Symbian phones, like the P900 did dominate, towards the end Nokia alone had 60% of the smartphone market, everything from the budget 6120 through the E and N series.
The N95 was their last successful phone, in terms of money making, the N96, N97 was their death knell as even though they were selling as many phones as ever, the average price went into free fall.
Methinks you have no idea on this subject.
The N96 definitely made money for Nokia. It was a relatively small spin on the N95/N95 8GB and sold for a high price. When the N96 was released, Nokia was still selling 100 million smartphones per quarter.
The N97 was the death knell though. It was bulky, slow and uncompetitive. I was actually the external beta test for it.
I have no idea about the subject? I think you have no idea about whether I have an idea about the subject.
But that's not even what I'm disputing. I'm disputing DED's knowledge of what happened before the iPhone was released.
This whole article seems rather silly saying how great Apple, iPhones and iOS is considering Google is said to be the future of the internet and everything else. Compared to Google and Android, Apple is seen as a failing company. Apple is definitely considered a doomed company with relatively low shareholder value based on continued loss of iPhone market share to Android. Almost no one sees Apple as being able to sustain its profits and many claim Apple will be simply put out of business within a few years as all their products are commoditized. People seem to be overlooking the fact that Google is worth $1200 a share while Apple is struggling to hold $530 a share. No intelligent investor has any faith in Apple being able to deliver new products and most believe that a high-end iPhone isn't any better than the common Android smartphone. No matter how many iPhones Apple sells, it's never nearly enough to keep pace with Android smartphone sales and that is seen as a major failing.
I honestly don't see how anyone can say that Apple is a better company than Google is when Google has the strongest backing on Wall Street. Market share remains the most important measure of how well a company is doing and Apple looks pretty sick based on shrinking market share. Doesn't it make sense that investors put their money on a company that looks like a winner? Apple certainly does not look like a winner from an investor's point of view. I have no doubt that Apple is making the most revenue and profits at the moment but nearly everyone claims those days are practically over. I'm a long-term Apple shareholder but even from my point of view Apple seems like a struggling company with nearly no one backing the company. It's never been said that Google is a dying company. Apple holds that title. Apple definitely doesn't get any respect as a company without Steve Jobs around. Tim Cook doesn't seem fit to be Apple's CEO. Apple seems to be throwing away so many opportunities to give itself a solid future despite sitting on a huge mountain of cash. I've just about given up on Apple as the company looks like it's being run into the ground.
YOU, THE LACKAY OF VILLAIN SHUT UP !!!!!!
We, Those who Are Engaged in The Market Business, All Know that AAPL is UNFAIRLY MANIPULATED by VILLAIN in Wall Street !
AAPL Should Have Hit $1,000 by The End of 2012 and May Have Hit $1,500 to $2,000 by The End of 2013 FOR SURE.
On The Contrary, Google's over $1,000 Value is ReaLly LAUGHABLE and JOKE Completely FABRICATED and SUPPORTED by VILLAIN's MANEUVERING Stock Manipulation !!!
Now The Stock BUY & SELL Tradings Are Made by Computer Robot.
Those Processings Are DEFINITELY INVISIBLE ! And ANYTHING GOES.
Do You REMEMBER " Flash Crash in Wall Street in 2010 " ?
During 5 Minutes from At 2:42 pm to at 2:47 pm On May 6, 2010, US stock markets As A Whole Experienced Unprecedented Sudden Decline Plummetting NEARLY HIT THE BOTTOM, One Company's Stock Price with over $100 Declined to " 5 PENCE " LITERARY !
Though Almost of All Declined Stocks Bounced Back to What They Were Before During THAT 5 Minutes, It Was OBVIOUS that SOMETHIN VERY FISHY THING Underwent in The BackYard.
Though The SEC and CFTC Joint Report on The Incident Issued Later Mainly Accused The Sentiment of The Market on The Day Being Pessimistic About Greek Financial Crisis in Europe, There is No Knowing WHAT WAS REALLY GOING ON.
A Number of Critics on Market Argued and Challenged The Report that Blaming A Single Order (from Waddell & Reed) for Triggering the Event was Disingenuous.
YES, It's DISINGENUOUS !!!
They're Pretending To Be NAÏVE !
And Tried to Hide SOMETHING VERY IMPORTANT.
