OSNews

Well yes, but it's all back to the consumer; they want the newest and the greatest.

And that's sucks for poweruser, who want device(s) with OS that can be upgraded. Joe and Jane don't care about things like that.

Clearly it's not the consumers fault though, if Apple have managed to attract more customers with 1 phone a year than Sony have with > 6 phones a year, then you have to ask yourself if it really pays to flood the market.

I think this is the manufacturers fault because they're constantly trying to hedge their bets rather than concentrating on a limited but successful range.

Edited 2011-12-26 12:41 UTC

I've been modded down so clearly someone disagrees with me, but the coward hasn't left a comment.

Could someone explain to me what it was about my comment that is wrong. If I've misjudged the situation then I'd love to understand where any why

The moderation system is useless and only serves to ensure mob-rule is enforced in the comments section. For what it's worth, I attempted to mod you up but I can no longer do so (and yet, I can still reply).

If I were to hazard a guess, I'd say the following ticked someone off:


Remember, Apple is never right. ;-)

Wouldn't that make upmodes without comments just as useless?

Anyway, maybe that's about the bit quoted by the other poster - especially since, really, to what he and your quote allude to ...is not quite correct, presents things in a way which assumes quite narrow perspective / misses larger picture.

There's more than SE - Nokia, Samsung, LG ...you know, the actual heavyweights (and ZTE or Huawei are poised to become ones, have really explosive growth - but you probably even hardly heard about their handsets)
Sure, Apple sold more than many (not all*) single models of other makers (*which supposedly didn't help them much?), but that ignores how other makers sell much more overall (and how Apple pushes the same models on the masses for much longer - so, say, the length of support from the end of mass sales isn't that remarkable) ...really, how they are the force propelling the mobile market forward, monumentally influencing the world (on which Apple tried to catch a free ride - in the end, paying close to a billion to Nokia and related issues seem not settled with others)
There are 5+ billion mobile subscribers. Even assuming all iPhones ever made are still in use ...that's 2 to 3%.

I hadn't thought of it this way before, but you're dead-on right. It wasn't until recently that some of the big auto manufacturers in the USA stopped competing with themselves, offering multiple brands and trim levels of the same car (think Plymouth, Oldsmobile, etc.). Maybe when the phone market slows down (as the auto market did), we'll see consolidation. But as long as people are buying, the manufacturers will use subsidized pricing to move a mess of slightly differentiated products.

This. I can sum up the Android phone buying advice like this: Either get the one that says 'Nexus' on it, or buy an iPhone, or Windows phone. Now, that wasn't so complicated, was it?

And if I want an Android device with more than 16GB of storage?

Edited 2011-12-24 20:14 UTC

Can phones like this be opened and have the storage chip changed? A friend of my was planning to do this with his tablet, but I don't know if phone storage is soldered in or plugged in. And if it is soldered, if the larger storage chips have the same pin-outs.

Why can't phones come with a SD-Card or mini-SD-card port?

Edited 2011-12-24 21:58 UTC

All my phones come with a mini-SD-card port, even my dumbphone (Nokia 6500S)

Is mini-sd a new format? Mines micro-sd. merry christmas to all

The newest Nexus phone has 32

Not true for the european version, which only has 16 gb...

Buy the not-too-priced android phone, and buy a 16gb micro-sd card.

Edited 2011-12-25 05:36 UTC

I immediately know if a post is worth reading if it starts with "This."

Most Windows phones will hit the same problem. Unless microsoft will:
1) Have a small number of conponents suported, so that they will provide the OTA update with all drivers
or:
2) Drivers will be forward compatible, so a new Windows version will not influence OEMs.

This. I can sum up the Android phone buying advice like this: Either get the one that says 'Nexus' on it, or buy an iPhone, or Windows phone. Now, that wasn't so complicated, was it? "
What if I want a phone with a hardware keyboard? I'm telling you, if Apple comes with an iSlide (phone with a sliding QWERTY), Android would be dead for all I care. Android is destined to become the featurephone-replacement OS, the one for users who don't care about software updates.

I realize that you are an extreme Apple fan, but even you must surely understand that this statement is completely insane, considering that Android is kicking iOS's ass in the smartphone market?

