I'm more interested in how companies will evolve their mobile hardware/software and how the market will react when a budget device is more than enough.
For example, in the 2nd half of 2014, Qualcomm will be releasing an efficient and low cost SoC, the Snapdragon 410. This SoC uses 4x Cortex A53 cores (ARMv8 64-bit), an Adreno 306 GPU (OpenGL ES 3.0, full HD playback, 13MP camera support), and Qualcomm's global LTE chip.
Same as the computer market I presume and it is not market share that ensure the survivability of a company but profits.
Quite recently you dodged the question (from myself and others) on whether you really needed an example that hardware development drives software development, since you seemed to be disputing that. Perhaps you could summarize your primary point(s), as opposed to your interest, because having read this thread in its entirety, I cannot fathom what you are currently trying to argue.
Let me try to make this clear:
1. I believe the hardware for a budget device is reaching a point beyond the current common uses of a smartphone.
2. Continuing to advance the hardware in this state will open opportunities for more complex software on mobile (stating the obvious).
3. The more complex software currently available can be further developed, but will likely be used by less and less users as it starts to drift from the common.
4. I have an in interest in what types of software and potential hardware changes will come once the point stated in #1 is reached. The evolution what is considered 'common' use is of interest.
5. My example discussing portable music players reaching a peak in technology and being absorbed into mobile devices comes to mind. Although current high end music players continue to advance (example Fiio X3), they are aiming at a smaller audience with a focus on the highest level of musical fidelity.
@ rivie62. But most of these Chinese Android devices don't even have access to Google play and are not really comparable devices. Also if you compare Android's premium level phones like the Samsung Galaxy 4 (compared to the more successful Galaxy 3), perhaps Android is slipping compared to the iPhone 5s which reportedly Apple can barely keep up with the demand. Apple is growing in the US and Japan, so why not China?
I bet IOS share of web use and commerce grows even more in the US after this Christmas as lucky recipients received their new iPhones and iPads from Santa. This WAS an Apple Christmas and I bet half of those devices went to new users who will be added into the Eco system too. But 80% or 4/5 usage advantage for iOS even now? My oh my, what a fertile market and way forward for the App Store compared to the Android marketplace!.
Quite recently you dodged the question (from myself and others) on whether you really needed an example that hardware development drives software development, since you seemed to be disputing that. Perhaps you could summarize your primary point(s), as opposed to your interest, because having read this thread in its entirety, I cannot fathom what you are currently trying to argue.
Let me try to make this clear:
1. I believe the hardware for a budget device is reaching a point beyond the current common uses of a smartphone.
2. Continuing to advance the hardware in this state will open opportunities for more complex software on mobile (stating the obvious).
3. The more complex software currently available can be further developed, but will likely be used by less and less users as it starts to drift from the common.
4. I have an in interest in what types of software and potential hardware changes will come once the point stated in #1 is reached. The evolution what is considered 'common' use is of interest.
5. My example discussing portable music players reaching a peak in technology and being absorbed into mobile devices comes to mind. Although current high end music players continue to advance (example Fiio X3), they are aiming at a smaller audience with a focus on the highest level of musical fidelity.
OK.
1. If the current common uses are hardware limited, then that is a trivially obvious observation.
2. Follows from (1).
3. An assertion, and the one that was originally disputed based on the historical evidence that hardware advances have always driven new applications and uses. We have seen this continuously even in the evolution of the smartphone. Why would it mysteriously stop now? This appears to be simply imagination failure on your part.
4. Yes - we know that.
5. Music players peaked and were then absorbed into more functional mobile devices (smartphones and tablets). Are you asserting that this is about to happen to smartphones?
1. If the current common uses are hardware limited, then that is a trivially obvious observation.
2. Follows from (1).
3. An assertion, and the one that was originally disputed based on the historical evidence that hardware advances have always driven new applications and uses. We have seen this continuously even in the evolution of the smartphone. Why would it mysteriously stop now? This appears to be simply imagination failure on your part.
4. Yes - we know that.
5. Music players peaked and were then absorbed into more functional mobile devices (smartphones and tablets). Are you asserting that this is about to happen to smartphones?
1./2. Yes they are trivial and they are obvious, but necessary to point out as some users have a poor impression of the current state of budget mobile devices.
3. Careful now, current software does not include that bit of evolution required to keep things going (hence my interest). I can imagine different bits of evolution that may occur, but that doesn't mean it will occur, hence my interest.
5. This was just an example that further supported #3. I don't know what will happen to smartphones and it was not intended to be an assertion as what is to come.
Aside - again I do realize this is becoming rather trivial as it has all expanded out from my original comment in multiple different directions that may or may not connect back to my original post.
