So the only way Apple can say they outsold Windows OEM's is to combine ios devices into the computer category. Sorry that is a lame answer if you can't win on the product alone then don't play the game. Desktops/laptops vs desktops/laptops. Next they will count their iwatch as a computer and the appletv as well.
Says who? In fact, the comparison is even more appropriate than this article suggests since Apple sells all those devices by itself and Microsoft has legions of othe companies designing and selling computers
So the only way Apple can say they outsold Windows OEM's is to combine ios devices into the computer category. Sorry that is a lame answer if you can't win on the product alone then don't play the game. Desktops/laptops vs desktops/laptops. Next they will count their iwatch as a computer and the appletv as well.
Apple plays (and wins) the game by counting its money. End of story.
Sorry probably an English as a second ;language issue on my part however you quoted me and as far as I can tell made no contextual point that related to what I posted whatsoever.
Stupid comparison. You could just as easily say Samsung sold more computers than apple and Microsoft partners combined.
No, it is a fair comparison. Internet data shows that iOS users actually use their devices as real computers. (Like me writing this post on an iPhone). The evidence suggest otherwise for Samdung devices.
Not sure I'm comfortable with mobile phones being placed up against traditional PC's in this data. Adding iPads & Mac's together no problem but adding in iPhones...... You might as well start adding in my calculator wrist watch from the 80's, it's able to compute after all.
Wrong! Millions of people around the world are using their smartphones as their primary computing device!
Wrong! Millions of people around the world are using their smartphones as their primary computing device!
True, and this will only accelerate as a future generations have their first computing experience on a phone or tablet. In developing countries, smartphones and feature phones are people's primary access to the Internet.
Of course I remember that Apple and MS have been around longer than Google.., but so what? This isn't the 90s. It's 2014. Some silly old rivalry isn't a valid reason to call cell phones "computers" and then compare sales of hardware against sales of OS licenses. It's just completely meaningless.
Not sure I'm comfortable with mobile phones being placed up against traditional PC's in this data. Adding iPads & Mac's together no problem but adding in iPhones...
Perhaps you might look at this from the utility or business perspectives.
The iOS devices and their successors have made it possible for the Web to be largely the Web, no matter the container. The same can be said for their provisioning of e-mail and other things that people often used a PC for.
It used to be that we had to wait until we got to our offices before we could receive and then reply to our e-mails on our PCs; now we can do both those tasks anywhere and anytime on our mobile devices. A task done by the latter is one less task done by the former; thus the latter gains value relative to the former.
If a pair of glasses could get you the same information and services that you go to your PC for, then those glasses can reasonably (and for certain purposes) be considered a competitor to the PC. The fact that those glasses might only do 90 percent of what that PC can should not be blithely ignored. The PC industry does well to include functionally similar devices in their competitive assessments, lest they be blind-sided in the marketplace by competition that erupts from an unseen direction… as it would appear Mr. Ballmer and his associates allowed themselves to be.
Seen scrawled on a lavatory wall at Lehigh University in 1971…
"Alas! Is this the only place where a Lehigh man has time to dream?!"
Of course I remember that Apple and MS have been around longer than Google.., but so what? This isn't the 90s. It's 2014. Some silly old rivalry isn't a valid reason to call cell phones "computers" and then compare sales of hardware against sales of OS licenses. It's just completely meaningless.
Ah, I see the problem. Just because you have neither heard of nor considered that the iPhone and iPad personal computers doesn't mean they don't fit the definition. They are not only more powerful, more versatile, and more useful than "PCs" of the 1990s, but are considerably more personal. You don't count your calculator watch because it's a very limited appliance.
You can count Android, WinPh, and even BB10-based smartphones and tablets in a count for personal computers, which I'm surprised you haven't seen before, but this is clearly not about the share of the market.