I've always found it silly that Android is even compared to Apple. Apple is a single company that shares its profits with - itself and its shareholders. There is no such thing as "Android, Inc." that shares its profits with all makers of Android based products and their corresponding corporate shareholders. The only fair value comparisons are company-vs-company and product-vs-product and there are so few companies using Android technology that are even in the same ballpark as Apple as a company and iPhone as a product. Putting "Android" out there as if it's a single value generating entity is utter nonsense, unless of course all those companies using Android technology merge and start redistributing their profits in a unified battle against Apple.
I have nothing against Android technology at all, but comparing Apple as a company head to head with "Android" as a technology is meaningless at so many levels. It's like comparing the "market share" of gold (Apple) to the market share of dirt (Android). Yeah, there's a hell of a lot more dirt out there than there is gold, but which one is the better value in terms of profitability and wealth for its investors? I'd rather have one gold nugget than a mountain of dirt, but that's just me. Farmers and Android technology consumers may feel differently and that's fine with me.
I've always found it silly that Android is even compared to Apple. Apple is a single company that shares its profits with - itself and its shareholders. There is no such thing as "Android, Inc." that shares its profits with all makers of Android based products and their corresponding corporate shareholders. The only fair value comparisons are company-vs-company and product-vs-product and there are so few companies using Android technology that are even in the same ballpark as Apple as a company and iPhone as a product. Putting "Android" out there as if it's a single value generating entity is utter nonsense, unless of course all those companies using Android technology merge and start redistributing their profits in a unified battle against Apple.
I have nothing against Android technology at all, but comparing Apple as a company head to head with "Android" as a technology is meaningless at so many levels. It's like comparing the "market share" of gold (Apple) to the market share of dirt (Android). Yeah, there's a hell of a lot more dirt out there than there is gold, but which one is the better value in terms of profitability and wealth for its investors? I'd rather have one gold nugget than a mountain of dirt, but that's just me. Farmers and Android technology consumers may feel differently and that's fine with me.
It's weird enough that we get iPhone (a complete device) compared to Android (a free mobile OS), but it gets really bizarre when it's Apple (an entire company) to Android.
However, Android as a platform is not winning in any way that matters commercially.
Someway this can be considered true, since most of profits in smartphone market go to Apple.
But while Apple gives iOs for free in order to make profits from hardware, Google gives Android for free and hardware on par (Nexus) or let other sell hardware (Samsung and others) in order to sell its services (search with ads, map with ads, youtube with ads, ...). In this context, even if not directly a commercial success, Android is a huge success for Google: deeply embedded services and search bar in the home screen of roughly one billion devices, without paying anything to hardware manufacturers.
Someway this can be considered true, since most of profits in smartphone market go to Apple.
But while Apple gives iOs for free in order to make profits from hardware, Google gives Android for free and hardware on par (Nexus) or let other sell hardware (Samsung and others) in order to sell its services (search with ads, map with ads, youtube with ads, ...). In this context, even if not directly a commercial success, Android is a huge success for Google: deeply embedded services and search bar in the home screen of roughly one billion devices, without paying anything to hardware manufacturers.
Is Android more profitable for Google than iOS is for Google? I seem to recall numerous reports that Google gets more ad revenue from iOS users than from Android users, and that's in total, not on a device average.
Someway this can be considered true, since most of profits in smartphone market go to Apple.
But while Apple gives iOs for free in order to make profits from hardware, Google gives Android for free and hardware on par (Nexus) or let other sell hardware (Samsung and others) in order to sell its services (search with ads, map with ads, youtube with ads, ...). In this context, even if not directly a commercial success, Android is a huge success for Google: deeply embedded services and search bar in the home screen of roughly one billion devices, without paying anything to hardware manufacturers.
I wouldn't say IOS is free, the cost of IOS is baked into the cost of the iPhone. Android on the other hand has a distinct line between OS vendor and handset vendor and while Android AOSP is free, handset vendors do need to pay for Google services (GMS) like gmail, maps, play store etc.
Yes lack of innovation from others gets no press and anal-ists still bump Google's stock up even more even though they are losing money left and right on Android. They don't have an answer to a 64bit operating system, don't have a native operating system for any Android tablets, have 99% malware,spyware, DNS attacks on Android. Lot's of things wrong and yet Apple's stock goes down. There is absolutely no sense to why all the anal-ists keep pushing innovation on Apple yet not on any other company. Apple has products in the works but you can't just wave a magic wand instantly and make it appear.
DED if you put on some ruby slippers and click your heels together, maybe your dreams will come true.
For some constructive criticism, I would recommend cutting down on the disparaging comments toward Google/Android. You could have made an interesting article about the parallels between early Java Mobile platforms and Android, but your inability to control your fury towards Google turned this into a hit piece that no unbiased reader will take seriously. You won't convert anyone to your religion using malice or zealotry.
