Linked by Thom Holwerda on Tue 19th Oct 2010 12:23 UTC
Talk, Rumors, X Versus Y Catfight! Get out your mobile phones and start filming, because two important personalities in the mobile world just got into a catfight. After the presentation of Apple's (once again) stellar quarterly results (what's with the low iPad sales, though?), Apple's CEO Steve Jobs went on a bit of a tangent regarding Android (among other things). Google's Andy Rubin, the father of Android, responded in a pretty fun way via Twitter.
Order by: Score:
Comment by LighthouseJ
by LighthouseJ on Tue 19th Oct 2010 12:35 UTC
LighthouseJ
Member since:
2009-06-18

Pot, meet kettle.

Reply Score: 1

RE: Comment by LighthouseJ
by Bill Shooter of Bul on Tue 19th Oct 2010 16:47 UTC in reply to "Comment by LighthouseJ"
Bill Shooter of Bul Member since:
2006-07-14

If anyone knows disingenuous, its Jobs. Apple inc, is based on the idea of a disingenuous field, alternatively referred to as a reality distortion field, but ultimately they are isomorphic to each other.

In fact, he's so disingenuous, that he can't help but frame his own comments disingenuously. His comments are not really directed towards the openness of Android, but the whether or not that model is better for consumers.

Its like calling a Jeep's off road capability disingenuous because of its poorer gas mileage when compared to a Prius.

Reply Score: 3

Open
by vivainio on Tue 19th Oct 2010 12:40 UTC
vivainio
Member since:
2008-12-26

Someone may disagree about Rubin's defition of "open". Dumping the source code somewhere periodically doesn't cut it, by itself (even if it technically is open source).

Reply Score: 6

RE: Open
by fatjoe on Tue 19th Oct 2010 12:49 UTC in reply to "Open"
fatjoe Member since:
2010-01-12

Rubin's point was that all information is out there, and you can use it however you like.

If the current line of phones are not to your liking, you can create your own and no one will send C&D letters to you.

[... or you could get a Nexus 1 and hack it to death]

Reply Score: 11

RE[2]: Open
by VZsolt on Tue 19th Oct 2010 13:05 UTC in reply to "RE: Open"
VZsolt Member since:
2008-10-31

You might want to watch out for patent lawsuits flying low.

Reply Score: 1

RE[2]: Open
by Timmmm on Tue 19th Oct 2010 20:21 UTC in reply to "RE: Open"
Timmmm Member since:
2006-07-25

If the current line of phones are not to your liking, you can create your own and no one will send C&D letters to you.


Make your own phone? Are you mad? The whole point of android being "open" is that people can buy a phone, and then download the Android source, compile and install it. In reality they *can't* do that, because

A) Most phones have locked boot-loaders. and
B) There's no source for many of the drivers or the radio firmware. You have to (illegally) copy the binaries that came with the phone, and even then you can't add features, fix bug and so on.

Reply Score: 3

RE[3]: Open
by fatjoe on Tue 19th Oct 2010 21:23 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: Open"
fatjoe Member since:
2010-01-12

You realize that the Android world have both types of phones? Completely open (e.g. the OpenMoko Android port) and not that open (Motorola). You are free to choose whichever you like. And I am perfectly happy with this and so is Linus Torvalds (hint: GPLv3).

Also, access to radio is limited due to some US law.

Reply Score: 2

RE[4]: Open
by Morgan on Wed 20th Oct 2010 00:31 UTC in reply to "RE[3]: Open"
Morgan Member since:
2005-06-29

Also, access to radio is limited due to some US law.


I find that particularly interesting because one can import just about any Chinese Android-based phone into the U.S. and hack away to their heart's content, without fear of boot ROM locks and illegally obtained radio firmware. Granted, you won't have access to the Market and official Google apps, but if you're wanting your own custom Android phone you'll find alternatives to those or compile your own anyway.

Short of buying an N900 (and as much as I like my Android, I still want one), it's as close to a truly open phone as you can get right now.

Reply Score: 2

RE[3]: Open
by JAlexoid on Thu 21st Oct 2010 21:44 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: Open"
JAlexoid Member since:
2009-05-19

The whole point of android being "open" is that people can buy a phone, and then download the Android source


Hm... Thank you for enlightening us. You are probably Andy Rubin or one of the strategists at Google?

My speculation is, that Android is open because any H/W company can freely adapt, port it and still have the same platform.

Reply Score: 2

RE: Open
by tomcat on Tue 19th Oct 2010 17:08 UTC in reply to "Open"
tomcat Member since:
2006-01-06

Someone may disagree about Rubin's defition of "open". Dumping the source code somewhere periodically doesn't cut it, by itself (even if it technically is open source).


Agreed. Google has agreements with carriers that prevent those carriers from modifying aspects of the Android mobile experience without Google's approval. We saw this recently when one of the carriers wanted to replace Android mapping functionality from a 3rd party software provider other than Google. Google doesn't mind if you modify Android, as long as you don't have any way of competing with Google. That isn't opennness.

Reply Score: 1

RE[2]: Open
by Radio on Tue 19th Oct 2010 17:14 UTC in reply to "RE: Open"
Radio Member since:
2009-06-20

Wrong. They can't modify some elements of Android if they want the google apps and the "with Google" branding. Those additional, proprietary elements are not part of Android, the smartphone OS.

Reply Score: 7

RE[3]: Open
by tomcat on Tue 19th Oct 2010 19:38 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: Open"
tomcat Member since:
2006-01-06

Wrong. They can't modify some elements of Android if they want the google apps and the "with Google" branding. Those additional, proprietary elements are not part of Android, the smartphone OS.


Again, Google doesn't want people to be able to replace its own components. It's not an open platform.