If you don't think the iPhone is personal computer then you can't possibly think the iPad is a personal computer which then makes me wonder why you think people are giving up Windows and even Mac OS X)-based personal computers to either solely or mostly use these other devices for tasks they previous used this much bigger, more costly, and less personal devices. Furthermore, if you can't see how the iPhone and iPad are personal computers then you can't consider the Mac a personal computer unless you have invented your own definition (which seems very at this point) that would somehow require an on-screen (mouse) pointer to a be PC (or some other forced definition), which would be odd considering that IBM's branded IBM PC had no GUI at all.
Ah, I see the problem. Just because you have neither heard of nor considered that the iPhone and iPad personal computers doesn't mean they don't fit the definition. They are not only more powerful, more versatile, and more useful than "PCs" of the 1990s, but are considerably more personal. You don't count your calculator watch because it's a very limited appliance.
You can count Android, WinPh, and even BB10-based smartphones and tablets in a count for personal computers, which I'm surprised you haven't seen before, but this is clearly not about the share of the market.
If you don't think the iPhone is personal computer then you can't possibly think the iPad is a personal computer which then makes me wonder why you think people are giving up Windows and even Mac OS X)-based personal computers to either solely or mostly use these other devices for tasks they previous used this much bigger, more costly, and less personal devices. Furthermore, if you can't see how the iPhone and iPad are personal computers then you can't consider the Mac a personal computer unless you have invented your own definition (which seems very at this point) that would somehow require an on-screen (mouse) pointer to a be PC (or some other forced definition), which would be odd considering that IBM's branded IBM PC had no GUI at all.
It's not about whether an iPhone/iPod is considered a personal computer. It's about similar functions. People can use an iPad to replace a laptop/desktop - the same can't be said for an iPhone/iPod. I doubt any significant number of people only use their iPhone/iPod as their computing device. That's why it's silly to count them when comparing with Windows pcs.
I'm not seeing where Darwin is certified either, just Mountain Lion and Mavericks
If we're going to split unnecessary hairs, Leopard was the first version of OS X (built on the darwin kernel architecture) to receive full SUS 3.0 UNIX Certification... Which lends a sort of "ipso facto" factor to the situation (considering iOS runs the exactly same kernel, just ported to ARM). But it honestly couldn't matter less. UNIX is not an operating system anymore, it's not even a particular set of programming or API's. It's simply a set of guidelines to guarantee interoperability with any other system that is UNIX-certified. If they so chose, Microsoft could incorporate those guidelines into their next version of Windows, pay the money to get it reviewed, and Windows would be UNIX certified.
None of this changes the fact that BSD UNIX and anything built off that starting point is, and should be, referred to as "UNIX". UN*X Or *nix for the pedantic. "Certified Unix" is a completely different thing.
It's not about whether an iPhone/iPod is considered a personal computer. It's about similar functions. People can use an iPad to replace a laptop/desktop - the same can't be said for an iPhone/iPod. I doubt any significant number of people only use their iPhone/iPod as their computing device. That's why it's silly to count them when comparing with Windows pcs.
1) I know plenty of people that use their iPhones more in a week than they ever used their WinPCs in months.
2) You think netbook owners are using them more than an iPhone owners?
3) Speaking of similar functions, that's exactly right and the reason why your position is woefully inaccurate. I can't explain why you would argue that Safari, Mail, App Store apps, etc. between the iPad and iPhone are so dissimilar that people can't do anything useful on the iPhone but that's your issue and you need to simply get over it.
Who cares if the internals are Unix or not? (It's especially unimportant whether or not it's Certified Unix or Linux or QNX or whatever ...) Microsoft's devices are definitely not *nix. M$ grew their own with David Cutler, so it's all some kind of VMS progeny, but Windows is still completely usable What's important is whether or not it's a viable, modern platform. IOS, Android and Windows are all viable. Maybe Blackberry is too, I don't know. Here's a bare minimum to be a viable, modern platform:
- web browsing
- email
- developer API
There are probably more criteria, but the above covers a lot. Windows, Macs, Windows Phone, IOS devices, and high end Android all qualify. Apple IIs, Windows 3.1 machines, 1980s vintage technology in general, and low-end Android devices do not qualify.