Is Android more profitable for Google than iOS is for Google? I seem to recall numerous reports that Google gets more ad revenue from iOS users than from Android users, and that's in total, not on a device average.
I remember those reports, and I did a quick search, but all the results were from 2012. Surprised it hasn't been revisited since. I'm curious to know what it is now.
DED if you put on some ruby slippers and click your heels together, maybe your dreams will come true.
For some constructive criticism, I would recommend cutting down on the disparaging comments toward Google/Android. You could have made an interesting article about the parallels between early Java Mobile platforms and Android, but your inability to control your fury towards Google turned this into a hit piece that no unbiased reader will take seriously. You won't convert anyone to your religion using malice or zealotry.
I remember those reports, and I did a quick search, but all the results were from 2012. Surprised it hasn't been revisited since. I'm curious to know what it is now.
Per device I'm sure Apple still wins by a wide margin but overall it could go either way. I base this on most Android-based devices simply not being used as smartphones or tablets, but rather just being used as dummy devices with a free OS.
If we only count devices that access Google Play I'm sure Apple still wins but the margin is much lower, and if we only count high-end devices like the Galaxy S3/S4Note/etc. then I'd say they would be on par for ad revenue, and likely push those devices above iDevice profit when you consider the licensing for services from the OEMs.
But I digress, and think Apple is still likely higher overall because Android's growth, according to Asymco, has plateaued.
gwydion: "These fiction pieces are even better than the science fiction books you can buy in the iBook Store"
Yes, to anyone still living in the pre-iPhone era (like you) these facts do seem like "science fiction".
Who would have predicted in 2006 that Apple would produce a mobile phone, and one as technologically advanced as the iPhone (while all other mobile phones were still using ancient designs with physical keyboards like the then most popular Blackberry, or ancient operating systems that didn't offer much more than email, and other office-related apps)?
Who would have predicted that Apple's iPhone would have gone from close to 0% share in its first year of sales, to selling hundreds of millions of phones and being the best selling high-end smartphone in the world, only 7 years later?
Who would have predicted that Apple's worldwide mobile phone (ALL mobile phones including smartphones AND feature phones) profit-share would be 53%???
Looking at all of these facts, from your position in the past, it certainly does seem like "science fiction". ;-))
There's room for both, because iOS is aimed at being new and better: tossing out assumptions to make an easier-to-use, more productive platform than traditional PCs. But Android is aimed at being more like traditional PCs: hackable, moddable, yes--all good things for some--but also harder to use, more complex, easier to attack, and harder to develop for profitably.
Each has different pluses and minuses. Moddability will always have appeal, and a free OS given away to handset makers will too.
So each will have a long life. What shape Android's will take is an interesting mysetery!
I agree with you that both platforms serve/target a particular and different audience.
However, while Apple has long survived as a minority platform by catering to specific market segments and niches (education, graphic design, etc.), Android isn’t well suited to serving a valuable minority of the market.
Android, like Windows, requires majority market share to remain relevant. As soon as it loses a broad swath of the market, its business model of funneling vast amounts of data to Google begins to collapse, just as Microsoft’s Windows empire has started to collapse due to a relatively small loss of the overall market share (Apple is at what, 20% at most in PCs?) that has undermined the Windows model of "cheap stuff the affluent will also pay for if there are no other options."
You can’t have a People’s Car that everyone uses if there’s somebody selling proprietary, high end cars that attract buyers with money. It’s the old "socialism fails when the people who have money engage in capitalism" problem.
Android would have worked out about as well (better, as it is an improvement) as Java Mobile did, if the iPhone had never existed. Unfortunately, not only does the iPhone exist, but it’s grabbing the majority of valuable market share and banking that war chest for future expansion.
DED if you put on some ruby slippers and click your heels together, maybe your dreams will come true.
For some constructive criticism, I would recommend cutting down on the disparaging comments toward Google/Android. You could have made an interesting article about the parallels between early Java Mobile platforms and Android, but your inability to control your fury towards Google turned this into a hit piece that no unbiased reader will take seriously. You won't convert anyone to your religion using malice or zealotry.
If you read RoughlyDrafted articles from 2004-2010, you’ll find the same sort of caustic contempt from readers just like you who complained the exact same things about Microsoft, and how it wasn’t going to do anything but continue the 1990s into forever. They ended up all being wrong, too.
