Linked by Howard Fosdick on Sat 19th May 2012 08:59 UTC
PDAs, Cellphones, Wireless Smartphones have become the preferred computer of the masses. Sales surpassed those of personal computers in 2010, having grown over 50% per year for several years. Nearly 500 million smartphones shipped in 2011. This radically shifts the terrain in the consumer operating system competition that was, for years, firmly decided in favor of Windows. This article analyzes the New OS Wars.
Order by: Score:
Good old days
by moondevil on Sat 19th May 2012 10:32 UTC
moondevil
Member since:
2005-07-08

It probably shows my age, but I really miss the days when Amiga, Atari, Mac, PC, among others shared the computing world.

The hegemony of Windows, regardless of its qualities or issues, has made the computing landscape somehow boring.

Hopefully, we will eventually get out of it.

Reply Score: 18

RE: Good old days
by Valhalla on Sat 19th May 2012 14:15 UTC in reply to "Good old days"
Valhalla Member since:
2006-01-24

Agreed, also to me the term 'computer' equals a general purpose computer not particularly focused on one task and able to perform practically any computer related task, hence I have a hard time labeling Smartphones as 'computers', to me they are phones on which you can also play games.

If we are calling smartphones 'computers' then by all means all types of videogame consoles should earn the moniker 'computers' aswell.

Reply Score: 8

RE[2]: Good old days
by MOS6510 on Sat 19th May 2012 14:46 UTC in reply to "RE: Good old days"
MOS6510 Member since:
2011-05-12

I rarely use my iPhone to make calls or send traditional text messages. Making calls gets a very small slice of the usage percentage pie.

Who takes notice of how well a phone makes calls when shopping for a new one? Most people look at the apps, the camera quality, Internet speed, storage memory. Even if you place calls on a regular basis I'm sure most people also use it for a lot more.

Reply Score: 2

RE[2]: Good old days
by Bill Shooter of Bul on Sat 19th May 2012 15:45 UTC in reply to "RE: Good old days"
Bill Shooter of Bul Member since:
2006-07-14

Who the heck uses their smartphone primarily to make phone calls?

- Not teenagers they use sms & facebook
- Not businesses they use email

Smartphones are communication devices, I'll give you that. But isn't that how most people use their "general purpose" computers as well?

Reply Score: 4

RE[3]: Good old days
by Valhalla on Sat 19th May 2012 16:06 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: Good old days"
Valhalla Member since:
2006-01-24

But isn't that how most people use their "general purpose" computers as well?

I'll certainly grant you that most of those who has computers (by my definition) at home do not actually need these general purpose computers but can do fine as long as they can surf the web, play some games and do instant messaging and this is what we are seeing now with the decline of general purpose computers versus smartphones,pads etc. I am not arguing against that. I'm arguing about labeling them as 'computers'.

I think your definition of 'communication' is much more apt, and as such we can say that portable communication/gaming devices is being largely preferred over general purpose computers these days, which in turn is because the possibilities offered by a general purpose computer far exceed the needs of most end users.

Reply Score: 2

RE[4]: Good old days
by zima on Sat 19th May 2012 16:42 UTC in reply to "RE[3]: Good old days"
zima Member since:
2005-07-06

You and your new-fangled meaning of "computer" ;)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_computer

The term "computer", in use from the mid 17th century, meant "one who computes": a person performing mathematical calculations


Edited 2012-05-19 16:43 UTC

Reply Score: 4

RE[4]: Good old days
by Bill Shooter of Bul on Sat 19th May 2012 19:09 UTC in reply to "RE[3]: Good old days"
Bill Shooter of Bul Member since:
2006-07-14

I just don't like how you change the name of the whole system based on how its used. If I use a hammer to tenderize a steak, its still a hammer, not a meat tenderizer. I actually use my smart phone to do general purpose computing. I write (simple) python scripts, open ssh sessions to remote computers, edit photos and music, use the calculator to solve algebraic problems, create todo lists, save and retrieve recipes, in addition to all of that communication stuff. For me it is a general purpose computer. There isn't much I couldn't do on or with it ( except those that require communication with incompatible hardware)

Reply Score: 3

RE[5]: Good old days
by tomcat on Sat 19th May 2012 23:00 UTC in reply to "RE[4]: Good old days"
tomcat Member since:
2006-01-06

I just don't like how you change the name of the whole system based on how its used. If I use a hammer to tenderize a steak, its still a hammer, not a meat tenderizer. I actually use my smart phone to do general purpose computing. I write (simple) python scripts, open ssh sessions to remote computers, edit photos and music, use the calculator to solve algebraic problems, create todo lists, save and retrieve recipes, in addition to all of that communication stuff. For me it is a general purpose computer. There isn't much I couldn't do on or with it ( except those that require communication with incompatible hardware)


There's even a website for you now...

http://www.bing.com/Dictionary/search?q=define+pedantic&qpvt=pedant...

Edited 2012-05-19 23:17 UTC

Reply Score: 0

RE[6]: Good old days
by HappyGod on Sun 20th May 2012 11:47 UTC in reply to "RE[5]: Good old days"
HappyGod Member since:
2005-10-19

Actually, the poster wasn't being pedantic at all.

People were discussing whether smartphones should be termed computers given their usage, and he gave a convincing argument as to why they should.

That's not pedantic, just on topic and factually correct.