Reply Score: 1

RE[4]: Open
by fatjoe on Tue 19th Oct 2010 21:27 UTC in reply to "RE[3]: Open"
fatjoe Member since:
2010-01-12

"Wrong. They can't modify some elements of Android if they want the google apps and the "with Google" branding. Those additional, proprietary elements are not part of Android, the smartphone OS.


Again, Google doesn't want people to be able to replace its own components. It's not an open platform.
"

Android is an open platform, the Google branding is not (at least not completely). Got it??

Reply Score: 3

RE[5]: Open
by pgeorgi on Wed 20th Oct 2010 19:10 UTC in reply to "RE[4]: Open"
pgeorgi Member since:
2010-02-18

The problem is that Google (and pretty much the rest of the world) mix up "Android" and "Android with Google".

For example, "Android apps" are mostly "Android with Google" apps (because they're available in their market only).
On the other hand, alternative markets aren't really useful for developers because their main audience _is_ in the "with Google" subset of the Android ecosystem.
Everything else is network effects, and so "Android sans Google" could just not exist, from a popularity standpoint.
Personally I'm happy that it is around, as I can reuse their stack for my stuff, but "sans Google" really is irrelevant in the big Android picture.

Reply Score: 1

RE: Open
by l3v1 on Tue 19th Oct 2010 18:18 UTC in reply to "Open"
l3v1 Member since:
2005-07-06

Someone may disagree about Rubin's defition of "open". Dumping the source code somewhere periodically doesn't cut it, by itself (even if it technically is open source).


Geez, people, it seems that sometimes nothing is good enough for you.

Open source does mean you get access to the source code, even if there would be certain requirements on the other end (i.e. when putting it on devices and distributing). Access to sources is a major plus against all others from a dev point of view, and whatever Jobs or MS says, Google is my favourite of the bunch from this point of view. I couldn't care less about GUI consistency between devices, consistency in the background makes me more happy.

Of course I realize most people (i.e. buyers) are totally uninterested in such issues - but then what's all the fuss about? What's the still ongoing lack of anger management against anything that contains open source in its designation?

About A. Rubin's tweet, it's funny, and to the point. He doesn't say bad word about anyone and doesn't point any fingers, still manages to make his point. And well so. Gotta buy him a beer ;)

And by the way, The first thing we think of when we hear open is Windows: W. T. F. ?! Knowing that Jobs is far from stupid, and looking at the context seeing it's not a joke, I can't really make anything of this.

Reply Score: 7

RE[2]: Open
by Morgan on Wed 20th Oct 2010 00:50 UTC in reply to "RE: Open"
Morgan Member since:
2005-06-29

And by the way, The first thing we think of when we hear open is Windows: W. T. F. ?! Knowing that Jobs is far from stupid, and looking at the context seeing it's not a joke, I can't really make anything of this.


I think, as Apple continues to move further and further from the open standards that helped make them what they are today, Jobs has started trying to redefine the word "open" to keep Apple looking positive.

By equating open software with Windows, he pushes the idea that open no longer means Free access to the source code and Freedom to modify and redistribute; rather, in his eyes "open software" should refer to how widespread and available it is -- and therefore how consistent the UI is. As anyone with half a clue knows, Windows is the dominant PC operating system therefore by Jobs' definition it is the most "open". Since the Mac OS is the second most popular PC OS, it must also fall under this "open" umbrella. Linux, with its ~1% market share -- again, on desktop PCs -- and its virtually unlimited potential for customization both at the low level and the UI, must therefore be "closed".

All that so he can imply that Linux on a phone must also be closed, because even though it has the highest market share among smartphones* it has the ability to host various manufacturer-branded UIs on top of the standard Android experience. Notice I said "ability", not "liability" as he would imply. I personally see the customization options as a feature, not a bug. Of course, his "open" iOS is obviously superior because it offers virtually no customization and a completely vertical app store.

As I've been saying a lot lately, I've decided I really don't like the direction Jobs and Apple are going. I still respect him for his genius and his past accomplishments, and OS X remains one of my all time favorite OSes to work in, but these days I'd almost rather use Windows.

(Cue Southern drawl) I just plain don't like Apple no more.



* I'm not including Symbian as I don't think Jobs has it on his radar, even though it is quite the popular smartphone OS.

Reply Score: 4

RE[3]: Open
by l3v1 on Wed 20th Oct 2010 08:32 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: Open"
l3v1 Member since:
2005-07-06

Windows is the dominant PC operating system therefore by Jobs' definition it is the most "open".


Of course I get that [what this defintion might imply], but that doesn't make it any more true. We've seen many trials of redefining open&free&co over the years from various companies, by keeping to use it in contexts it doesn't [shouldn't] fit, but calling something open just because it's being used by most, doesn't fit with anything I would call open. It's just simple availability, in that it is available to be used and to develop for it by anyone, which is nice in itself, still doesn't make it open.

Reply Score: 2

RE[2]: Open
by JAlexoid on Thu 21st Oct 2010 21:49 UTC in reply to "RE: Open"
JAlexoid Member since:
2009-05-19

And by the way, The first thing we think of when we hear open is Windows: W. T. F. ?! Knowing that Jobs is far from stupid, and looking at the context seeing it's not a joke, I can't really make anything of this.


Jobs is technically irrelevant person, for at least 10 years now.
He is a business person, a strategist and a marketing guru... And he's good at it.

Reply Score: 3

Catfight is on
by tuzor on Tue 19th Oct 2010 12:49 UTC
tuzor
Member since:
2007-08-07

"(what's with the low iPad sales, though?)"

I read somewhere that it was limited due to supply issues.
But you're right it's pretty low compared to the millions the competitors are shipping (oh wait).
Competition is looking pretty bad to be honest.
7inch screens at a much higher price most of the times.
Damn Apple is expensive.