I realize that you are an extreme Apple fan, but even you must surely understand that this statement is completely insane, considering that Android is kicking iOS's ass in the smartphone market? "

I'm not an Apple fan myself, but I'm finding it hard to disagree. Symbian was once the dominant smartphone os, and look what happened to it. The line between smartphone and feature phone is blurring by the day. It wouldn't surprise me one bit to see Android on feature phones in the near future. I don't believe this would exclude it from smartphones, however if the fragmentation continues, I can see it losing its dominant position if for no other reason than that app devs will get sick of all the model-specific quirks. I generally disagree with Apple's policies, but imho, they did do one thing right: not allowing carriers to fuck with the os image. iOS is iOS, no matter where you get your phone. Google, I think, needs to start exercising a bit more control. They can't do so directly, of course, but they can block any google apps from being used and, let's face it, that would make the difference for most customers regardless of whether they understand the technical implications. Show a customer a phone that can use the Android market vs one that can't, and see which one they go for.
I'm an android user myself. I like the flexibility I get with it. If this situation continues though, I might end up going back to iOS anyway. I'm sick of having to manually load a new rom on my Nexus One because it's been decided (by Google, no less, so they're sure not perfect) that they'd rather try and make people buy new phones rather than give me ICS. The sad bit is that the Nexus One isn't as old as the iPhone 3GS, and look at that, the 3GS is still getting updated (though I wouldn't be surprised if iOS 5 was the last update it gets). I wouldn't typically say this, but Google'd better take a hard look at what Apple's doing here and would do well to follow their lead... if Apple hasn't patented the process of timely updating, of course.

True, it is getting updated, but with features from the new updates getting cut all over the place. Not only that each successive update makes the phone creak more and more...

Except that it is not true, the 3GS works with iOS 5 just fine.

Yeah, only without all the cherished features... and with the free Siri removed from the Appstore, so it can be "introduced" with the launching $S.

Yeah, look what happened to it... http://gs.statcounter.com/#mobile_os-ww-monthly-200812-201112 (generally, I suspect its future might be much less clear than Elop makes it out to be)


Most of the world will just ignore such confused "feature phone" distinctions ...even if some insist on using it for what is just "inexpensive smartphone".
It's like making distinction on the basis of what "workstation" used to mean - but it doesn't make sense any more, any cheap laptop can do virtually "everything".

And dev fragmentation... they just won't target model-specific quirks, the situation with the SDK will get more tidied up if anything - that is what's actually happening despite the variety of handsets exploding.


OTOH that's what greatly helped the adoption of Android...
(and as for iOS... just buy a device from some countries and see how Facetime "works", or remember how readily Apple implements SIM or data transmission locks)


But remember the 3GS is still being actively promoted / it will be likely dropped much sooner counting from the end of notable sales.

I don't know, that mostly brings up: will you ever stop promoting Nexus phones ad nauseam?

Really, that's way too simplistic (even fallacious and misrepresenting what the mobile market is), they aren't anywhere near the optimal choice for many. "Superiority" of Nexus has a hefty price tag (iOS or Win devices, similarly) - for vast majority of people it's most likely better to get ~3x less expensive handset and replace it maybe only slightly sooner than a Nexus would dictate (anyway, I suspect that an average Nexus owner is among the "often upgrading" half)

Edited 2011-12-31 19:06 UTC

There's been several books about Steve Jobs, but AFAIK Jobs himself never wrote a book.

Did you get the message that the OP was referring to the 'word of Jobs on keeping it simple stupid?'

Apple are the masters of making a device and selling the hell out of it for 12/18 months. Then they upgrade it.

The likes of Samsung/HTC etc do exactly the opposite and release a plethora of models without a great deal of difference between them. These models seem to only last a few months on the market before they are abandonded. No support. No software upgrades. Nada.

I have an unlocked, no carrier bloat HTC phone. Even this is still full of crapware that can't be removed without rooting it. The device is 9 months old. Are HTC going to give me an update to ICS? are they heck. Situations like this are nearly enough to drive me back to Apple.

Yeah, I could root the phone and load a cyanogen release. But frankly, I can't be bothered. I have better things to do with my time.

My Samsung Galaxy Ace shipped with Froyo and got an official upgrade to Gingerbread. I already know it's not on the list for an ICS upgrade, but hey, it's a mid-range Android phone.

I guess the OP was referring to Walter Isaacson's Steve Jobs. Just got it for Christmas from my sister.