If I might just stray into pedantry myself, a pedant is someone who displays learning or knowledge inappropriately, which he/she didn't. The adjective you want is: "fastidious". ;-)

Reply Score: 4

RE[3]: Good old days
by l3v1 on Mon 21st May 2012 09:02 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: Good old days"
l3v1 Member since:
2005-07-06

Who the heck uses their smartphone primarily to make phone calls?


D'oh, [raises hand] I do. You know, it s smartphone ;) Since there's an internet connection wherever I am (home, work, friends, coffee shops, bars, now even on buses, trains, etc.) I almost never use the xG data connection on my phone, and I restrict using net-based functions of my phone to when I have wifi, and most of the time I'm minutes or let's say an hour from a place where I can have that. When I need phone voice communication I use my phone, and that's quite a lot of times. I only use text-based stuff (e.g. e-mail) if it's long, needs to be on record, it isn't time critical, needs attachments, and similar situations.

That doesn't mean I don't use it for other functions, e.g. writing small notes, using calendar functions, chacking the weather, etc. I don't use facebook et al. on my phone though, that'd be a wate of my time and my money simultaneously. And I like my time and my money so I don't waste either of them if I don't have to ;)

Also, not using the xG data conn. of my phone when I can (including when I'm roaming abroad, when I always disable it) saves me a lot (a lot!) of money.

Anyway, phone capabilities are important to me, including saving as much battery as possible for phone functions.

Reply Score: 2

RE[4]: Good old days
by ilovebeer on Mon 21st May 2012 14:41 UTC in reply to "RE[3]: Good old days"
ilovebeer Member since:
2011-08-08

Who the heck uses their smartphone primarily to make phone calls?

D'oh, [raises hand] I do. You know, it s smartphone

My iphone has 4 main uses. 1) making phone calls, 2) looking up quick info on google (numbers, addresses, etc), 3) GPS, 4 playing games to fill idle time.

Using a cell phone for primary net access would be HORRID. Using a cell phone for primary email access would be HORRID. Using a cell phone for work would be impossible. Using a cell phone for an entertainment platform beyond playing music is very lame -- for example, who watches movies on a screen that can fit in your hand?

Admittedly everyone has different needs & wants, but the idea that a cell phone is a good general purpose computing platform is ridiculous unless you barely do anything outside of maybe texting, literally.

Edited 2012-05-21 14:41 UTC

Reply Score: 2

RE[5]: Good old days
by zima on Mon 21st May 2012 15:54 UTC in reply to "RE[4]: Good old days"
zima Member since:
2005-07-06

Using a cell phone for primary net access would be HORRID.

I'm not so sure of that. Look at (say, on Alexa) the top websites that people visit: Google (but check top searches on Google - it's often used not for "serious browsing" but as an URL field of sorts, bookmark for the following), Facebook / Twitter / blogs, Youtube, some news from BBC or Yahoo, quickly checking something on Wiki, dictionary.

Most of those are quite fine on mobile phones (not only smartphones http://www.opera.com/smw/2011/11/ ), especially when used casually and/or as an "app" (why not? Arguably it even works better for some) or RSS feed.

Using a cell phone for primary email access would be HORRID.

Not so, IMHO... in particular, Android Gmail client is very decent (maybe the most decent way to access Gmail right now, with ongoing turmoil of Gmail browser UI), very fine for checking and replying to most emails - but then, I find that most don't require lengthy replies (if at all), only few (which means it's better to type them on a PC - but I wouldn't call that "primary email access")

Using a cell phone for work would be impossible.

Oh, and email is often a large part of "work" nowadays (but yeah, dividing tasks between PC and mobile at the same time, as convenient, typically makes more sense)

Using a cell phone for an entertainment platform beyond playing music is very lame -- for example, who watches movies on a screen that can fit in your hand?

But then you yourself use it for games ;)
(I'd also argue it's decent for most YT stuff "to fill idle time" - even TV series or some not "crucial" movie flick during commute)


Overall, quite a bit beyond texting. And hey, the way PCs are used already changed few times.

Edited 2012-05-21 15:57 UTC

Reply Score: 2

RE[2]: Good old days
by MollyC on Sat 19th May 2012 20:23 UTC in reply to "RE: Good old days"
MollyC Member since:
2006-07-04

If we are calling smartphones 'computers' then by all means all types of videogame consoles should earn the moniker 'computers' aswell.


Well, Sony did indeed try to market the PS3 as a "supercomputer". ;) And originally it had a version of Linux that allowed for "general purpose computing", so I guess it was a "general purpose computer" before they removed "other OS".

And game consoles have browsers now, so I guess they could run web apps, and be "general purpose" to that extent.

But I don't really consider smartphones to be "computers" as such (although they are, literally). I don't consider smartphones to be in the same market as desktop or laptop computers. I consider them to be rather PDAs with communication capability.

Reply Score: 3

RE[2]: Good old days
by WereCatf on Sun 20th May 2012 10:59 UTC in reply to "RE: Good old days"
WereCatf Member since:
2006-02-15

Agreed, also to me the term 'computer' equals a general purpose computer not particularly focused on one task and able to perform practically any computer related task, hence I have a hard time labeling Smartphones as 'computers', to me they are phones on which you can also play games.

If we are calling smartphones 'computers' then by all means all types of videogame consoles should earn the moniker 'computers' aswell.