"Why the tiny keyboard on the 3.5" iPhone is all good is a mystery to all."
I think the point they made was that it was good enough.
In fact Apple was getting so much hate about it's touch keyboard when it first shipped. It turned out it was actually much better than most hardware keyboards at the time.
But of course, negative press always sells more. GO THOM, you show them girl.
Furthermore, your argument just strengthens Jobs' point. That a 7inch tablet is just too small, especially for people who already carry a 3-4inch smartphone in their pocket.
Noone is really coming out and speaking the truth; that Samsung, Dell etc. are forced into 7inch screens because they can't afford the 10inch ones (both in terms of price and battery juice) or there's simply not enough of them because Apple is hogging up all the supplies.

Reply Score: 4

RE: Catfight is on
by fatjoe on Tue 19th Oct 2010 13:09 UTC in reply to "Catfight is on"
fatjoe Member since:
2010-01-12

I heard that the only reason Archos 101 was not released earlier this month was because Apple had bought every LCD they could get their hands on.

(there are also some reports from SonyEricsson that support this)

Reply Score: 2

RE: Catfight is on
by spiderman on Tue 19th Oct 2010 13:25 UTC in reply to "Catfight is on"
spiderman Member since:
2008-10-23

Samsung, Dell etc. are forced into 7inch screens because they can't afford the 10inch ones (both in terms of price and battery juice) or there's simply not enough of them because Apple is hogging up all the supplies.

Actually Samsung is one of the top LCD producers in the world, maybe the top one. I doubt they can't afford it or that their supply is low compared to Apple.

Reply Score: 5

RE[2]: Catfight is on
by kaiwai on Tue 19th Oct 2010 14:08 UTC in reply to "RE: Catfight is on"
kaiwai Member since:
2005-07-06

Actually Samsung is one of the top LCD producers in the world, maybe the top one. I doubt they can't afford it or that their supply is low compared to Apple.


Apple made a massive investment in Samsung years ago and in return they get a major chunk of the supply; its a win-win situation for both companies. Samsung's capacity increases along with a dedicated customer and they can also supply themselves off the back of the increased capacity.

Edited 2010-10-19 14:08 UTC

Reply Score: 3

RE[3]: Catfight is on
by spiderman on Tue 19th Oct 2010 14:32 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: Catfight is on"
spiderman Member since:
2008-10-23

Actually Apple gets its LCD display for the iPad from LG. Samsung is providing the memory and the A4 processor.

Reply Score: 3

RE[4]: Catfight is on
by kaiwai on Tue 19th Oct 2010 14:45 UTC in reply to "RE[3]: Catfight is on"
kaiwai Member since:
2005-07-06

Actually Apple gets its LCD display for the iPad from LG. Samsung is providing the memory and the A4 processor.


Cool, thanks for the correction ;)

The gradual roll out probably slowed down sales - it would be interesting to note sales on a per-capita basis (to harmonise out population differences) in countries that don't have carrier lock in versus the US where there is lock in to AT&T - whether the arrangement with AT&T is hampering uptake. With that being said, the fact that Verizon is using a technology so ancient that even a country like NZ is going to kill off very soon tells me the lack of competition is due to a lack of technology harmonisation more than anything else.

Reply Score: 2

RE: Catfight is on
by JAlexoid on Thu 21st Oct 2010 21:54 UTC in reply to "Catfight is on"
JAlexoid Member since:
2009-05-19

"(what's with the low iPad sales, though?)"

I read somewhere that it was limited due to supply issues.
But you're right it's pretty low compared to the millions the competitors are shipping (oh wait).
Competition is looking pretty bad to be honest.
7inch screens at a much higher price most of the times.
Damn Apple is expensive.


iPad has or had supply issues!?!?!? Where and when(post first 2 weeks)?

Reply Score: 2

Jobs' attitude reaks of fear
by Koakuma on Tue 19th Oct 2010 13:16 UTC
Koakuma
Member since:
2009-07-02

They fear that Android will erode their market share and lower their benefits.

It has come to a point where Apple can't ignore and dismiss Android anymore as something irrelevant/harmless.

So Jobs is trying to belittle his concurent / to make people think that Apple is still the dominant player / has the upper hands / more market share when in fact Apple has already lost and is loosing more ground as time pass.

The headstart that Apple Had by being first in the market is gone, they are now going to play catch up and market their product as better integrated...and slowly get for smartphones the 5~10% (maybee 20%)niche that they have for desktop computers.

They are very successfull, but now they have to fight against Microsoft on the desktop front, with Nokia, Rim, HTC, Motorola, Microsoft on the smartphone front, with Dell, HP, Microsoft, Acer, Asus, etc... on the tablet front and with google on the tv front.

It's going to be an uphill battle for Apple now as their opponents now have a worthy and proven software stack to rely upon...They'll still thrive with their establish fan base but growth will become harder.

Good luck !

Reply Score: 6

RE: Jobs' attitude reaks of fear
by fatjoe on Tue 19th Oct 2010 13:21 UTC in reply to "Jobs' attitude reaks of fear"
fatjoe Member since:
2010-01-12

As long as this "war" is fought on a technical level, I am a happy man. I say, Microsoft, Google, Apple, Nokia and RIM, bring it on and let the best product win!


However, once they throw in those damn lawyers, we are all doomed.

Edited 2010-10-19 13:21 UTC

Reply Score: 8

Koakuma Member since:
2009-07-02

I totally agree with you, fatjoe ^^

Edited 2010-10-19 13:25 UTC

Reply Score: 2

rcsteiner Member since:
2005-07-12

Winners rarely win on technical merit, at least if history is any guideline, but we can hope. Again.