N900.

Oh yeah...

Speaking of Nokia (R.I.P), I wonder wif there's any progress on the remnants of Meego, specifically the Mer project: http://merproject.org/

I currently own an N9. Quite amazing what the Meego team achieved with a late 2009 spec processor, even if it wasn't that smooth until 2 updates later (plus some rooting and apt-get magic in between).

Would be good if we could install Mer on future windows phones, since I'm guessing some people working on the project are still Nokia employees and have access to the hardware.

I love my N900. I had the N9 for awhile and it just didn't seem anywhere near as complete as my N900 did when it first came out. By this I mean on my N900, out of the box, it supported all of the IM protocols. N9 seemed to have some of them in place, and even icons for all of them. But it took the crafty hackers to port over libpurple and some scripts to set up telepathy with support for them all.

I still like my N900 better. The only thing I think it's missing is a Gorilla Glass screen, more RAM and more Processing power. Then it'd be the ultimate gadget. The N9 is really fast though, it just needed the software to back that up.

Makes one wonder how Android screwed the pooch so much, when MeeGo Harmtattan can run on half the hardware, but be twice as fast and 10 times better at multitasking. That whole SNAFU of Nokia+Microsoft deal really was horrible for consumers. Especially now that Intel has themselves bailed on MeeGo. It had such potential.

The nemo mobile project meets every Tuesday at 11:00 UTC, 13:00 EEST, on @freenode, #mer-meeting

Hi,

I think the culprit is consumers. Any moron willing to bend over backwards to spend several hundred $$ on a disposable plastic box deserves to be taken advantage of while they're bending over.

- Brendan

Yes, because you surely don't have hobby or a guilty pleasure you spend more money on than a normal person would do.

I hope you can hear me way up that high horse of yours.

Can you please substantiate your claim that the blame lies with consumers, rather than large multi-national carrier corporations, with anything more than (imho) ad-hominem attacks on a potentially large and diverse group of people?
Also, I disagree with your implied labeling of modern smartphones as a "disposable plastic box". They've become powerful portable general-purpose computers in an appealing form-factor. Surely you too must see the potential benefits brings to consumers, and thus understand the resulting desire for them on the market.

Do large multi-national carrier corporations point a gun to peoples' heads and force them to buy their phones? No? Then why is it anyone else's fault but the consumer? That's the problem these days... it's easier to blame government and large corporations for all of your bad decisions, instead of taking some f**king responsibility for your actions. Don't want to pay hundreds of dollars for an overpriced phone plan? Then don't buy one. The shit ain't air... you don't have to have it.

Note: Don't misunderstand me... I have a smartphone too, but I also get a lot of use out of it beyond mere entertainment, so for me, it is worth the price I pay for it.

This is a terribly oversimplified outlook on things and, to round it off, I believe an attempt at a strawman argument from you. Sure they don't force you into purchasing a phone at gunpoint - I never said that. What they do force you into is this: "either get a phone from us (price in contract), or spend an extra 500EUR on a phone you want (which is certainly not worth the extra money)."


Because the balance of power is strongly to the carriers' benefit. There are only three carriers in my country, two major ones and one small one (with a shitty network). Don't like their services? Well, sure, you may use the landline, if you like. They can do without one customer, but can you do without any mobile phone? In today's world? I think you now understand, that the situation is a bit more complicated.


Ouch, sounds like a hit a bit of a republican nerve here...


Ah, the good old "it's either my way or the highway" excuse - the ditch-it resolution to a problem. I can play that game too: "Don't like your government's policies? Vote with your feet and leave! That'll teach them." Or: "Gas prices too high for you? Take the bus! I'm sure public transport will improve just because of you any moment now."


Me too, but who gives you the right to decide that your "work" usage is more important that those who use it for mere entertainment?

edit: grammer fial

Edited 2011-12-24 18:29 UTC

Well, myself I choose not to buy any phone that I can't afford myself.

1/It's more healthy than those phones which are affortable together with expensive 12- and 24-month phone contracts, which is basically the same as subscribing to a bank credit for a mere phone, and
2/Carrier customization is really something I don't want on my phone. Ever. And iProducts are not for me.