Do define "computer" properly for me, please? Because I just don't see the difference myself anymore. I mean, atleast on Android phones you can run a full-blown Ubuntu-installation, meaning that you can do more-or-less anything that you could do on a low-power desktop. The major difference is the form factor, but that doesn make or break something as a computer.

Reply Score: 3

RE[3]: Good old days
by dsmogor on Wed 23rd May 2012 16:14 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: Good old days"
dsmogor Member since:
2005-09-01

That's the point, Apple couldn't bite MS stronghold on PCs so they redefined computing needs of common people. Whatever you call the device in your pocket it does lots of tasks usually associated with Windows PCs good enough and adds permanent mobility and connectivity.
From hindsight Wintel machines have allays been clunky, over-complex office workstations shoehorned to serve new-found digital lives of common people, because of lockin and misconception that everybody needs tools as powerful as MS Office on their homes.
As both internet and gaming got independent from MS, conditions for innovation have been restored.

Reply Score: 2

RE[2]: Good old days
by David on Mon 21st May 2012 04:24 UTC in reply to "RE: Good old days"
David Member since:
1997-10-01

I'll have to throw my two cents in here, but my back-of-the-napkin calculation of my personal iPhone usage breaks down kind of like this:

phone calls: 5%
text messaging: 5%
skype calls and messaging: 5%
RSS reading: 35%
Facebook/Twitter: 15%
Web browsing: 15%
Google maps: 5%
Other apps: 10%
Movies, music, audiobooks: 5%

Looks like a computer to me.

Reply Score: 2

RE[2]: Good old days
by Glynser on Mon 21st May 2012 06:30 UTC in reply to "RE: Good old days"
Glynser Member since:
2007-11-29

Technically, they are computers, and so are video consoles.

And if you're calling your PC at home a "general purpose computer", then you could as well call your smartphone a "pocket computer".

Reply Score: 1

Comment by wigry
by wigry on Sat 19th May 2012 13:18 UTC
wigry
Member since:
2008-10-09

I for one do not understand this rush for smartphones. Probably due to the fact that I spend greater part of the day behind a fully connected desktop computer and really have no need to read email nor browse the web on the tiny phone. Hence my phone is very modest Samsung Monte although it has a touch screen and you can install 3 wallpapers from its app store (read specialized website) but thats about it. All I need from the device is a strong solid call quality and a long battery.

The previous phone (HTC S730) died due to keys stopped working and that why I prefferred touch screen and a phone before that, the Nokia 6150 which was absolutely gorgeous phone, started to switch itself off at arbitrary moments and that was unacceptable.

I totally skip and ignore the smartphone phenomena, although at work I develop apps for Android.

Edited 2012-05-19 13:20 UTC

Reply Score: 8

RE: Comment by wigry
by No it isnt on Sat 19th May 2012 17:09 UTC in reply to "Comment by wigry"
No it isnt Member since:
2005-11-14

A fully connected desktop computer still lacks features a smartphone has, though: GPS and a camera. Those two things (and to a lesser degree gyroscopes and sensors) create lots new possibilities that you don't get from a laptop.

Reply Score: 3

RE: Comment by wigry
by Fergy on Sun 20th May 2012 10:06 UTC in reply to "Comment by wigry"
Fergy Member since:
2006-04-10

I for one do not understand this rush for smartphones. Probably due to the fact that I spend greater part of the day behind a fully connected desktop computer and really have no need to read email nor browse the web on the tiny phone.

So because you have no need for a smartphone you can't imagine that other people could have a need for it. Most people are not in front of a connected computer all day. So at all those times where you don't have that desktop you use the smartphone. That adds up to 99% for most people.

Reply Score: 3

RE[2]: Comment by wigry
by Underphil on Mon 21st May 2012 08:19 UTC in reply to "RE: Comment by wigry"
Underphil Member since:
2012-01-13

Also, in a lot of cases it reduces the need to be in front of a computer, and that's something else people strive for.

Reply Score: 1

RE: Comment by wigry
by laffer1 on Mon 21st May 2012 18:55 UTC in reply to "Comment by wigry"
laffer1 Member since:
2007-11-09

I can't speak for everyone, but I use a smartphone for a few things. The most important is checking email. It's also quite useful for social networking.

Whenever I'm on a break or at lunch, I use my phone to surf, check mail etc. This way I don't use computing resources at work. It prevents them from logging or seeing my traffic. It also makes me feel better as I'm not stealing bandwidth for personal stuff.

I also find things like searching for take out places and a GPS in my pocket quite useful. It replaces the need for a car device as I can simply pull over and figure out where i need to go.

It's also a replacement for my iPod.

I actually use it at work to test our websites from external network to make sure the security is working (we do ip based auth for our stuff)

They're not for everyone, but they do have valid uses for some of us.

Reply Score: 1

Tablets are important here, too.
by tidux on Sat 19th May 2012 13:32 UTC
tidux
Member since:
2011-08-13

Android tablets don't really do it for me, and I'm too much of a GNU/Neckbeard to accept iOS, but Open WebOS on a nice ARM tablet and a keyboard could replace my laptop for 90% of what I do with it - browse the web, listen to music, watch videos, read PDFs and ebooks, light gaming, and SSH in to other systems to get real work done. I could very easily see replacing my big laptop and netbook with a WebOS tablet and a desktop.

Reply Score: 2

modmans2ndcoming Member since:
2005-11-09

what about windows 8 on an Intel tablet?

Reply Score: 2

darknexus Member since:
2008-07-15

what about windows 8 on an Intel tablet?