Reply Score: 2

RE: Jobs' attitude reaks of fear
by mrhasbean on Tue 19th Oct 2010 13:46 UTC in reply to "Jobs' attitude reaks of fear"
mrhasbean Member since:
2006-04-03

You are kidding right? The iPad's sales are stunted purely because of supply - this is the only thing Apple need to be concerned about. They are already a massive success in many vertical markets as well as education and common "Mum & Dad" users. Why? Because they are EXACTLY the same to use as an iPhone / iTouch. Not similar. Not "well it's the same underneath it just has a different UI on it". Exactly the same. And sales of one will generate sales of the other.

Apple's marketshare may very well only ever reach 20%, but when you're making the whole device why would you want any more? Even 5% of the global market of the iOS type of device would see them sitting very pretty for many years to come.

Again, people missing the point...

Reply Score: 2

RE: Jobs' attitude reaks of fear
by kaiwai on Tue 19th Oct 2010 14:16 UTC in reply to "Jobs' attitude reaks of fear"
kaiwai Member since:
2005-07-06

They fear that Android will erode their market share and lower their benefits.

It has come to a point where Apple can't ignore and dismiss Android anymore as something irrelevant/harmless.

So Jobs is trying to belittle his concurent / to make people think that Apple is still the dominant player / has the upper hands / more market share when in fact Apple has already lost and is loosing more ground as time pass.

The headstart that Apple Had by being first in the market is gone, they are now going to play catch up and market their product as better integrated...and slowly get for smartphones the 5~10% (maybee 20%)niche that they have for desktop computers.

They are very successfull, but now they have to fight against Microsoft on the desktop front, with Nokia, Rim, HTC, Motorola, Microsoft on the smartphone front, with Dell, HP, Microsoft, Acer, Asus, etc... on the tablet front and with google on the tv front.

It's going to be an uphill battle for Apple now as their opponents now have a worthy and proven software stack to rely upon...They'll still thrive with their establish fan base but growth will become harder.

Good luck !


All that may be true but it doesn't take away from what he said during the earnings call - there is a price to pay for the kind of openness that comes with having a free for all. There is a reason why Microsoft has upped the requirements when it comes to WP7 phones - they don't want another debacle of half baked phones coming to market with their flag ship product being screwed up because some jackass at some OEM wishes to customise it to buggery.

As for Android, the fact that HTC has told customers of phones less than a year old to 'go fuck themselves' (HTC Hero being one example) after refusing to provide Android 2.2 upgrades tells me that I'd sooner have an iPhone or a WP7 Phone than dealing with the crap that Android users have to put up with. Owning a device for less than a year then the OEM/Handset maker (don't even fucking mention the carrier, they have nothing to do with it) decides not to provide an upgrade to Android 2.2. The Android world is turning into a giant fragmented clusterfuck but too many people here are hating Apple because it is the 'cool thing to do' - the same twerps used to hate Microsoft, and before that they used to hate some other boogyman.

Reply Score: 5

molnarcs Member since:
2005-09-10

FYI:
http://www.wired.co.uk/news/archive/2010-07/30/froyo-yo-hero

Check the date of the article too - not too long after the OTA update of Froyo. The article concludes that putting Froyo on the Hero makes it "pretty much perfect". Estimated time to install ... about 15 minutes (not including download times of course).

Now I certainly concede the point that manufacturers should support their devices longer (although the warranty itself is only 1 year). Of course I would be happier if HTC itself released updates for their old phones, but the very least they let users update. This also neatly supports Rubin's retort - yes, that's openness, when random devs can download the source code and modify it to run on pretty much anything.

Reply Score: 3

kaiwai Member since:
2005-07-06

FYI:
http://www.wired.co.uk/news/archive/2010-07/30/froyo-yo-hero

Check the date of the article too - not too long after the OTA update of Froyo. The article concludes that putting Froyo on the Hero makes it "pretty much perfect". Estimated time to install ... about 15 minutes (not including download times of course).

Now I certainly concede the point that manufacturers should support their devices longer (although the warranty itself is only 1 year). Of course I would be happier if HTC itself released updates for their old phones, but the very least they let users update. This also neatly supports Rubin's retort - yes, that's openness, when random devs can download the source code and modify it to run on pretty much anything.


All I can say about the 1 year warranty and Android availability - iPhone 3G was released July 2008, over 2 years ago and yet one is able to run iOS 4.1 on it. If Apple can provide software updates to a device over 2 years old then I think HTC can do the same.

Reply Score: 2

molnarcs Member since:
2005-09-10

Apple releases 1 device/year, HTC over a dozen, running on different platforms (winmo 6.5 now 7, Android, and they even have a Brew device). That said, I completely agree with you. I even think that it might be beneficial for them. It would certainly incur additional costs, but it would also make customers more loyal, which might be an important asset in such a highly competitive market. One positive thing about HTC though is that they are one of the more hacker friendly manufacturers, so at least we can do it ourselves. But as I said, I agree that it would be nice if they provided longer support.

Reply Score: 2

MissTJones Member since:
2010-03-25

I've got an iPhone 3G. I haven't upgraded to iOS4 and anyone who hasn't yet, shouldn't.

Not only do you not get any of the new features (well one or two, but I honestly can't think what they are beyond the ability to skip tracks via bluetooth AVRCP in 4.2 which should have been there all along) it radically slows your device to near unusable levels. 4.2 improves on 4.1 but is still much slower than version 3.

With this kind of "support" who needs enemies?