This is big news that Apple devices have eclipsed Windows devices. Those of you who are nit-picking need to get some altitude to see that this change reflects a way in which the entire world has changed. And yes, Android is big and Android is important, but it's fragmented and its place in the technology universe is not perfectly clear. Both OSX/IOS and Windows are relatively homogeneous, and as of now people are buying and using more Apple devices than Windows devices.
Not sure why it matters to @delrayjones' point (or the larger discussion) whether or not the version of Unix implemented in iOS is "certified UNIX." Wikipedia advises that iOS is a computer operating system that's "Unix-like" and based on the BSD and in the OS X family. Shouldn't that be enough to support the point that an iOS device is a computer comparable to at least some versions of PCs in the pool of those we're considering? After all, MS Windows isn't a certified UNIX, either.
Separately, I see* at opengroup.org that the BSD flavor of UNIX is not "certified" -- does that mean that the BSD is not really UNIX?
† By the way… the Wikipedia article on OS X tells us that Tigers, Leopards, Snow Leopards, and Lions were also certified UNIX beasties, just like the most recent two.
Comments
Ok. Two different form factors for different use cases.
So the only way Apple can say they outsold Windows OEM's is to combine ios devices into the computer category. Sorry that is a lame answer if you can't win on the product alone then don't play the game. Desktops/laptops vs desktops/laptops. Next they will count their iwatch as a computer and the appletv as well.
Apple plays (and wins) the game by counting its money. End of story.
@LarryA
Sorry probably an English as a second ;language issue on my part however you quoted me and as far as I can tell made no contextual point that related to what I posted whatsoever.
Wrong! Millions of people around the world are using their smartphones as their primary computing device!
Surely you can't be serious.
He's not being serious. He's just being dasanman69.
And don't call him Shirley.
To paraphrase Steve Ballmer: that's a rounding error.
True, and this will only accelerate as a future generations have their first computing experience on a phone or tablet. In developing countries, smartphones and feature phones are people's primary access to the Internet.
Perhaps you might look at this from the utility or business perspectives.
The iOS devices and their successors have made it possible for the Web to be largely the Web, no matter the container. The same can be said for their provisioning of e-mail and other things that people often used a PC for.
It used to be that we had to wait until we got to our offices before we could receive and then reply to our e-mails on our PCs; now we can do both those tasks anywhere and anytime on our mobile devices. A task done by the latter is one less task done by the former; thus the latter gains value relative to the former.
If a pair of glasses could get you the same information and services that you go to your PC for, then those glasses can reasonably (and for certain purposes) be considered a competitor to the PC. The fact that those glasses might only do 90 percent of what that PC can should not be blithely ignored. The PC industry does well to include functionally similar devices in their competitive assessments, lest they be blind-sided in the marketplace by competition that erupts from an unseen direction… as it would appear Mr. Ballmer and his associates allowed themselves to be.
Seen scrawled on a lavatory wall at Lehigh University in 1971…
"Alas! Is this the only place where a Lehigh man has time to dream?!"
Not anymore...
Exactly. This is an incredibly silly comparison.
Ah, I see the problem. Just because you have neither heard of nor considered that the iPhone and iPad personal computers doesn't mean they don't fit the definition. They are not only more powerful, more versatile, and more useful than "PCs" of the 1990s, but are considerably more personal. You don't count your calculator watch because it's a very limited appliance.
You can count Android, WinPh, and even BB10-based smartphones and tablets in a count for personal computers, which I'm surprised you haven't seen before, but this is clearly not about the share of the market.
If you don't think the iPhone is personal computer then you can't possibly think the iPad is a personal computer which then makes me wonder why you think people are giving up Windows and even Mac OS X)-based personal computers to either solely or mostly use these other devices for tasks they previous used this much bigger, more costly, and less personal devices. Furthermore, if you can't see how the iPhone and iPad are personal computers then you can't consider the Mac a personal computer unless you have invented your own definition (which seems very at this point) that would somehow require an on-screen (mouse) pointer to a be PC (or some other forced definition), which would be odd considering that IBM's branded IBM PC had no GUI at all.