Sure, when Windows 8 tablets actually exist. I don't think Windows 8 (or more specifically Metro) will take off very well on general-purpose desktops or laptops, but it might just work on tablets. Still, it's difficult to project anything about Win 8 tablets when not a single one yet exists to judge.

Reply Score: 2

tidux Member since:
2011-08-13

Intel tablets are always going to suck compared to ARM because they're either heavier, hotter, and more battery hungry, or they're laughably underpowered (Medfield).

EDIT: I despise Windows in all its forms. I put up with it for years, but ditched it forever after Vista. Windows 7 is just Vista on a diet with a theme pack, and Windows 8 is just Windows 7 with metro tacked on and abhorrent OEM requirements (Secure Boot, etc.).

Edited 2012-05-19 22:41 UTC

Reply Score: 0

Animated history of operating systems
by Tony Swash on Sat 19th May 2012 13:55 UTC
Tony Swash
Member since:
2009-08-22

http://youtu.be/8h-C6u4yLj4

By Horace Dediu

The few frames showing the impact of mobile devices is startling

Reply Score: 8

ricegf Member since:
2007-04-25

Kinda wonder why NeXT is on the chart. It never moves. Should we expect a comeback?

Reply Score: 2

moondevil Member since:
2005-07-08

I thought it already did (Mac OS X). ;)

Reply Score: 2

ricegf Member since:
2007-04-25

I did, too - but Mac OS/X has a separate entry in the chart. NeXT seems redundant, especially since its historical market share never rises above 0%.

Reply Score: 2

henderson101 Member since:
2006-05-30

Mac OS X *is* NeXT though.

Reply Score: 2

ricegf Member since:
2007-04-25

Exactly - so why are *BOTH* listed on the chart.

I just don't know any way to say this any clearer.

Reply Score: 2

Comment by RichterKuato
by RichterKuato on Sat 19th May 2012 15:48 UTC
RichterKuato
Member since:
2010-05-14

I don't believe Windows is a strong consumer brand. Windows just has strong lock-in. PC's don't sell because of the Windows branding.

There is a myth that software platforms only have room for a few top platforms. This is just a overly simplistic of the market. The limits of platform adoption are on how willing a consumer is to buy new hardware/software. That depends mostly on what the product is capable of and how valuable that is to a consumer.

If HP came out with a iPhone that was the same only it was more durable with longer battery life and better customer support. That could sell.

If RIM came out with a new software platform that was similar (but incompatible) to iOS only with software that was better than iOS software is some meaningful way, like filled some purpose iOS software didn't. That could sell.

Reply Score: 5

RE: Comment by RichterKuato
by ilovebeer on Sat 19th May 2012 16:04 UTC in reply to "Comment by RichterKuato"
ilovebeer Member since:
2011-08-08

I don't believe Windows is a strong consumer brand. Windows just has strong lock-in. PC's don't sell because of the Windows branding.

It's incredibly naive to think that Windows massive market share has nothing to do with their branding and popularity with consumers. While it may come as a shock to you, many people have a great experience with their Windows system. Whether you like it or not, Microsoft makes good products that people _choose_ to purchase. Microsoft didn't achieve their vast success by strong-arming the industry, and by forcing consumers to spend their money in some kind of pc shakedown.

If you have a person looking to buy a new computer, and he's presented with two options, both using identical hardware. One of which has Windows branding, the other with some other branding on it. Which do you think he'll buy? Chances are heavily in favor of the Windows branded system.

Reply Score: 6

RE[2]: Comment by RichterKuato
by RichterKuato on Sat 19th May 2012 16:58 UTC in reply to "RE: Comment by RichterKuato"
RichterKuato Member since:
2010-05-14

None of what you wrote proves that PC's sell because of Windows branding. Also, you're a blind fool if you believe there's real choice in the PC market.

Reply Score: 7

v RE[3]: Comment by RichterKuato
by ilovebeer on Sat 19th May 2012 17:13 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: Comment by RichterKuato"
RE[4]: Comment by RichterKuato
by RichterKuato on Sat 19th May 2012 17:46 UTC in reply to "RE[3]: Comment by RichterKuato"
RichterKuato Member since:
2010-05-14

Maybe on your planet where computers aren't used to run applications but we earthlings use computers precisely for their ability to run applications. So down here choice is thought of in those terms.

Reply Score: 4

RE[5]: Comment by RichterKuato
by ilovebeer on Sat 19th May 2012 20:29 UTC in reply to "RE[4]: Comment by RichterKuato"
ilovebeer Member since:
2011-08-08

Maybe on your planet where computers aren't used to run applications but we earthlings use computers precisely for their ability to run applications. So down here choice is thought of in those terms.

Are you actually suggesting OSX and Linux aren't options because they're not capable of running applications? As naive as you seem to be, I think I still gave you too much credit because that's completely absurd. The average computer user is able to do all the same things whether they're using Windows, OSX, or Linux....and they're able to do them with nearly the same effort. You thinking otherwise makes me wonder if you've ever even used a computer before.

Reply Score: 2

modmans2ndcoming Member since:
2005-11-09

you are a blind fool if you think that the OS matters any more.

Stop thinking like it is 1999. Computing has moved outside of the desktop and is more pervasive than ever on more OSs than ever in more form factors than ever.