(Note that the only reason I didn't upgrade before the initial wave of complaints is because the iTunes upgrade repeatedly crashed with totally incomprehensible error messages e.g. "-43 error". Saved from one Apple software disaster by another, how ironic considering that the fanboys would have you believe that Apple simply doesn't have these problems)

Reply Score: 2

meridianrebel Member since:
2010-08-30

I have a HTC Hero and have spoken with HTC about the lack of an "official" Froyo release for it. In order to get an official Froyo release, it must be requested (a.k.a. "paid for") by the carrier. It's frustrating, to say the least. However, I've been running CyanogenMod on mine and am very happy with Froyo on my HTC Hero. Runs much faster than the stock HTC Sense 2.1 garbage that came on it - not to mention, being able to control my processor speed (underclock when not in use, overclock when in use) has made my battery last 300% longer than it did with the stock HTC Sense bastardization of Android on it. All in all, that's one of the strengths of using an Android phone - being able to do exactly what I did. ;)

Reply Score: 1

kaiwai Member since:
2005-07-06

I have a HTC Hero and have spoken with HTC about the lack of an "official" Froyo release for it. In order to get an official Froyo release, it must be requested (a.k.a. "paid for") by the carrier. It's frustrating, to say the least. However, I've been running CyanogenMod on mine and am very happy with Froyo on my HTC Hero. Runs much faster than the stock HTC Sense 2.1 garbage that came on it - not to mention, being able to control my processor speed (underclock when not in use, overclock when in use) has made my battery last 300% longer than it did with the stock HTC Sense bastardization of Android on it. All in all, that's one of the strengths of using an Android phone - being able to do exactly what I did. ;)


Nothing has ever stopped HTC from providing the updates directly to the customer - download an self extracting firmware update and provide it over a USB port. If Telecom NZ/ZTE can provide firmware updates via their website I think that HTC can provide an Android download off their own website for individuals to install onto their phones. To rely on unverified third party ROMs in lieu of real support by the hand set vendor tells me more about the lack of any real customer support by those said companies than any real commitment to providing the sort of support which even Apple is willing to provide to devices over 2 years old (iPhone 3G was released in July 2008 and yet still receiving iOS updates).

Reply Score: 3

meridianrebel Member since:
2010-08-30

Very good point, and I completely agree. However, I know that some of the carriers here - like Sprint - have their own "tweaks" that they add to Android. For instance, with Sprint, when you open up the Market app, there's a separate Sprint section. I'm sure that other carriers do the same thing. If HTC were to release a vanilla update, it would overwrite the carrier specific stuff and would probably cause the carriers to get upset.

I'm not defending HTC on this. Just saying that the carriers here in the US are part of the problem as well.

Reply Score: 1

RE: Jobs' attitude reaks of fear
by apoclypse on Tue 19th Oct 2010 14:53 UTC in reply to "Jobs' attitude reaks of fear"
apoclypse Member since:
2007-02-17

You are missing the point by nitpicking at Job's android rant. He clearly says later on and reiterates as these ass-hats keep asking the same questions (He actually go a little mad at some point), that Apple doesn't care about marketshare, they care about sales. If they sell a lot of devices but are not the market leader what does that matter to Apple? Even if they sell less than their competition they are still making more money because of their margins. If Apple were really trying to be the market leader they would have compromised a long time ago, in terms of quality and features. If Apple cared about marketshare they would have an iphone with a Verizon, Sprint, T-Mobile logo on the back and pre-installed carrier applications. As it stands they value control and consumer experience over marketshare, even if it costs them the market.

Reply Score: 4

RE[2]: Jobs' attitude reaks of fear
by Radio on Tue 19th Oct 2010 17:28 UTC in reply to "RE: Jobs' attitude reaks of fear"
Radio Member since:
2009-06-20

As a hardware maker, Apple can afford not to care about market share, as long as they reap big margins from each device sold (the economic model used by jewellery & mechanical watches makers); as a software vendor, they may be wrong, as app prices are stuck to the psychological 0.99$, so only sales volumes can make an app worthwhile (especially when you know how much it costs to meet Apple guidelines... http://stackoverflow.com/questions/209170/how-much-does-it-cost-to-... )

Reply Score: 2

Comment by tetek
by tetek on Tue 19th Oct 2010 13:22 UTC
tetek
Member since:
2010-10-04

I don't think that kernel is all what's matters in Android. Sure - you can get it like you can get PC linux kernel. But kernel isn't all. And everything else is proprietary. Someone took effort to strip Android from the "everything else" just to see what will left. It was kernel, bluetooth stack and some libraries like libxml. Stack of code from which you can't even make a call. No GUI of course.
Want more? Talk with Google. Used anyway - they will sue you.
So all this talking about "free" and "open" Android is just silly. Sure - you can install apps openly but only if your operator allows it. Some of AT&T phones are stripped from this functionality. And new ones from Verizon will use Verizon store. If Market form Google will be available is in discussion since Verizon phones will be using Bing as default search engine.
And of course you have to make rooting procedure to your device to be a root - ON YOUR OWN PHONE. It's not a problem on many HTC's phones but for example users of Motorola Milestone waited about 8 - 9 months before they could even think about it. Not everything what's is based in some pieces on Open Source is open, free and fair. I think that every one of you could bring some examples.

Reply Score: 3

RE: Comment by tetek
by robmv on Tue 19th Oct 2010 13:59 UTC in reply to "Comment by tetek"
robmv Member since:
2006-08-12

What are you talking about? Android opensource repository contains everything with the exception of a few proprietary Google Apps like GMail client (standard mail client is included), GTalk, Google Calendar "plugin" (the calendar app is included), YouTube native client, and Market, everything else can be build from sourcecode with a simple make, better if you have one of the Developer phone likes the Nexus One where they are preconfigured with all hardware support

Reply Score: 3

Comment by tetek
by tetek on Tue 19th Oct 2010 13:29 UTC
tetek
Member since:
2010-10-04

Samsung didn't want to go on open war with iPad. They find niche and try to sell something new.

Reply Score: 1

Low sales?
by MissingBeOS on Tue 19th Oct 2010 13:32 UTC
MissingBeOS
Member since:
2010-01-26

How on earth can over 4 million iPads being sold in less than even a year be called "low" sales? I think Apple is the only company that can have great sales news and it will still be painted as having not met some artificial goal or even Doomed(tm).