If you read RoughlyDrafted articles from 2004-2010, you’ll find the same sort of caustic contempt from readers just like you who complained the exact same things about Microsoft, and how it wasn’t going to do anything but continue the 1990s into forever. They ended up all being wrong, too.
Also, you’re confusing "religious conversion" with simply laying out facts. If you convert somebody’s religion, it’s of no use unless you can use that religion to manipulate them. AppleInsider/DED doesn’t have any means to do this. It is the irrational Google Android religion that seeks to convert the world with a lie about openness that can then be mined for data. And you’re part of those blind masses fully deluded into thinking that you are some how "unbiased." Your opinion isn’t worth more just because you say it is. Try outlining some facts with rational logic and see where that takes you.
You can also stay right where you are and serve as today’s contemptuously mocking commenter who can be cited in 5 years as being one of the fools who bought into the idea that a broadly licensed, rewarmed Mobile Java is the best technology one can use to deliver mobile devices.
Quick question: have you ever been right about anything?
Also, in the Wizard of Oz, Dorothy doesn’t need magical ruby slippers to "make dreams come true." Just the factual realization that knowing "there’s no place like home" was enough to get there.
Relax there Daniel, just because you can't accept a commenter's criticism doesn't mean you should attempt to belittle him.
The following is probably going to sound more curt than I intended (my back hurts and I am trying to supplement the NSAIDs with alcohol in the pub post work) , I apologise in advance.
Quote: From DED
~~Windows Mobile, a platform that offered Samsung little room for differentiation. Android hasn't captured the same share as Symbian once had world wide
This makes absolutely no sense at all. OEMs could do pretty much whatever they wanted (with regard to form factor, hardware specs and software), hence HTC baked in Sense and before that, introduced both the finger based scrolling TrueFlo and motion based VueFlo back in early 2007. Indeed HTC were so annoyed at people porting their "innovations" to other handsets that they resorted to Cease & Desist noticed for sites offering custom ROMs containing their IP (this should be considered in a historical context, one where MS didn't care a jot if owners were flashing with newer versions of WM).
I get that you hate MS, fair enough, that is your choice, but please do not distort the truth to fit your agenda.
Frankly after reading the above quote I decided to stop. It may well be an awfully well written article but I for one am unlikely to find out.
Comments
Symbian phones, like the P900 did dominate, towards the end Nokia alone had 60% of the smartphone market, everything from the budget 6120 through the E and N series.
The N95 was their last successful phone, in terms of money making, the N96, N97 was their death knell as even though they were selling as many phones as ever, the average price went into free fall.
Methinks you have no idea on this subject.
The N96 definitely made money for Nokia. It was a relatively small spin on the N95/N95 8GB and sold for a high price. When the N96 was released, Nokia was still selling 100 million smartphones per quarter.
The N97 was the death knell though. It was bulky, slow and uncompetitive. I was actually the external beta test for it.
I have no idea about the subject? I think you have no idea about whether I have an idea about the subject.
But that's not even what I'm disputing. I'm disputing DED's knowledge of what happened before the iPhone was released.
YOU, THE LACKAY OF VILLAIN SHUT UP !!!!!!
We, Those who Are Engaged in The Market Business, All Know that AAPL is UNFAIRLY MANIPULATED by VILLAIN in Wall Street !
AAPL Should Have Hit $1,000 by The End of 2012 and May Have Hit $1,500 to $2,000 by The End of 2013 FOR SURE.
On The Contrary, Google's over $1,000 Value is ReaLly LAUGHABLE and JOKE Completely FABRICATED and SUPPORTED by VILLAIN's MANEUVERING Stock Manipulation !!!
Now The Stock BUY & SELL Tradings Are Made by Computer Robot.
Those Processings Are DEFINITELY INVISIBLE ! And ANYTHING GOES.
Do You REMEMBER " Flash Crash in Wall Street in 2010 " ?
During 5 Minutes from At 2:42 pm to at 2:47 pm On May 6, 2010, US stock markets As A Whole Experienced Unprecedented Sudden Decline Plummetting NEARLY HIT THE BOTTOM, One Company's Stock Price with over $100 Declined to " 5 PENCE " LITERARY !
Though Almost of All Declined Stocks Bounced Back to What They Were Before During THAT 5 Minutes, It Was OBVIOUS that SOMETHIN VERY FISHY THING Underwent in The BackYard.
Though The SEC and CFTC Joint Report on The Incident Issued Later Mainly Accused The Sentiment of The Market on The Day Being Pessimistic About Greek Financial Crisis in Europe, There is No Knowing WHAT WAS REALLY GOING ON.