Reply Score: 2

RE[4]: Comment by RichterKuato
by Neolander on Sun 20th May 2012 17:53 UTC in reply to "RE[3]: Comment by RichterKuato"
Neolander Member since:
2010-03-08

So, does AutoCAD run well on that phone of yours ?

Reply Score: 4

RE[5]: Comment by RichterKuato
by WereCatf on Sun 20th May 2012 19:32 UTC in reply to "RE[4]: Comment by RichterKuato"
WereCatf Member since:
2006-02-15

So, does AutoCAD run well on that phone of yours ?


Son, I am disappoint. No, honestly, I was expecting better from you. AutoCAD doesn't run on Commodore 64, Raspberry Pi, and many others, yet they are fully Turing-complete general-purpose computers. Or do you deny that?

The fallacy of your comment is in equating the ability to run a specific piece of software with being a computer instead of equating the ability of running certain kinds of operations with something being a computer.

Reply Score: 2

RE[6]: Comment by RichterKuato
by Neolander on Sun 20th May 2012 19:43 UTC in reply to "RE[5]: Comment by RichterKuato"
Neolander Member since:
2010-03-08

The OP was basically arguing that we have reached some kind of dream OS wonderland in which OSs do not matter any more and people can pick whatever computer form factor they like depending on the task at hand.

I wish this was true. But it seems to me that it isn't. Look at the modern computer landscape, and you will see nothing but platform lock-in and a growing amount of arbitrary and artificial limitations on what developers and users can do. There used to be a time where OSs mattered because they determined what you can do. Nowadays, OSs still matter, but because they determine what you cannot do.

You need to use Windows because your work software won't work on something else. You need to use a large laptop or desktop even if you don't need it, because netbooks and tablet computers are arbitrarily restricted by OS manufacturers to the status of toys and content consumption device. You need to keep the OS that came bundled with your phone or tablet because some idiot locked down your bootloader. And so on.

Edited 2012-05-20 19:57 UTC

Reply Score: 2

RE[5]: Comment by RichterKuato
by zima on Sun 20th May 2012 19:57 UTC in reply to "RE[4]: Comment by RichterKuato"
zima Member since:
2005-07-06

So, does AutoCAD run well on that phone of yours ?

Well... http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AutoCAD#AutoCAD_WS

Reply Score: 3

RE[6]: Comment by RichterKuato
by Neolander on Sun 20th May 2012 20:06 UTC in reply to "RE[5]: Comment by RichterKuato"
Neolander Member since:
2010-03-08


Okay, you win ;)

Though the way users are able to view sketches but not create new ones feels suspiciously like a textbook example of artificial software limitations on mobile devices.

Reply Score: 2

RE[3]: Comment by RichterKuato
by l3v1 on Mon 21st May 2012 09:05 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: Comment by RichterKuato"
l3v1 Member since:
2005-07-06

real choice in the PC market


There's choise for PCs alright, it's software (OS,...) where you hit the walls.

Reply Score: 2

RE[2]: Comment by RichterKuato
by Shadowmane on Sat 19th May 2012 17:09 UTC in reply to "RE: Comment by RichterKuato"
Shadowmane Member since:
2006-06-16

Its incredibly naive to think that just because Microsoft is ubiquitous, that a consumer will choose it over something else just by having two computers side by side. If that were the case, Apple would have no market share at all.

Oh, and Microsoft has gotten where it is today by doing exactly as you say they didn't do. They force people to buy their product by forcing OEM's to produce only for their product.

Reply Score: 10

RE[2]: Comment by RichterKuato
by darknexus on Sun 20th May 2012 15:22 UTC in reply to "RE: Comment by RichterKuato"
darknexus Member since:
2008-07-15

It's incredibly naive to think that Windows massive market share has nothing to do with their branding and popularity with consumers. While it may come as a shock to you, many people have a great experience with their Windows system. Whether you like it or not, Microsoft makes good products that people _choose_ to purchase. Microsoft didn't achieve their vast success by strong-arming the industry, and by forcing consumers to spend their money in some kind of pc shakedown.


You make good points, but I must disagree in one area. Windows, itself, is not a strong consumer brand. I work tech support and I can tell you from experience that the majority of average consumers do not really know what Windows is. They know who Microsoft are, and they know about Microsoft Office when thinking about them. The name "Windows" doesn't mean much to them one way or the other. They just know they click the little picture things and these boxes come up (I'm actually quoting someone here). The only time they know what Windows is happens to be when an error comes up and then they start ranting about how much this "Windows" thing sucks (another quote) because they went and installed a Virus. In this way, the Windows brand might actually be a liability not because the product itself is bad, but because the only time the consumer sees the word "Windows" is when something goes wrong. If I were Microsoft, I would've taken the Metro brand name (Metro Phone, for example) and capitalized on distancing it from the Windows name. Sad as it may seem, the name Windows to most people means viruses and annoying pop-ups, while the name Microsoft triggers a love/hate reaction mostly due to Office rather than Windows. Note that I'm not saying the Windows name isn't present everywhere throughout the product, I'm just noting when and where people take notice of the word.

If you have a person looking to buy a new computer, and he's presented with two options, both using identical hardware. One of which has Windows branding, the other with some other branding on it. Which do you think he'll buy? Chances are heavily in favor of the Windows branded system.


Actually, most people will buy what looks familiar. They see a Windows desktop that looks similar to what they already have, they'll go with that. As I said, the name Windows doesn't mean "amazing" to most average consumers. The same actually applies to Apple computers. Someone who uses Macs, if they like them, are more likely to buy a Mac than a PC due to familiarity with the product. By contrast, if someone has had bad experiences with Windows, they might buy one of those "Mac things" and try that instead.