Reply Score: 3

RE: Low sales?
by Carewolf on Wed 20th Oct 2010 14:13 UTC in reply to "Low sales?"
Carewolf Member since:
2005-09-08

I don't know, could be that they have released higher expectations earlier?

It looked low to me too, but realising this is a the quarterly sale, it looks pretty okay, not insanely high, but not low either. According to the numbers here it is much smaller than the iPhone sales though, but then an iPad is a more limited device without a well-defined market or purpose yet. While there were a lot of tablet PC- or PDA-like devices before iPad, Apple are really trying to open a new market here, and than can take some time. Even if they don't succede in that I suspect these sales numbers are still making a profit.

Reply Score: 1

Ummm, except...
by mrhasbean on Tue 19th Oct 2010 13:34 UTC
mrhasbean
Member since:
2006-04-03

Who cares if a Samsung device has a slightly different UI than one from HTC? .... Nothing the car-brand-switching and TV-brand-switching crowd can't handle.


In a car the standard UI components are the steering wheel, accelerator, brake (and clutch if manual), gear / transmission selector, indicators, headlights and wipers. Everything else is like add-on apps that have their own UI. All of the car's standard UI components have been standardised on nearly everything the average user will ever buy - with the only exception being the indicator and wiper selectors which can be on alternate sides of the steering column depending on the origin of the vehicle, and in a few cases the location of the headlight switches. Similarly the common UI components on TV's have been standardised - channel selectors (+/-), volume selector (+/-), power button with the red power symbol on it, etc.

The reason for this is that car-brand-switching and TV-brand-switching group are the same category of people who had a perpetual 12:00 flashing on their video recorder, and that is what is at the heart of Job's comment. Anyone who has spent any reasonable amount of time in IT support dealing with the general public will understand just how important it is, and it's the very reason the likes of Samsung are putting their own custom UI on Android - to get users used to their device's UI so when they buy their next one they look for something exactly the same.

Why the tiny keyboard on the 3.5" iPhone is all good is a mystery to all.


You mean the tiny keyboard that's still got bigger "buttons" than most portrait format mechanical keyboard our there?

Reply Score: 5

RE: Ummm, except...
by fatjoe on Tue 19th Oct 2010 13:40 UTC in reply to "Ummm, except..."
fatjoe Member since:
2010-01-12

I am not sure you can compare size of virtual and physical keyboards this way. On a physical keyboard you can feel the edges with your fingers and can therefore hit the buttons far more precisely. You also get much better feedback.

On the other hand, I believe touchscreens are superior to mouses in many situations ;)

Reply Score: 2

RE: Ummm, except...
by Thom_Holwerda on Tue 19th Oct 2010 15:56 UTC in reply to "Ummm, except..."
Thom_Holwerda Member since:
2005-06-29

You mean the tiny keyboard that's still got bigger "buttons" than most portrait format mechanical keyboard our there?


And kangaroos make for great electricity spaghetti whoop whoop diggidity jam joomba.

Classic Jobsian statement there - true, but entirely besides the point, so you can deflect from the obviousness of the argument. Apple claims that both a 3.5" as well as a 9.7" touch interface is possible - but then Jobs says you cannot do a touch interface on 7" because it's too small? Lolwut?

That was an idiotic statement, and a major fail on his part - like the TweetDeck comments which aren't sitting well with TweetDeck's CEO.

Reply Score: 6

RE[2]: Ummm, except...
by molnarcs on Tue 19th Oct 2010 17:02 UTC in reply to "RE: Ummm, except..."
molnarcs Member since:
2005-09-10

The GalaxyTab hasn't hit the majors market yet (will launch in the US in November for instance). I saw a few unboxing videos however (one from Germany if I remember). No in depth review, but the first thing that was praised ... wait for it... was the screen! And the lightness of the device of course. Seeing the thing in hand gave me the impression that 7" is just perfect. Hell, 3.7 is not so bad actually for browsing (but never do it if anywhere near a PC of course).

I think this is one thing that Jobs will regret in the future. I do expect the GalaxyTab to be a success, there is a lot of excitement/expectation around it, and at least the build quality does not disappoint (I'm sure the UI won't either, I'm really really happy with Froyo and the GalaxyS is rather popular). Expect that remark to live on as people will quote Jobs every time the device passes a sales milestone.

Reply Score: 4

v RE[2]: Ummm, except...
by tuzor on Tue 19th Oct 2010 17:14 UTC in reply to "RE: Ummm, except..."
RE: Ummm, except...
by gbanfalvi on Tue 19th Oct 2010 17:34 UTC in reply to "Ummm, except..."
gbanfalvi Member since:
2009-02-25

I think Jobs' point was that... well you hold the iPhone like a phone and just use your thumbs. On larger devices you'd actually have to type and need reasonably sized buttons. I don't think he'd forget about the existence of iPhones.

Reply Score: 2

RE[2]: Ummm, except...
by JAlexoid on Thu 21st Oct 2010 22:07 UTC in reply to "RE: Ummm, except..."
JAlexoid Member since:
2009-05-19

I think Jobs' point was that... well you hold the iPhone like a phone and just use your thumbs. On larger devices you'd actually have to type and need reasonably sized buttons. I don't think he'd forget about the existence of iPhones.


Then 9.7" is too small for a touch keyboard. iPad is horrible for text input.
The fact is, that he has to paint anything not sold/developed by Apple as a bad thing, so that the stock price rises.
His job is just that - make sure that the stock price rises or if it stays the same then produce good dividends.

Reply Score: 2

RE: Ummm, except...
by Neolander on Tue 19th Oct 2010 19:25 UTC in reply to "Ummm, except..."
Neolander Member since:
2010-03-08

You mean the tiny keyboard that's still got bigger "buttons" than most portrait format mechanical keyboard our there?

Haptic feedback and not being oversensitive make buttons much larger than their touch counterparts in the space of usability.