I can understand why other people would choose otherwise though. Shiny high-end tech is shiny

Edited 2011-12-25 00:06 UTC

Me neither. The question here isn't about whether you can or can't afford a high-end phone, though. The question is about whether you would want to spend an extra X-hundred bucks just on the fact that you get the non-carrier branded crapware-laden equivalent of that which you would have already paid for using your contract. Make no mistake, "subsidized" simply means that you leased the phone from the carrier, not that they gave it to you - I should know, I work for one.


Yes, exactly! Thus, I want to have the possibility to tell my carrier to shove their "subsidized" handsets, and instead go give that money to somebody who would sell me the phone I want - ATM, I effectively can't!

Difficult question. I would argue that strong phone price reductions only occur for contracts where you pay a big lot of money, so if you don't need those contracts, you don't get such big phone price reductions.

As far as I'm concerned, I'm a bit of a heavy writer, so my ideal phone plan would be 15 min + unlimited texts. In terms of current phone plan pricings in France, this should not cost more than €7-10. The only problem is that this kind of plan does not exist to date.

Second thing about subsidized phone contracts is that they force you to stay with a given operator for a very long time. Nowadays, more and more operators allow you to leave whenever you want on some of their plans, which is a choice worth considering IMO.


There is a new french cellphone operator who effectively announced that it aimed at achieving that : bringing a bit of honesty in phone plan pricing by explicitly picturing phone subsidizing as a separate credit contract. I hope they will succeed at this.

There are millions of people in the world without a mobile phone. As far as I know, none of them have keeled over and died.



LOL, republican? Surely you jest.

Now you are just plain trolling - sorry, I won't play along. Your constant insistence on using fallacies, misrepresentations and straw-man arguments clearly shows that you are not interested in having a meaningful discussion.

Look, it's really simple. The reason why these companies charge so much is because consumers are willing to pay the price; not because they NEED a cell phone, but because they WANT one. Hence, there's noone else to blame but us.

If we were talking about food or water, then yeah... you would have a point, because people have to have these things, and would have no choice but to pay the asking price if two or three companies controlled access to them. But not when we're talking about a damn cell phone.

If we were to all just say, 'Screw it... we're not paying these prices for cell phones', then the prices would come down, or these companies would go out of business. That is an undeniable FACT, and is the way the market is supposed to work. But somewhere along the way, too many people started thinking that these greedy corporations are like schoolyard bullies that we need to government to fight, because we're too f**king scared to stand up to them.

Re: "plastic boxes,"
That's some good trolling there, sir. Sure come to a forum for computing enthusiasts and belittle the pinnacle of modern consumer computing tech.

Now that you've succeeded in getting people riled up, why don't you head on over to gardening forums and tell people that it's easier to just buy your vegetables from the grocery store.

Oh, and head on over to mountaineering forums and remind people that there's nothing at the tops of mountains but rocks, so why bother?

What, you say? Because it would just make you look like an idiot with too much time on his hands? Exactly.

Spending money isn't the problem - idiots who buy their phones on contract and only realise after the contract has finished how much they've been shafted, they're the real problem. In all due respect, this is an 'only in America' moment where the dumb public spend $199 for a phone and pay for that phone ten times over by being bound into a contract because they think they're getting a 'great deal' based on a low entry price.

Edited 2011-12-26 01:10 UTC

The reason I bought the original Galaxy S was because of the hardware. For me it was the most compelling Android device at the time of purchase.

I think that because the Nexus S is so similar I'll always be able to run the same version of Android that it does.

I realise that installing custom ROMs isn't for everyone. But as long as Samsung keeps bringing out devices with unlocked bootloaders, and the Android dev community keeps porting the latest and greatest to it I'll keep buying them.

You do sound a bit insane.

Why because I support a proven business strategy (a highly diversified range of products) used by 99.99% of the most successful large companies in history?

Do you really think that any sane company should adopt the Apple model business which has already failed spectacularly in the past?

I'm pretty sure Samsung will still be around in 100 years. Apple will be lucky to survive another 10 years.

Why? He's only quoting history and history has an uncanny ability of repeating itself. All indicators thus far point to this happening.

My comment was aimed at his cult claims. And that coupled with his recent very strange comments.

Besides, Apple nearly went bust and even tried to sell itself with no buyers not so long ago. In that short period they went from zombie to King Kong so it's a bit odd to say that their business strategy is a bad one.

Sure, they won't stay number one forever, but right now a lot of companies would like to swap places.

