder to be dissatisfied. I suspect that Apple wins that comparison anyway, but the margin is not quite as big as it seems.
Well, Let's look at it logically.
1. Apple nabs 70% of global smartphone profits with only 25% of global market share.
2. Logically people do not pay so much profits for devices that they are not satisfied with.
3. The numbers clearly agree with JD Power and Associates
4. The buying frenzy every time a new iDevice is released says it all.
Originally Posted by AppleSauce007
If William Stasior's team can develop a good search engine with integrated advertising…
Why would there be advertising? You're already buying Apple's hardware. I'd think one of the TWO WORD PHRASE, HAS TO DO WITH "BENEFIT" of an "Apple Search" is the fact that it would be everything Google Search isn't. No ads, no "personalized" results, and no theft of your personal information in retaining everything you do everywhere.
What IS it… It's a business term. Three syllables on the first word. Either two or four on the second.
Quote:
Originally Posted by ankleskater
Do we know whether Stasior is leading development of a full fledged search engine like Bing, or rather improvement of integration of Siri with all available knowledge databases including Google, Wolfram, Yahoo Sports, etc.?
I think Siri search is and will continue to be different and eventually better, easier, more accurate with better advertising.
I don't think Apple is looking to replicate Google, Bing or Yahoo.
Something like Google search would be one component of SIRI search.
Take a look at what Stasior led before SIRI: http://www.a9.com/whatwedo/
Quote:
Originally Posted by dzfoo
Gazoobee,
I think you misunderstood Daniel's point, which is taken from the original Intercom report. As a matter of fact, the point is better explained in the report itself, so I urge you to follow the link and read it.
The essence of this particular argument is that, disruption at the low-end is not necessarily due to price--in fact, cannot be through price alone--but by offering a product to a market segment that is over-served. That is, the customers do not notice or care about the lower quality of the product, and therefore prefer it due to its lower cost, convenience, or lower barriers to adoption. When this happens, the market shifts to the new offering, at the expense of the established ones.
To illustrate, Intercom compares a high-end hotel like the Four Seasons to a roadside motel. The latter is certainly cheaper, but will never disrupt the former. That is because in order to attract the customers of the Four Seasons, the motel must adopt its model of highly trained staff, improved grounds, and upscale services; which would force it to adopt its cost structure, and by consequence, lose its price advantage. The two can certainly co-exist, but one does not affect the other.
In contrast, Apple disrupted the market of low-end cameras by offering an even lower-cost solution than the Flip. As the report says, it is important to understand that "cost" in this context represents "cost of use," which may include convenience, lower price, ease of use, and other lower barriers to usage. At once, the market dropped the Flip and adopted the iPhone as the most popular consumer camera. Again, it did not matter that it was a poorer product in quality (at least at first).
dZ.
Someone else said that I was wrong because the low-end disruption the article indicates was "collateral" disruption and I think that is closer to the truth.
My point was that the low end disruption described was (in my words), not really a classic low end disruption and (by my implication) therefore not really low end disruption at all. I think if one wanted to be generous and include it as such, that at the very least, it's a completely different kind of so-called "low end disruption." ("collateral" disruption) It's different because of the lack of intent, which I would argue is necessary to the definition of such disruption and therefore my argument that it wasn't low end disruption at all.
I'm just saying that "classic" low end disruption of a market involves an intent to flood the market with low end devices of a type that will undercut the price while duplicating (or replicating to a "good enough" level), the features of a competitor, and that the camera situation the author described either wasn't that at all, or that it was a misrepresentation to describe it as such.
It may have had a market disrupting effect, but because of what I perceive as a lack of intentionality, I don't think it's proper to say that it was low end disruption in the sense of the other examples that set up the article.
That characterisation was a stretch IMO.
Originally Posted by ThePixelDoc
Not to drastically change the subject, but as an aside to my above post.
How is it that Google can continue to offer services, and now an entire platform, that is proliferating, succeeding, and profiting by abetting and aiding in subterfuge* of DRM, DMCA, Copyright and Trademark laws? * Simply stated theft and stealing. Worse yet, most of the stuff being stolen is produced by US companies and developers.
How do developers balance this disregard by Google in protecting their hard work vs. their undying love for Google and "open source"?
How do lawmakers and the justice system make the distinction between who's-helping-who to steal, and who goes to jail for it?
I've never understood why sideloading is so controversial on android when it has always been not just a feature but also the standard method of program installation on operating systems like OS X and Windows. Are developers closing up shop because you can install programs on your macbook from anywhere you want? With their rapidly increasing power, smartphones and tablets these days are transitioning from "phones with some apps" to general-purpose computers. Besides the form factor, is there an essential difference between a tablet and a laptop that justifies the restrictions on software sources?
I was thinking about this as well.
A "do engine" would very much differentiate an Apple "search engine." In fact, as Google adds services they increasing become more like a "do engine" by preferring their own services over competitor services. Unfortunately, being a search engine, Google Search is often confusing.
Actually your comment is more link air that we've come to see over the past year. It's anti Apple headlines that get more readers because Apple has already fully disrupted the smartphone market. They cannot re-disrupt the market they awoke. They can only hold their ground from competition which is what they are doing.
Looking back on 2007 and 2008 as some kind of glory years in their product line is short sighted tunnel vision. Their cameras, screens and carrier selection was weak compared to others back then. The App Store was just getting started.
You sound like most analysts and consumers. If you not get excited by headlines and lines of consumers outside the store, there's nothing for you to remember. Meanwhile technology marches on and competition pushes Apple so much further than they could've gotten without it back in '07.
It only sounds that way because your fingers are in your ears and you're screaming "lalalalala I can't heeeear you"
What kind if logic is that? If I'm spending that much money (although the iDevice prices are comparable to other non-Apple devices) it better be good. No margins for error there. Cheap crap gets easily replaced if there's a problem while higher priced items don't.
Quote:
Originally Posted by ankleskater
Not happening
It is already happening with iPads. Many companies are using iPads to do their own businesses.
Google is losing some edge of searches to Wikipedia. Wikipedia is constantly expanding its contents. More and more people will use it to find useful facts.
One of the big reasons for Google Now and recent changes to voice search. You'll often get a verbal answer now rather than a link to a written one.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gatorguy
One of the big reasons for Google Now and recent changes to voice search. You'll often get a verbal answer now rather than a link to a written one.
Google Now is different from Wikipedia. Google Now only gets information related to me. Wikipedia collects facts that are universal.
,,,, and recent changes to voice searches.
if I ask how old Jimmy Carter is I'm verbally given the answer instead of just offered a list of written links. Other questions like "what time is sunset today", "what is Arrmageddon", "what is a compound bow" and "When was the iPhone first released" are other questions that all got verbal answers instead of just links to the answer.