Edited 2010-10-19 19:32 UTC

Reply Score: 4

iPad is friggin huge
by joshv on Tue 19th Oct 2010 13:43 UTC
joshv
Member since:
2006-03-18

I went into an Apple store with every intention of buying and iPad - until I held one. It's freakin huge, and heavy. Read a book on the thing? I think not. Surf? My laptop has a convenient lap friendly base with a keyboard built in, with a screen about the same darned size. Ergonomically I think a 7" tablet would be a much more compelling light usage device.

Reply Score: 2

The Bogeyman
by molnarcs on Tue 19th Oct 2010 13:47 UTC
molnarcs
Member since:
2005-09-10

Steve Jobs:
"We think Android is very, very fragmented..."
"We think integrated will trump fragmented...
"...we will triumph over Google’s fragmented approach"...
"where PCs have the same interface, Android is very fragmented...

Fragmented Fragmented FRAGMENTED FRAGMENTED.
BOOO!

Yeah, yeah we got the message. Fragmentation as a problem has been a popular meme ever since the launch of the platform. And yet, we don't see any slowdown in Android adaptation. Markets that would try to prevent developers releasing on multiple markets will be unpopular - I don't think anyone would try that even.

What we have here is simply competition. The best market with the best UI, proposal for developers, easy of use, etc. will win, the rest will die, or become less popular. Regardless, 99% of all important apps will be present on the top three markets at any given time. Basically, if no single entity controls the distribution channel, than there's competition for a) users b) developers - and that's cool. The FRAGMENTATION rhetoric is a huge spin, just like this one:

"Twitter client, Twitter Deck [sic], recently launched their app for Android. They reported that they had to contend with more than 100 different versions of Android software on 244 different handsets. The multiple hardware and software iterations present developers with a daunting challenge."

Thank you Mr Jobs, and now let's see the developer's reply:

"Did we at any point say it was a nightmare developing on Android? Errr nope, no we didn't. It wasn't."

Nice try there :-D

Reply Score: 6

v RE: The Bogeyman
by Piot on Tue 19th Oct 2010 16:34 UTC in reply to "The Bogeyman"
RE[2]: The Bogeyman
by molnarcs on Tue 19th Oct 2010 16:52 UTC in reply to "RE: The Bogeyman"
molnarcs Member since:
2005-09-10

I read their blog about a week ago... their tone is rather celebratory, along the lines of "look how cool is that." I don't think Jobs' way of using TweetDeck in his rant is a faithful representation of what they actually claim on their blog. It's a huge spin "has to contend with" dramatizes the whole situation, and he concludes with depicting coding for Android a "daunting challenge." If this is not spin for you, I don't know what is. TweetDeck developers recognized it as such and debunked it.

I hope this clarifies my comment... well, actually their comment, I merely reported on it, didn't think I would need to explain the obvious ;)

Reply Score: 4

RE[2]: The Bogeyman
by Radio on Tue 19th Oct 2010 17:35 UTC in reply to "RE: The Bogeyman"
Radio Member since:
2009-06-20

And neither did Jobs.

"Twitter client, Twitter Deck [sic], recently launched their app for Android. They reported that they had to contend with more than 100 different versions of Android software on 244 different handsets. The multiple hardware and software iterations present developers with a daunting challenge."

Maybe you should buy a dictionary app.

Reply Score: 2

RE[3]: The Bogeyman
by vodoomoth on Wed 20th Oct 2010 11:47 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: The Bogeyman"
vodoomoth Member since:
2010-03-30

What about the fact that the developers mentioned by Jobs ended up challenging (may I say "refuting"?) his statement?
I too see his statement, in the light of what the devs said, as misleading or at least, as a non non-valid example. Me not being an English speaker is irrelevant as the words used in the statement are rather simple and common, right?

Reply Score: 2

Cyanogen
by _xmv on Tue 19th Oct 2010 14:00 UTC
_xmv
Member since:
2008-12-09

FYI there are several open source "forks" or "mods" such as CyanogenMod.
What it is? It's a Android made from the source repository, and tailored by some developers.

The base is always the same and it works on most Android phones. A distro for your phone if you will.

In fact, even the iPhone has been made to run such an Android port.

The strength of open source does also only lie in the freedom to do what you please, or just getting stuff for free as in beer.

It's that efforts can be easily combined. Someone enhance XXX in Android? Well then it's available for everyone using Android, not just for XXX.

Reply Score: 3

Comment by tetek
by tetek on Tue 19th Oct 2010 14:25 UTC
tetek
Member since:
2010-10-04

Yeap, checked - your right.

Reply Score: 1

Comment by tetek
by tetek on Tue 19th Oct 2010 16:56 UTC
tetek
Member since:
2010-10-04

Its like calling a Jeep's off road capability disingenuous because of its poorer gas mileage when compared to a Prius.


It depends on a consumer. Most of them will say that Prius is eco, classy etc. But few of them like to make car dirty up to it's roof in mud or sand. The quotations above about git [...] etc. is of course quite good but it's just for geeks. From "Prius lovers" (and I think SJ too) it's "you make my point". For a few "dirty boys" is of course something to hang on wall beside half naked princess Lea ;)

But business is about "Prius lovers" not people who can make their own car from tape and 4 beer cans ;)

Reply Score: 1

Apple is clearly scared of Android and RIM
by tomcat on Tue 19th Oct 2010 17:12 UTC
tomcat
Member since:
2006-01-06

iPhone market share has stalled. Android is surging. Windows Phone 7 is entering the market. RIM is still a major player. iOS is losing its luster. All of these elements are conspiring to spoil Jobs's plans for world domination. Which is fine. Competition is a good thing. When somebody starts whining about their competitors, you know that that's good for consumers.