Reply Score: 5

RE[3]: Comment by RichterKuato
by REM2000 on Sun 20th May 2012 17:27 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: Comment by RichterKuato"
REM2000 Member since:
2006-07-25

i agree, people don't go out and buy windows they buy a PC, Mac's haven't traditionally sold as much when compared next to windows because of the cost and they haven't been promoted as much.

Working in tech support people to this day don't understand Windows from Office, to them it's all the same. It's the same as you don't know what software your car is running, people buy a computer to get from A to B, they don't know whats running under the hood.

The post pc era is has been brought about as you and others have said an era in which the OS is no longer relevent, the only thing that is relevent is access to the services you need and for the vast majority it's the ability to access the internet, compose emails, edit pictures, listen to music and perhaps create some documents. When you boil these requirements down, the possibilities become far greater and the smartphone suddenly becomes quite a useful device.

Reply Score: 3

RE: Comment by RichterKuato
by David on Mon 21st May 2012 04:29 UTC in reply to "Comment by RichterKuato"
David Member since:
1997-10-01

I think that even "ignorant" PC consumers know enough that even if they don't really understand operating systems, they'd steer clear of a non-Windows PC, because most are educated enough to know that it wouldn't run the programs they want to run. That's why Apple marketshare flattened and attempts at getting people to buy cheap Linux PCs fell flat.

It's not about Windows branding, but about the stigma of a non-Windows PC. Just like people may not know much about cars, but word on the street is that the car from Yugoslavia sucks and you shouldn't buy one even if it's cheap. (Hey, finally an apt OS car analogy!)

Reply Score: 2

RE[2]: Comment by RichterKuato
by kwan_e on Mon 21st May 2012 07:31 UTC in reply to "RE: Comment by RichterKuato"
kwan_e Member since:
2007-02-18

It's not about Windows branding, but about the stigma of a non-Windows PC. Just like people may not know much about cars, but word on the street is that the car from Yugoslavia sucks and you shouldn't buy one even if it's cheap. (Hey, finally an apt OS car analogy!)


Your mentioning of cars brings up an interesting point: Korean and Japanese car and electronics manufacturers had really poor reputation in the beginning but how they even manage to turn that image around is a much bigger achievement than some Apple apologists claim about Apple's recent success.

Reply Score: 4

RE[2]: Comment by RichterKuato
by l3v1 on Mon 21st May 2012 09:09 UTC in reply to "RE: Comment by RichterKuato"
l3v1 Member since:
2005-07-06

the car from Yugoslavia sucks and you shouldn't buy one even if it's cheap. (Hey, finally an apt OS car analogy!)


Well, unless that car is your only option (and there were times, when your only option was one type of car and you had to wait months to get it). You could find quite a number people here who could tell you all about how and why Windows s*cks for a lot of reasons, and they still keep buying it because of it being the only real option for a lot of scenarios.

Reply Score: 2

Comment by ilovebeer
by ilovebeer on Sat 19th May 2012 15:54 UTC
ilovebeer
Member since:
2011-08-08

While a computer and a cell phone share certain or similar capabilities, they are not the same thing and the author is making a mistake by ignoring the distinction. To say smartphones are the 'computer of choice' I think is the result of that.

With a little further investigation, the author would find people are not replacing their computers with their cell phone. They are merely buying upgraded cell phones. That's a huge difference.

The article also completely ignores the fact that while cell phone sales may have increased, computer sales have remained consistent. If the author was correct in his assumption, you would see a decline in computer sales as a result of the increase in phone sales. But you don't see that.

He's comparing apples to oranges more than apples to apples. But, that's typical when it comes to technology.

Reply Score: 10

RE: Comment by ilovebeer
by modmans2ndcoming on Sat 19th May 2012 20:51 UTC in reply to "Comment by ilovebeer"
modmans2ndcoming Member since:
2005-11-09

an for most people, computers have always been a method to connect to the web and interact...so for many of those people, they can and do forgo a PC in favor of a smartphone/tablet.

Reply Score: 2

RE[2]: Comment by ilovebeer
by ilovebeer on Sun 20th May 2012 01:13 UTC in reply to "RE: Comment by ilovebeer"
ilovebeer Member since:
2011-08-08

an for most people, computers have always been a method to connect to the web and interact...so for many of those people, they can and do forgo a PC in favor of a smartphone/tablet.

Yes, some people do. Nobody ever suggested otherwise. However, while people are in fact purchasing cell phones more now than ever, they aren't replacing their computers with them. The numbers don't lie and there's still consistent new computer sales in the hundreds of millions every year. If cell phones really were replacing or killing off desktops, that wouldn't remain true.

So as much as people would like to think computing on handheld devices is destroying desktops, the facts show that theory to be nonsense.

Reply Score: 3

RE[3]: Comment by ilovebeer
by Brendan on Sun 20th May 2012 04:58 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: Comment by ilovebeer"
Brendan Member since:
2005-11-16

Hi,

So as much as people would like to think computing on handheld devices is destroying desktops, the facts show that theory to be nonsense.


I agree.

People are currently switching from "mobile phone and PC" to "smart phone and PC". The current smart phone growth will stop when everyone that wants a smart phone already has one.