A Number of Critics on Market Argued and Challenged The Report that Blaming A Single Order (from Waddell & Reed) for Triggering the Event was Disingenuous.
YES, It's DISINGENUOUS !!!
They're Pretending To Be NAÏVE !
And Tried to Hide SOMETHING VERY IMPORTANT.
The Fact that " MARKET IS EASILY MANIPULATED " !
:mad:
I have nothing against Android technology at all, but comparing Apple as a company head to head with "Android" as a technology is meaningless at so many levels. It's like comparing the "market share" of gold (Apple) to the market share of dirt (Android). Yeah, there's a hell of a lot more dirt out there than there is gold, but which one is the better value in terms of profitability and wealth for its investors? I'd rather have one gold nugget than a mountain of dirt, but that's just me. Farmers and Android technology consumers may feel differently and that's fine with me.
It's weird enough that we get iPhone (a complete device) compared to Android (a free mobile OS), but it gets really bizarre when it's Apple (an entire company) to Android.
Someway this can be considered true, since most of profits in smartphone market go to Apple.
But while Apple gives iOs for free in order to make profits from hardware, Google gives Android for free and hardware on par (Nexus) or let other sell hardware (Samsung and others) in order to sell its services (search with ads, map with ads, youtube with ads, ...). In this context, even if not directly a commercial success, Android is a huge success for Google: deeply embedded services and search bar in the home screen of roughly one billion devices, without paying anything to hardware manufacturers.
Is Android more profitable for Google than iOS is for Google? I seem to recall numerous reports that Google gets more ad revenue from iOS users than from Android users, and that's in total, not on a device average.
There are two important differences between today and seven years ago:
- ecosystems
- widespread of smartphones among costumers.
“History doesn't repeat itself, but it does rhyme.” (Mark Twain)
Someway this can be considered true, since most of profits in smartphone market go to Apple.
But while Apple gives iOs for free in order to make profits from hardware, Google gives Android for free and hardware on par (Nexus) or let other sell hardware (Samsung and others) in order to sell its services (search with ads, map with ads, youtube with ads, ...). In this context, even if not directly a commercial success, Android is a huge success for Google: deeply embedded services and search bar in the home screen of roughly one billion devices, without paying anything to hardware manufacturers.
I wouldn't say IOS is free, the cost of IOS is baked into the cost of the iPhone. Android on the other hand has a distinct line between OS vendor and handset vendor and while Android AOSP is free, handset vendors do need to pay for Google services (GMS) like gmail, maps, play store etc.
DED if you put on some ruby slippers and click your heels together, maybe your dreams will come true.
For some constructive criticism, I would recommend cutting down on the disparaging comments toward Google/Android. You could have made an interesting article about the parallels between early Java Mobile platforms and Android, but your inability to control your fury towards Google turned this into a hit piece that no unbiased reader will take seriously. You won't convert anyone to your religion using malice or zealotry.
I remember those reports, and I did a quick search, but all the results were from 2012. Surprised it hasn't been revisited since. I'm curious to know what it is now.
The clicking of the heels took Dorothy home.
Per device I'm sure Apple still wins by a wide margin but overall it could go either way. I base this on most Android-based devices simply not being used as smartphones or tablets, but rather just being used as dummy devices with a free OS.
If we only count devices that access Google Play I'm sure Apple still wins but the margin is much lower, and if we only count high-end devices like the Galaxy S3/S4Note/etc. then I'd say they would be on par for ad revenue, and likely push those devices above iDevice profit when you consider the licensing for services from the OEMs.
But I digress, and think Apple is still likely higher overall because Android's growth, according to Asymco, has plateaued.
I've just about given up on Apple as the company looks like it's being run into the ground.
Oh poor Hachi, please stop. Please, please, please. Let it go. STOP returning to the train station, I just can't take it!
Yes, to anyone still living in the pre-iPhone era (like you) these facts do seem like "science fiction".
Who would have predicted in 2006 that Apple would produce a mobile phone, and one as technologically advanced as the iPhone (while all other mobile phones were still using ancient designs with physical keyboards like the then most popular Blackberry, or ancient operating systems that didn't offer much more than email, and other office-related apps)?
Who would have predicted that Apple's iPhone would have gone from close to 0% share in its first year of sales, to selling hundreds of millions of phones and being the best selling high-end smartphone in the world, only 7 years later?