Reply Score: 6

kristoph Member since:
2006-01-01

Apple is activating 2+ MILLION iOS devices per week. Is that your definition of 'loosing your luster'?

Reply Score: 1

Its like Blackberry.
by Milo_Hoffman on Tue 19th Oct 2010 20:29 UTC
Milo_Hoffman
Member since:
2005-07-06

My biggest disappointment is that it turned out like Blackberry.

Sure, you have a device running the same "OS", but your totally dependent on the cell provider for what version you run, when you get updates, etc..

This leads to different features being available on the same phone depending on what vendor you use.

Like Verizon who likes to disable core phone OS features so they can charge you for them.


This is one of the things I hated about the Blackberry, some providers took forever to release updates to their phones.


The best thing about the iPhone is your no longer dependent on waiting for your cell phone provider to give you the new version, something many months later than your friends provider, in the case of some phone companies never and your SOL stuck on the ancient version it came with.

Edited 2010-10-19 20:33 UTC

Reply Score: 2

RE: Its like Blackberry.
by dagw on Wed 20th Oct 2010 13:09 UTC in reply to "Its like Blackberry."
dagw Member since:
2005-07-06

However that has nothing to do with iOS vs Android. There is nothing stopping HTC, Samsung or Motorola from saying you're only allowed to sell our phones if you leave them 'pure' and allow us to update the OS as we please. If their phone is desirable enough they might even manage to get a carrier or two to agree. However as long as people are happy to buy carrier crippled phones there is no incentive for HTC, Samsung or Motorola to make such a demand.

Reply Score: 2

Comment by snorkel2
by snorkel2 on Tue 19th Oct 2010 20:50 UTC
snorkel2
Member since:
2007-03-06

I have a iphone now, but Android is getting to the point my next phone will not be apple.

Reply Score: 2

Clueless
by sigzero on Tue 19th Oct 2010 21:47 UTC
sigzero
Member since:
2006-01-03

Andy Rubin is clueless as to what Job's was talking about in context.

Reply Score: 2

RE: Clueless
by JAlexoid on Thu 21st Oct 2010 22:13 UTC in reply to "Clueless"
JAlexoid Member since:
2009-05-19

Andy Rubin is clueless as to what Job's was talking about in context.

And Jobs used slimy marketing rhetoric and manager-speak.

Edited 2010-10-21 22:13 UTC

Reply Score: 2

AnythingButVista
Member since:
2008-08-27

"...7" is too small for finger-friendly use..."
Then why on earth did Apple release a touch-based iPod Nano?!?!?!?!?!

Reply Score: 4

dvhh Member since:
2006-03-20

Well done ;) ,


I would also like to point out that the guy pointed out the lack of application adapted to a 7" screen, where a vast majority of application available for the ipad are the same one that are for the iphone (the ipad can adapt the display different ways, one of them is zooming the interface).
I also love the sandpaper statement.

Reply Score: 3

GStepper Member since:
2006-03-08

"...7" is too small for finger-friendly use..."
Then why on earth did Apple release a touch-based iPod Nano?!?!?!?!?!


- Perhaps because the nano has a very limited set of apps which are tailored (music related apps only) for the device whereas the iPad or any other tablet devices are designed to run plenty of very different apps (Internet apps, Office apps, multimedia apps...). Do you really think this difference in the use of the devices doesn't justify the size of the nano's screen and/or the use of multi-touch on the nano ?

Reply Score: 2

Neolander Member since:
2010-03-08

I think that nothing, except for spec sheet padding, can justify inclusion of multi-touch on a DAP that has the size of the Nano. Touchscreens why not, for portability it makes sense (although my experience of touch on the D2 is that it's already a bit small for that, and nano is even smaller if I remember well), but multitouch on a nano is just as relevant at video playback on an iPod shuffle's power LED : physically, a human being equipped with average fingers can not take advantage of it.

Edited 2010-10-20 10:04 UTC

Reply Score: 2

My next phone is a Droid
by Phloptical on Tue 19th Oct 2010 23:38 UTC
Phloptical
Member since:
2006-10-10

See ya, Apple.

Reply Score: 4

far from "stellar" results
by unclefester on Wed 20th Oct 2010 05:54 UTC
unclefester
Member since:
2007-01-13

A $4 billion profit for a $282 billion company isn't a stellar result. In fact it is an absolutely pathetic result - only 1.5% profit. This means that Apple Inc is selling for around 10x a realistic valuation.

Reply Score: 2

RE: far from "stellar" results
by vodoomoth on Wed 20th Oct 2010 11:38 UTC in reply to "far from "stellar" results"
vodoomoth Member since:
2010-03-30

I think the $4 billion thing is a quarterly profit figure.
What do the $282 billion represent?

Reply Score: 2

Low iPad sales ?
by GStepper on Wed 20th Oct 2010 09:31 UTC
GStepper
Member since:
2006-03-08

Come on, 7+ millions units sold since the iPad was released (6 months ago) and we're supposed to consider as a failure ??? That made my day. Thx

Reply Score: 2

Nano
by Drunkula on Wed 20th Oct 2010 13:26 UTC
Drunkula
Member since:
2009-09-03

but the Nano does have multi-touch. Not extensive use but you can rotate the album artwork.

Reply Score: 1

Comment by TusharG
by TusharG on Wed 20th Oct 2010 21:15 UTC
TusharG
Member since:
2005-07-06

Yes one thing is for sure because almost all cell phone companies have put their own layer of customization on android 1.6 for them to migrate to 2.1 is not easy and quick. Customers have to wait until this layer is upgraded as well and this has become a blocker for many upgradations. Steve is right on this part. However I feel customers do have choice of installing vanilla android 2.1 directly on 1.6 also this was a good eye opener for companies. Now they can have a generic layer of own customization which from next time onwards can be quickly updated. Having said that there are no restrictions on companies to ship vanilla android.

Reply Score: 2