I'd also predict that more smartphones will be sold per year than PCs, because people replace them more often. As a rough average, most of the people I know replace their mobile/smart phone every 18 months (because it didn't float, got smashed, got lost, got stolen, stopped working) but keep their PC for 5 or more years. Higher sales figures alone doesn't mean that smartphones have become the preferred computer of the masses (but may only mean they're cheap and fragile).

Finally, I predict that the hardware for average smartphones won't improve much - instead of getting faster and more powerful they'll just get cheaper and more disposable, with better battery life.

- Brendan

Reply Score: 4

Wow
by screamingturnip on Sat 19th May 2012 16:11 UTC
screamingturnip
Member since:
2012-04-05

Those first 2 graphs are horrid, just terrible.

Reply Score: 2

great
by fran on Sat 19th May 2012 17:28 UTC
fran
Member since:
2010-08-06

good stuff Howard

Reply Score: 2

Comment by AlfieJr
by AlfieJr on Sat 19th May 2012 18:01 UTC
AlfieJr
Member since:
2012-05-19

it is certainly plausible that within 5 years portable OS devices will account for at least 3/4 of all consumer "personal computers" (not enterprise). and that this market will be split three ways between Android, iOS, and Windows OS's. which would leave Windows desktop + mobile OS with somewhat less than half of the market overall. not bad for Microsoft.

but that is measured by unit sales. whereas measured by sales revenues - arguable the most important metric - that would leave Apple with well over half the total revenues. which is great for Apple. Apparently Samsung will do well too. but some OEM's won't be able to survive, while former leaders Nokia and Sony will just limp along.

Reply Score: 1

Comment by MollyC
by MollyC on Sat 19th May 2012 20:18 UTC
MollyC
Member since:
2006-07-04

Recently, two or three sources have reported that Windows Phone now has over 90k apps.

I think the "Windows" brand is a liability rather than an asset. Not because I think Windows sucks, but because the name "Windows Phone" conveys the idea of a phone with the desktop Windows UI (which is what Windows Mobile was (kind of, though not as much as the old PocketPCs)), which is not what folks want on a handset. Generally, folks like the WP7 UI once they use it, but I think that right now the name "Windows Phone" serves as a barrier to getting folks to try it.

BUT, if Windows 8 is received well by the public, then the brand could become an asset, since I think folks would be more accepting or even desirous of the Windows 8 UI on a handheld device.

Reply Score: 4

RE: Comment by MollyC
by tomcat on Sat 19th May 2012 23:04 UTC in reply to "Comment by MollyC"
tomcat Member since:
2006-01-06

Recently, two or three sources have reported that Windows Phone now has over 90k apps.

I think the "Windows" brand is a liability rather than an asset. Not because I think Windows sucks, but because the name "Windows Phone" conveys the idea of a phone with the desktop Windows UI (which is what Windows Mobile was (kind of, though not as much as the old PocketPCs)), which is not what folks want on a handset. Generally, folks like the WP7 UI once they use it, but I think that right now the name "Windows Phone" serves as a barrier to getting folks to try it.

BUT, if Windows 8 is received well by the public, then the brand could become an asset, since I think folks would be more accepting or even desirous of the Windows 8 UI on a handheld device.


It's only a liability because the only comparison that people have is <= Windows 7. The evolved interface of Windows 8 -- tiles, etc -- will change that perception.

Reply Score: 2

RE: Comment by MollyC
by dsmogor on Wed 23rd May 2012 16:33 UTC in reply to "Comment by MollyC"
dsmogor Member since:
2005-09-01

I think it's much simpler than that.
If only half of it (http://my-symbian.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=44034) is true, it means WP7 is Windows 1.0 of the mobile world, something that MS sold to HW partners half in its development cycle.

Reply Score: 2

Android...?
by roracle on Sat 19th May 2012 20:59 UTC
roracle
Member since:
2009-05-14

Call me crazy, but 10 years back it was "Linux will rule the world in 10 years!" and now everyone says "Android" when Android is actually Linux.

Words have power, and behold: Linux is on top, as the endless multitude of prophets hath spake. And now it's about "which mobile distro?" when it used to not matter which Linux it was so long as it was Linux.

Reply Score: 2

RE: Android...?
by tomcat on Sat 19th May 2012 23:05 UTC in reply to "Android...?"
tomcat Member since:
2006-01-06

Call me crazy...


Okay, you're crazy.

Reply Score: 3

RE: Android...?
by ricegf on Sun 20th May 2012 02:33 UTC in reply to "Android...?"
ricegf Member since:
2007-04-25

Linux is on top


And still growing. Part of me is delighted to see open technology succeeding so well, while another part of me worries about a new monopoly rising. Maybe Haiku...

Reply Score: 2

RE[2]: Android...?
by bnolsen on Sun 20th May 2012 10:19 UTC in reply to "RE: Android...?"
bnolsen Member since:
2006-01-06

One thing though, google isn't out to lock everyone in. In a way they released android with the desire to free manufacturers from the hard lockin. They just want to make money off services and advertising. Nothing is stopping anyone from takin android and cutting google out. In fact I believe the amazon kindle does just that.

Reply Score: 3

RE[3]: Android...?
by ricegf on Sun 20th May 2012 11:05 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: Android...?"
ricegf Member since:
2007-04-25

Good point. And my wife loves her Fire and Nexus equally, as far as I can tell. Haiku is still kinda cool, though... :-D

Reply Score: 2

More than 100%
by Dedoimedo on Sun 20th May 2012 05:13 UTC
Dedoimedo
Member since:
2010-06-21

I think the graphs are horribly wrong. They portray a picture where supposedly mobile device are replacing the traditional desktop/laptop rather than supplementing them.