Who would have predicted that Apple's worldwide mobile phone (ALL mobile phones including smartphones AND feature phones) profit-share would be 53%???
Looking at all of these facts, from your position in the past, it certainly does seem like "science fiction". ;-))
There's room for both, because iOS is aimed at being new and better: tossing out assumptions to make an easier-to-use, more productive platform than traditional PCs. But Android is aimed at being more like traditional PCs: hackable, moddable, yes--all good things for some--but also harder to use, more complex, easier to attack, and harder to develop for profitably.
Each has different pluses and minuses. Moddability will always have appeal, and a free OS given away to handset makers will too.
So each will have a long life. What shape Android's will take is an interesting mysetery!
I agree with you that both platforms serve/target a particular and different audience.
However, while Apple has long survived as a minority platform by catering to specific market segments and niches (education, graphic design, etc.), Android isn’t well suited to serving a valuable minority of the market.
Android, like Windows, requires majority market share to remain relevant. As soon as it loses a broad swath of the market, its business model of funneling vast amounts of data to Google begins to collapse, just as Microsoft’s Windows empire has started to collapse due to a relatively small loss of the overall market share (Apple is at what, 20% at most in PCs?) that has undermined the Windows model of "cheap stuff the affluent will also pay for if there are no other options."
You can’t have a People’s Car that everyone uses if there’s somebody selling proprietary, high end cars that attract buyers with money. It’s the old "socialism fails when the people who have money engage in capitalism" problem.
Android would have worked out about as well (better, as it is an improvement) as Java Mobile did, if the iPhone had never existed. Unfortunately, not only does the iPhone exist, but it’s grabbing the majority of valuable market share and banking that war chest for future expansion.
The clicking of the heels took Dorothy home.
Yes I know, but she got there by wishing.
DED if you put on some ruby slippers and click your heels together, maybe your dreams will come true.
For some constructive criticism, I would recommend cutting down on the disparaging comments toward Google/Android. You could have made an interesting article about the parallels between early Java Mobile platforms and Android, but your inability to control your fury towards Google turned this into a hit piece that no unbiased reader will take seriously. You won't convert anyone to your religion using malice or zealotry.
If you read RoughlyDrafted articles from 2004-2010, you’ll find the same sort of caustic contempt from readers just like you who complained the exact same things about Microsoft, and how it wasn’t going to do anything but continue the 1990s into forever. They ended up all being wrong, too.
If you read RoughlyDrafted articles from 2004-2010, you’ll find the same sort of caustic contempt from readers just like you who complained the exact same things about Microsoft, and how it wasn’t going to do anything but continue the 1990s into forever. They ended up all being wrong, too.
Also, you’re confusing "religious conversion" with simply laying out facts. If you convert somebody’s religion, it’s of no use unless you can use that religion to manipulate them. AppleInsider/DED doesn’t have any means to do this. It is the irrational Google Android religion that seeks to convert the world with a lie about openness that can then be mined for data. And you’re part of those blind masses fully deluded into thinking that you are some how "unbiased." Your opinion isn’t worth more just because you say it is. Try outlining some facts with rational logic and see where that takes you.
You can also stay right where you are and serve as today’s contemptuously mocking commenter who can be cited in 5 years as being one of the fools who bought into the idea that a broadly licensed, rewarmed Mobile Java is the best technology one can use to deliver mobile devices.
Quick question: have you ever been right about anything?
Also, in the Wizard of Oz, Dorothy doesn’t need magical ruby slippers to "make dreams come true." Just the factual realization that knowing "there’s no place like home" was enough to get there.
Relax there Daniel, just because you can't accept a commenter's criticism doesn't mean you should attempt to belittle him.
DED,
The following is probably going to sound more curt than I intended (my back hurts and I am trying to supplement the NSAIDs with alcohol in the pub post work) , I apologise in advance.
This makes absolutely no sense at all. OEMs could do pretty much whatever they wanted (with regard to form factor, hardware specs and software), hence HTC baked in Sense and before that, introduced both the finger based scrolling TrueFlo and motion based VueFlo back in early 2007. Indeed HTC were so annoyed at people porting their "innovations" to other handsets that they resorted to Cease & Desist noticed for sites offering custom ROMs containing their IP (this should be considered in a historical context, one where MS didn't care a jot if owners were flashing with newer versions of WM).
I get that you hate MS, fair enough, that is your choice, but please do not distort the truth to fit your agenda.
Frankly after reading the above quote I decided to stop. It may well be an awfully well written article but I for one am unlikely to find out.