Quite recently you dodged the question (from myself and others) on whether you really needed an example that hardware development drives software development, since you seemed to be disputing that. Perhaps you could summarize your primary point(s), as opposed to your interest, because having read this thread in its entirety, I cannot fathom what you are currently trying to argue.
Let me try to make this clear:
1. I believe the hardware for a budget device is reaching a point beyond the current common uses of a smartphone.
2. Continuing to advance the hardware in this state will open opportunities for more complex software on mobile (stating the obvious).
3. The more complex software currently available can be further developed, but will likely be used by less and less users as it starts to drift from the common.
<span style="line-height:1.4em;">4. I have an in interest in what types of software and potential hardware changes will come once the point stated in #1 is reached. The evolution what is considered 'common' use is of interest.</span>
<span style="line-height:1.4em;">5. My example discussing portable music players reaching a peak in technology and being absorbed into mobile devices comes to mind. Although current high end music players continue to advance (example Fiio X3), they are aiming at a smaller audience with a focus on the highest level of musical fidelity.</span>
The problem with your argument is that your first assumption / belief is wrong... And all else, based on that assumption, fails..
Future capability always exceeds/leads current use!
And it doesn't have LTE, it's for unwary, price sensitive consumers.
It's the equivalent of a phone netbook.
And the average consumer has no concept of timely updates, they don't care or understand.
No everybody needs LTE, and with more and more people on the LTE network the speeds on 3G will be good enough. The iPhone didn't have LTE for quite some time and was it the a "netbook"?
And it doesn't have LTE, it's for unwary, price sensitive consumers.
It's the equivalent of a phone netbook.
And the average consumer has no concept of timely updates, they don't care or understand.
How does not having LTE mean it's like a netbook? It's HSDPA is 21Mbps. It also has 802.11n WiFi, 1GB RAM, a 4.5" IPS LCD, BT 4.0. If any phone on the market looks like they took a cue from Apple to find a good balance of performance and capabilities for a specific price point I'd say it's the Moto G. Why not give them credit for saying "We can only afford to stick in an early generation LTE chipset for our price point so we're not going to do it to satisfy spec sheet shoppers at the risk of killing battery life"?
Comments
I'm more interested in how companies will evolve their mobile hardware/software and how the market will react when a budget device is more than enough.
For example, in the 2nd half of 2014, Qualcomm will be releasing an efficient and low cost SoC, the Snapdragon 410. This SoC uses 4x Cortex A53 cores (ARMv8 64-bit), an Adreno 306 GPU (OpenGL ES 3.0, full HD playback, 13MP camera support), and Qualcomm's global LTE chip.
Same as the computer market I presume and it is not market share that ensure the survivability of a company but profits.
Quite recently you dodged the question (from myself and others) on whether you really needed an example that hardware development drives software development, since you seemed to be disputing that. Perhaps you could summarize your primary point(s), as opposed to your interest, because having read this thread in its entirety, I cannot fathom what you are currently trying to argue.
Let me try to make this clear:
1. I believe the hardware for a budget device is reaching a point beyond the current common uses of a smartphone.
2. Continuing to advance the hardware in this state will open opportunities for more complex software on mobile (stating the obvious).
3. The more complex software currently available can be further developed, but will likely be used by less and less users as it starts to drift from the common.
I hope it catches on. It's better for HW vendors, developers and customers if even low cost smartphones are indeed smart.
I bet IOS share of web use and commerce grows even more in the US after this Christmas as lucky recipients received their new iPhones and iPads from Santa. This WAS an Apple Christmas and I bet half of those devices went to new users who will be added into the Eco system too. But 80% or 4/5 usage advantage for iOS even now? My oh my, what a fertile market and way forward for the App Store compared to the Android marketplace!.
Quite recently you dodged the question (from myself and others) on whether you really needed an example that hardware development drives software development, since you seemed to be disputing that. Perhaps you could summarize your primary point(s), as opposed to your interest, because having read this thread in its entirety, I cannot fathom what you are currently trying to argue.
Let me try to make this clear:
1. I believe the hardware for a budget device is reaching a point beyond the current common uses of a smartphone.
2. Continuing to advance the hardware in this state will open opportunities for more complex software on mobile (stating the obvious).
3. The more complex software currently available can be further developed, but will likely be used by less and less users as it starts to drift from the common.
OK.
1. If the current common uses are hardware limited, then that is a trivially obvious observation.
2. Follows from (1).
3. An assertion, and the one that was originally disputed based on the historical evidence that hardware advances have always driven new applications and uses. We have seen this continuously even in the evolution of the smartphone. Why would it mysteriously stop now? This appears to be simply imagination failure on your part.