Their strategy is a risky one and I think it can only work if it is executed beyond very well and they needed to get beyond a certain threshold which the did. They now have the brand name and the money to have their new products noticed. A lot of cool stuff doesn't get noticed, because it's not from Apple or another big name.

Only because Apple had a genius, Steve, they could manage this enormous growth, but in the long run I think Steve would have been a bad thing. But he got Apple in the lead, very far in the lead, and now a team of more down to earth professionals can take over.

Furthermore I don't think Apple limits choice, it offers only the choices that matter keeping stuff simple and easy to use. Apart from my iPhone I have a company BlackBerry that has many (hidden) options and menus, which I don't use because (a I have no need and (b don't know what most options do.

When you have an Apple product you have an en enormous choice with regards to apps, accessories and services. This matters far more than what the product out of the box can do. A great computer with no software is more useless than a so-so computer with loads of programs.

Scotsman's fallacy

You don't seem to understand the Scotsman Fallacy.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/No_true_Scotsman

The legendary investor Sir John Templeton once said “This time is different” are among the most costly four words in market history.

Apple has not proven any business rules wrong. It has merely had a 6-8 year period of very rapid growth by choosing an extremely risky short term strategy. This is commonly known as "betting the farm" based on the practice of foolish farmers who risk everything they own on the expectation of making a huge profit.

It is utterly absurd to think that Apple, despite having the largest capitalisation of any corporation is capable of maintaining or even increasing it's current growth rate. This is something that no other corporation in history has ever achieved. Every "Top Dog" corporation in history has had a very short (typically only 1-2 years) stay at the top before having a significant decline in value.

The companies that survive the longest are invariably extremely risk averse. They are typically very heavily diversified or willing to grow slowly. Apple does neither.

I'm not qualified to assess Apple's market strategy, but I do know a Scotsman's fallacy when I see one. You've defined "much choice" in such a way that apparently excludes Apple's offerings, which is misleading for at least two reasons:

1. In absolute terms, Apple offers several configurations for its products.
2. In relative terms, you've defined choice in a way that places your own personal values above those of others. Others might not see Polo's different kinds of colors as a matter of choice at all, and in fact they may enjoy Polo for the reason that it is as restrictive (and therefore possibly exclusive) in its cut/tailoring as Apple is in its support for operating systems. Conversely, someone might value the plethora of apps available through Apple's App Store and think that Apple offers them an enormous variety of choices. Choice is all about perception.

Welcome to 1984.

Choice is a purely objective

Maybe you should get a job with the North Korean government as a propaganda advisor.

You don't seem to understand the Scotsman Fallacy.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/No_true_Scotsman

The legendary investor Sir John Templeton once said “This time is different” are among the most costly four words in market history.

Apple has not proven any business rules wrong. It has merely had a 6-8 year period of very rapid growth by choosing an extremely risky short term strategy. This is commonly known as "betting the farm" based on the practice of foolish farmers who risk everything they own on the expectation of making a huge profit.

It is utterly absurd to think that Apple, despite having the largest capitalisation of any corporation is capable of maintaining or even increasing it's current growth rate. This is something that no other corporation in history has ever achieved. Every "Top Dog" corporation in history has had a very short (typically only 1-2 years) stay at the top before having a significant decline in value.

The companies that survive the longest are invariably extremely risk averse. They are typically very heavily diversified or willing to grow slowly. Apple does neither. "


The intelligence of Apple's business strategy is confirmed by their results..an ecosystem that is coupled with an infrastructure of planning and management on multiple levels that puts most competitors to shame. Keeping in mind that most of their recent buyers are not Apple koolaid drinkers (they run PCs), their strategy seems to be wise. Most buyers are not slaves to specs or numbers on a page. It's more about the experience with the integrated hardware and software, and the support Apple provides....all of which drives positive word-of-mouth buzz...it's a very profitable business strategy, uncluttered with confusing product layers, assorted crapware/bloatware (no rooting required) like some of the competition.

Choice is really powerful, and one of Apple's greatest strengths has been their ability to carve out a differentiated market space and execute.

Edited 2011-12-25 14:25 UTC

Amazing, I'm sitting here and within a few minutes I could think of half a dozen companies that limit choice and are very successful at what they do - simply because you're unable to obtain a Apple product doesn't some how mean that those of us who should be looked down upon as members of a cult. If you want to see a cult then you should go to a Microsoft conference with people running up and down the isle, loud bass pounding music and a CEO thinking he is 'hip and cool' at playing the crowd.