Ah, I see the problem. Just because you have neither heard of nor considered that the iPhone and iPad personal computers doesn't mean they don't fit the definition. They are not only more powerful, more versatile, and more useful than "PCs" of the 1990s, but are considerably more personal. You don't count your calculator watch because it's a very limited appliance.
You can count Android, WinPh, and even BB10-based smartphones and tablets in a count for personal computers, which I'm surprised you haven't seen before, but this is clearly not about the share of the market.
If you don't think the iPhone is personal computer then you can't possibly think the iPad is a personal computer which then makes me wonder why you think people are giving up Windows and even Mac OS X)-based personal computers to either solely or mostly use these other devices for tasks they previous used this much bigger, more costly, and less personal devices. Furthermore, if you can't see how the iPhone and iPad are personal computers then you can't consider the Mac a personal computer unless you have invented your own definition (which seems very at this point) that would somehow require an on-screen (mouse) pointer to a be PC (or some other forced definition), which would be odd considering that IBM's branded IBM PC had no GUI at all.
It's not about whether an iPhone/iPod is considered a personal computer. It's about similar functions. People can use an iPad to replace a laptop/desktop - the same can't be said for an iPhone/iPod. I doubt any significant number of people only use their iPhone/iPod as their computing device. That's why it's silly to count them when comparing with Windows pcs.
Perhaps similar, but it doesn't really matter because iOS is not certified UNIX.
You can read the dozens of requirements here:
http://www.opengroup.org/openbrand/testing/prodstds.htm
iOS doesn't conform to any of them.
I'm not seeing where Darwin is certified either, just Mountain Lion and Mavericks
If we're going to split unnecessary hairs, Leopard was the first version of OS X (built on the darwin kernel architecture) to receive full SUS 3.0 UNIX Certification... Which lends a sort of "ipso facto" factor to the situation (considering iOS runs the exactly same kernel, just ported to ARM). But it honestly couldn't matter less. UNIX is not an operating system anymore, it's not even a particular set of programming or API's. It's simply a set of guidelines to guarantee interoperability with any other system that is UNIX-certified. If they so chose, Microsoft could incorporate those guidelines into their next version of Windows, pay the money to get it reviewed, and Windows would be UNIX certified.
None of this changes the fact that BSD UNIX and anything built off that starting point is, and should be, referred to as "UNIX". UN*X Or *nix for the pedantic. "Certified Unix" is a completely different thing.
1) I know plenty of people that use their iPhones more in a week than they ever used their WinPCs in months.
2) You think netbook owners are using them more than an iPhone owners?
3) Speaking of similar functions, that's exactly right and the reason why your position is woefully inaccurate. I can't explain why you would argue that Safari, Mail, App Store apps, etc. between the iPad and iPhone are so dissimilar that people can't do anything useful on the iPhone but that's your issue and you need to simply get over it.
Does your calculator from the 80s run Unix?
I think I'll nit-pick this 'delreyjones' guy ...
Not sure why it matters to @delrayjones' point (or the larger discussion) whether or not the version of Unix implemented in iOS is "certified UNIX." Wikipedia advises that iOS is a computer operating system that's "Unix-like" and based on the BSD and in the OS X family. Shouldn't that be enough to support the point that an iOS device is a computer comparable to at least some versions of PCs in the pool of those we're considering? After all, MS Windows isn't a certified UNIX, either.
Separately, I see* at opengroup.org that the BSD flavor of UNIX is not "certified" -- does that mean that the BSD is not really UNIX?
* thanks to @mstone
† By the way… the Wikipedia article on OS X tells us that Tigers, Leopards, Snow Leopards, and Lions were also certified UNIX beasties, just like the most recent two.
No, there was a claim that the iPhone ran UNIX, and just like the 80's calculator, it doesn't