4. Yes - we know that.
5. Music players peaked and were then absorbed into more functional mobile devices (smartphones and tablets). Are you asserting that this is about to happen to smartphones?
OK.
1. If the current common uses are hardware limited, then that is a trivially obvious observation.
2. Follows from (1).
3. An assertion, and the one that was originally disputed based on the historical evidence that hardware advances have always driven new applications and uses. We have seen this continuously even in the evolution of the smartphone. Why would it mysteriously stop now? This appears to be simply imagination failure on your part.
4. Yes - we know that.
5. Music players peaked and were then absorbed into more functional mobile devices (smartphones and tablets). Are you asserting that this is about to happen to smartphones?
1./2. Yes they are trivial and they are obvious, but necessary to point out as some users have a poor impression of the current state of budget mobile devices.
3. Careful now, current software does not include that bit of evolution required to keep things going (hence my interest). I can imagine different bits of evolution that may occur, but that doesn't mean it will occur, hence my interest.
4. I know, but I was connecting it to #1.
5. This was just an example that further supported #3. I don't know what will happen to smartphones and it was not intended to be an assertion as what is to come.
Aside - again I do realize this is becoming rather trivial as it has all expanded out from my original comment in multiple different directions that may or may not connect back to my original post.
I'm just waiting for the Mac Merkin.
The problem with your argument is that your first assumption / belief is wrong... And all else, based on that assumption, fails..
Future capability always exceeds/leads current use!
Yes! And we may be seeing the start of a disruption of what comprises a Personal Computer -- more specifically a Mac....
Let me be the first to show the prosumer variant of the Mac Pro...
The Mac Muff
I'm just waiting for the Mac Merkin.
But what will you do with it?
Mike Markkula financed Apple Computer. Mike made millions of $ with Fairchild, then Intel... Then retired...
Woz used a 6502 in the Apple I (and later Apple ][) because he couldn't afford the more expensive Intel chips (available at the time).
Why didn't Mike, with his money and connections, insist that Apple use the superior Intel chips?
Warning: Do not use a Mac Muff while operating a motor vehicle... In fact, some States are considering laws that outlaw Muff-Driving...
Yes! And we may be seeing the start of a disruption of what comprises a Personal Computer -- more specifically a Mac....
Let me be the first to show the prosumer variant of the Mac Pro...
The Mac Muff
I'm just waiting for the Mac Merkin.
But what will you do with it?
Warning: Do not use a Mac Muff while operating a motor vehicle... In fact, some States are considering laws that outlaw Muff-Driving...
Driving?
Old joke:
Three young boys are sitting on the stoop -- talking about what they want when they grow up...
Boy 1: I want to be rich enough to own a car like that black Cadillac over there...
Boy 2: I want to be rich enough to own a car like that white Cadillac over there...
Boy 3: I want to be covered with Hair... Covered with Hair all over...
Boys 1 & 2: What???
Boy 3, spreading his thumb and forefinger into a triangle: My sister has a patch of hair, this big... And she owns those 2 Cadillacs!
The Moto G is trying to change that. It's a inexpensive phone that will get timely OS updates.
And it doesn't have LTE, it's for unwary, price sensitive consumers.
It's the equivalent of a phone netbook.
And the average consumer has no concept of timely updates, they don't care or understand.
Yes...
And the owner, will always have this gnawing feeling of missing something -- though not knowing what or why...
It is settling for less than what you you want,,, and trying to justify it to yourself... As if you just aren't worthy...
I want to try to a address this [buying technology] if I can...
You ask me: "What whatever should I buy?"
I ask you what do you want/need to do?
We enter into a conversation -- You tell me & I ask leading questions...
I will recommend to you what and why:
* I can satisfy your current and future needs
I want you as a satisfied customer
I expect to use you as a referral as a "satisfied customer"
Regardless of your educated decision -- we both win!
No everybody needs LTE, and with more and more people on the LTE network the speeds on 3G will be good enough. The iPhone didn't have LTE for quite some time and was it the a "netbook"?
Hear hear. +1
The Moto G is trying to change that. It's a inexpensive phone that will get timely OS updates.
Beware of cheap. There's always a price. Always.
How does not having LTE mean it's like a netbook? It's HSDPA is 21Mbps. It also has 802.11n WiFi, 1GB RAM, a 4.5" IPS LCD, BT 4.0. If any phone on the market looks like they took a cue from Apple to find a good balance of performance and capabilities for a specific price point I'd say it's the Moto G. Why not give them credit for saying "We can only afford to stick in an early generation LTE chipset for our price point so we're not going to do it to satisfy spec sheet shoppers at the risk of killing battery life"?