As for limiting choice - there is choice then there is the illusion of choice; there is as much choice in some companies as there was in the Soviet Union when it came to the various products being made. There is a reason why Apple has a small range of products - it is hardly anyones fault here that you're too bloody lazy to read up on the changes Steve Jobs along with is financial advisers did 14 years ago when he came back as the CEO.

Edited 2011-12-26 01:22 UTC

Go ahead and name these dozen major corporations that succeed by limiting choice.

Resort to name calling "you must be jealous because you can't afford Apple products"

Deny you are in a cult - all cult members do

Ignore the reality. Apple is considered by accounting experts to be an extremely risky investment due to potential litigation, overvalued assets etc,
http://finapps.forbes.com/finapps/AccountingRisk.do?tkr=AAPL

ummm - the old 'Apple is doomed' meme

Very ironic it should still being circulated on the eve of what will probably be the most spectacular set of quarterly results Apple have ever produced and following a long string of spectacular quarterly results,

When people talk about Apple taking risks or facing obscurity in the near term they forget just how resilient Apple has been. It's been a leading player in information technology for nearly 40 years. That's a very long time. For almost the whole of that period it has been profitable and for a considerable amount of that time it has been very profitable. For a big chunk of those decades Apple operated and survived in a Microsoft/Windows dominated world. It was pretty much the only major OS platform that survived the onslaught of Windows.

Aaah - you say- but look how they nearly went bust and it was all because they did things the the way the are doing them now. Android versus iOS will be just like Mac versus Windows. Such a perspective, which is quite common amongst techies, confuses two events that happened at the same time, namely Apple nearly going bust and Apple only taking a small proportion of the market share, and think one caused the other. Correlation is not causation. In reality Apple nearly went bust because it was being spectacularly badly run and it's revival after the Next reverse take over showed it could relatively easily make profits on just the Mac business even in a Windows dominated world. And it's Mac business has only got stronger and stronger each year even though the Windows market domination continues.

What is 'winning' and how does it relate to market share in the new world of mobile devcies?

That's a serious and interesting question.

Does market share and winning have the same relationship now as it did in, say, 1995?

In the past, back in the days of the Wintel platform domination of the desktop PC market, having a large or majority platform market share was considered winning because:

a) A bigger platform market share meant bigger profits, a bigger business, lower costs. This was good because the point of making and selling things is to make a profit. As more and more revenue and profit was generated inside the platform with the largest market share more businesses could flourish, more products could be made, costs would go down in a virtuous circle.

b) A bigger market share meant a bigger developer mind share. The platform with the largest market share attracted the largest number of developers who wanted to maximise their sales income, which meant more software titles for that platform which meant another virtuous circle whereby more and more people would be attracted to that platform because it had more software.

c) A bigger market share meant that there were more peripherals for the platform. More peripherals were available and compatible for the platform with the biggest market share and this attracted customers to that platform which reinforced the majority market share in yet another another virtuous circle.

So back then getting and holding onto a majority market share was absolutely central to winning. Losing market share meant losing in general. Bigger market share meant more money, more developers and more peripherals. Which meant more customers. Which meant more market share. It all seemed so simple and obvious. Bigger market share must mean winning.

What's so interesting about the phone market is that none of the above seems to apply anymore. It seems as if winning and losing are a lot more complicated now and that there is now no connection between market share and wining or losing.

Consider:

Apple make the most money in the mobile phone business but does not have, has never had, and will probably never have, a majority market share of smart phones. As Android handsets have grown rapidly and pulled past iOS in market share Apple's revenues and profits from iOS have increased in both extent and rate. Apple makes by far the most profit in the phone business, with a minority market share. Money and profits no longer follows market share.

iOS has the best app ecosystem. Not only are iOS apps generally of a higher quality but crucially, even though there are more Android users than iOS, developers make a lot more money from iOS than from Android. Several times as much. Developers love iOS. For users there is no app deficit penalty for having a device with a smaller market share anymore and no prospect in the foreseeable future that iOS users will experience any app penalty for using a phone whose OS is not the largest. Quite the reverse in fact, using the minority iOS means better apps. Developer support no longer follows market share.

Because Apple has such a small number of phone models, and because they all use the same form factor for peripheral connectivity, iOS has by the far the largest peripheral market of any mobile platform. Conversely the sheer and slightly bonkers numbers of different Android handsets means that Android has a relatively impoverished peripheral market compared to iOS which has more cases, add ons, plugins, more scientific and medical peripherals, more compatible music systems and cars adaptors, etc etc. [i]So peripheral support no longer follows marke

Back in 1997 I was very familiar with what was happening at Apple - you were probably still sucking your thumb.

It was Bill Gates who saved Apple back in 1997 not Steve Jobs. It was the very public show of support by MS including an investment of $150m that really saved Apple. Without this Apple would have simply imploded.
http://www.forbes.com/sites/davidcoursey/2011/10/28/happy-birthday-...

I certainly see a lot of references nowadays to the settlement of this lawsuit as Apple being saved by an investment.

How come more companies haven't been saved by investments like this?

You may keep your new car 5-10 years. The manufacturer won't offer any upgrades at all during that period. If you want an improvement in performance, handling, braking etc you have the choice of either paying for modifications via a 3rd party or buying a new car.

If you don't expect a $100k car to get upgraded why would you expect a $100 phone to be upgraded?

Well, frankly, phones are not cars. Nobody has ever expected free upgrades to their car, but people expect that with their phones.

The fact that Samsung won't support even the most recent phones with software updates is alien. Microsoft still releases minor updates for XP, and for a while, provided new features for users who bought it years before. Apple does the same, with their desktops and their phones. For Samsung to ditch support of a still new phone for such a lame excuse is something that is unreasonable.

Really? I doubt that even 10% of people expect their phones to be upgraded for free (or at all).

I've owned mobile phones for around 20 years. Most of them have never been able to been upgraded in any way.

Older phones are different (Though, I have gotten updates for a couple), but smart phones are different.

Apple has greater than 10% of the smartphone market, right? Their phones have seen major software updates for a while after release. Updates for Windows Mobile-based phones (pre 7) were frequently available, and Microsoft pushes WP7 updates, giving carriers limited ability to restrict updates. Blackberry phones received updates, as well.
HTC and Motorola lately have been committing to longer-term support than previously offered.

So, yes, whether or not you've been paying attention, OS updates on smart phones are expected.

The fastest growing market is occurring in sub-$150 phones. These are considered to be basically disposable items. The owners don't expect them to be a long term investment and don't care less about upgrades.

Edited 2011-12-25 08:02 UTC

Not really true, such price ranges strongly imply uptake happening in places with much less "disposable" funds, where people are already known to hold onto their phones for a long time (and they actually own them / are typically on prepaid)

Come on, Apple removed a feature while releasing 4S - Siri was a free download in the Appstore, afterwards "introduced" by 4S.
They also push mass sales of their old models for much longer ...so the times of support since the end of large sales isn;t that spectacular.
And... old OSX versins are quickly obsoleted / abandoned (large part of that is dynamics of 3rd party devs on Apple platform, who for some reason target almost exclusively 'latest and greatest' but still)

Plus, Samsung in turn comes from the "old mobile" era, where the phones very much weren't updated; it's not alien in any way.



Not strictly true, my car got free modification when the manufacturer came to conclusion there's a heightened chance of damage to one braking line; and I fully expect them to notify me again and arrange free visit to their servicing centre, if such issues would come to light once more.
Sure, "safety upgrade" ...well, that's also what large part of software upgrades are.

Because smart phones run sophisticated software that have bugs and security holes - as a consumer I expect that they provide software updates to address those short comings in a timely and responsible manner. Sorry, you're comparing a physical product to something (software) that can be replicated over and over again via the distribution channels (internet) for a few cents. The situation isn't even comparable.

Edited 2011-12-26 01:22 UTC

And for the mandatory car analogy : if a Toyota car has a software bug that makes the brake pedal ineffective, as happened earlier, Toyota better push an update quickly in order to fix that security issue.

Edited 2011-12-27 23:14 UTC

(emphasis mine)

You know, this hardly ever happened, with any manufacturer (not only Toyota was "involved" in the past)... the "breakaway acceleration hysteria" (and similar) emerges once in a while, usually when the media circus picks up the claims of some incompetent driver who wants to escape the blame.

Curious how it's virtually always somebody, well, old - and, when the records are available (CCTV recording showing the brake lights never lighting up throughout the accident, also in cars where that's a simple switch on the brake pedal, with no software/computers in-between; or when "black box" functions became available) it was not even once what the driver claimed...

...most of the times, the ~senile driver simply panicked (confused acceleration for brake pedal, in panic pushed the "brakes" even harder, desiring to stop, which of course only had wildly opposite result)

Also curiously, it seems to happen virtually only in few places with mass adoption of automatic transmissions in passenger cars (maybe they do "disconnect" people a bit too much from having actual control and "feel" of their vehicle)

And brake systems didn't really yet cease being mostly hydraulically connected, I believe.

Actually, they will recall cars if they discover some problem that might cause to their customers. Lots of models have been recalled though the years because of flaws in the design (bugs).

Similarly, phones will have bugs. Especially with all the security problems everywhere it's important to provide updates.

You don't want someone to own your phone because of a security hole, right? You'd want it patched, right?

PresentIt,

"Actually, they will recall cars if they discover some problem that might cause to their customers. Lots of models have been recalled though the years because of flaws in the design (bugs)."

I've heard of plenty of incidents of manufacturers replacing things such as exploding tires and broken breaks in huge safety recalls, etc, but to my knowledge manufacturers won't replace/upgrade components after a warranty expires even if a defective component caused premature failure. Usually if anything stops working as intended, then it's up to the owner to pay to fix it. If I am mistaken then I could probably save a lot of money in auto repairs. I've even heard of some horror stores about them failing to cover their own warranties.


"Similarly, phones will have bugs. Especially with all the security problems everywhere it's important to provide updates."

Maybe phone manufacturers should be held accountable for security holes, it would give them much more incentive to provide updates... I'm not going to hold my breath though.

After warranty expires? Warranty expires right away on a phone?

Also, if the warranty expires and a huge dangerous problem is discovered with the car, they will do nothing?

PresentIt,

"After warranty expires? Warranty expires right away on a phone?"

I'm not sure what you are trying to say/ask here with regards to my post.

"Also, if the warranty expires and a huge dangerous problem is discovered with the car, they will do nothing?"

I explicitly mentioned the safety recall because I thought it was an exception to the rule. However I'm not sure this exception applies to mobile devices.


I'm actually agreeing with you that manufacturers should do their best to support after sale products. I just don't think they have much incentive to in the cheap disposable world we live in.


My own take is that open/unlocked devices would not only extend their useful lifetimes for the primary and after-market owners, it would cut back on a great deal of unnecessary environmental and manufacturing waste. Unfortunately, the goal of making the best use of resources doesn't align with the goal of making the most profits. Corporations choose profits, our environment pays the costs, such is life.

I'm comparing car safety and phone security holes. The car analogy was used to show that car manufacturers apparently don't offer the same level of support that people expect from phone manufacturers. I pointed out that cars are expected to not have major flaws in the first place.

While people expect bugs in software they also expect bug fixes. On the other hand, people expect cars to work properly without updates.

So the car comparison fails.

PresentIt,

"While people expect bugs in software they also expect bug fixes. On the other hand, people expect cars to work properly without updates.

So the car comparison fails."

Many cars require unplanned maintenance, so I'm not so sure about the first statement. However without a doubt I agree that car analogies have little place in computing, comparisons like that are bound to fail at a serious level of detail.

In most countries, except the USA, phones are readily available unlocked or can be unlocked for a relatively modest fee.

The problem is that most of the old devices don't work perfectly. Smartphones of today normally carry a lot of personal and sensitive information, and there will always be new bugs and security issues that will be found in their software.

So they will need at least bug fix releases of their existing software, and if you need to fix major parts of the software on a regular basis, why not upgrade it to the latest version while you are at it. It should be less expensive to the manefakturer to just keep track of the latest version.

Similar dynamics were present in big mobile brands of a ~decade ago, when the production or support were largely in the fabled "glorious west"... really, drop the ~sinophobia.
(BTW, most of Nokia fabs are not in the Far East, ~half are in the EU, one is even quite close to Cupertino... doesn't do that much good, it seems, and/or nobody cares)

At the very least, it's certainly a very visible market with loud pundits; plus relatively homogeneous, easier to coordinate & push things.