Whoever has a smartphone of some sort probably also has another computer, most likely with Windows. Two parallel markets, no need to bunch them together. And it's wrong to bunch them together.

So saying that Windows market will drop to 50% in a few years is ridiculous. It is like counting all Linux appliances are Linux installations and claiming a huge market share for Linux. Yes, if you count all routers, TVs and such, then Linux has billions of installed devices worldwide.

Huge sales for smartphones cannot be compared to desktop sales, either. You buy a desktop for 5-6 years, while people tend to replace smartphones every 2 years. Smartphones are also much cheaper, so 1 to 1 ratio is wrong, again. And never forget the fact that people still use both or complement their overall computing experience with both types.

Therefore, it's not so much market pie sharing, it's making the pie bigger - or even adding another pie to the market.

And then, it starts to make sense. Some.

Edit: Brendan, spot on.

Cheers,
Dedoimedo

Edited 2012-05-20 05:14 UTC

Reply Score: 1

Graphs show market share, not replacement
by benali72 on Sun 20th May 2012 12:23 UTC in reply to "More than 100%"
benali72 Member since:
2008-05-03

No, the graphs do not indicate that smartphones are replacing the traditional laptop/desktop. They merely represent the total market for consumer operating systems. Since the addition of smartphones to this market place, Windows is indeed dropping to 50% market share.

As you say, "it's not so much market pie sharing, it's making the pie bigger - or even adding another pie to the market" -- which is exactly what the graphs show.

Reply Score: 2

Windows8
by John Blink on Sun 20th May 2012 07:28 UTC
John Blink
Member since:
2005-10-11

Sorry to hijack, but I feel it is an informative post. I have read many past articles about Windows 8, and articles about smartphones, and I have come to one realisation.

I have come to realise is that the PC is not dead, but it is a market that Microsoft cannot have any substantial profit growth for their business.

So what do they do? See potential in smartphones, partner with a name recognised worldwide, Nokia. Sell smartphones.

Sounds simple but it isn't. They need developers, developers, developers, and of course a userbase.

My thoughts are for years Microsoft have tried to be #1 in phones, but I couldn't care less about the advancements in the windows mobile platform,because even though there are apps for it, I would come to a point where some app isn't ported, and I would need it.

As painful as I currrently find Win8 to use on the desktop it is a necessity for Microsoft to succeed in the mobile space.

My thoughts are if win8 is a vista of sorts currently, it could have the potential to be the OS for any hardware platform because usability will be improved over time, and the program's will be there as well.

Short story hurry up future! ;)

Reply Score: 2

Revolution
by siki_miki on Sun 20th May 2012 10:14 UTC
siki_miki
Member since:
2006-01-17

The smartphone numbers will certainly overtake desktop/laptop PC ones. Especially in developing world this will become a "PC" platform of choice, all in one.
In this case, for some time there will not be a dominating platform, "new Windows", although I predict Android to become #1 computing OS in the world by some margin (in the process bringing Linux kernel to that long deserved place). A refreshment compared to times when we thought this is it and MS owns the market. Interesting how a new technology revolution (the one again ignited by Steve Jobs!) is now rapidly changing. Last time it was IBM, this time it's another behemoth - Microsoft that was taken off guard.

Reply Score: 2

RE: Revolution
by bnolsen on Sun 20th May 2012 10:27 UTC in reply to "Revolution"
bnolsen Member since:
2006-01-06

Microsoft wasn't taken off guard. They conscientiously chose to not participate in cannibalizing their lucrative market. From their view they were top dog. As long as the market didn't change they could maximize profits...make tons of money with almost no effort. In fact it was easier for them to interfere with emerging markets than to try to make the investment required to foster that market.

The old saying...if you're not willing to cannibalize your own business, others will do it for you.

Edited 2012-05-20 10:28 UTC

Reply Score: 4

rklrkl
Member since:
2005-07-06

I think it's a bit ludicrous to claim that people are buying smartphones *instead* of (the often cheaper!) laptops or desktops. There will always be a need for a more "usable" machine in the household - one with a large monitor (OK, maybe a touchscreen version then they come down in price), keyboard/mouse, ability to add further peripherals and a lot more RAM/CPU/disk power.

I seriously doubt there are many smartphone users out there who only have that phone and no other computer in their household, hence I think smartphones are moving to replace the "second computer" in your household, whether that's an old laptop or a netbook or something that you've generally tired of using for whatever reason.

However, in those replacement cases, a tablet is a more obvious choice now I guess, so smartphones do seem to occupy a slightly weird position - not quite good enough to be your primary computer and lacking some useful physical features (large screen, keyboard, mouse) to make it a worthy replacement for a laptop or netbook.

Personally, I have one of everything to see what I think about it - a desktop, a laptop, a netbook, a tablet and a smartphone. At home, I use the desktop the most and on the move, it's actually the netbook (an old Mini 9 souped up a bit) that's by the best portable device I've got. The tablet (an HP Touchpad with CM9) and smartphone (an ancient HTC Desire) are the least productive devices of all of them - very much consumer devices and pretty useless for actually creating content on them.

Reply Score: 4

mariuz
Member since:
2006-02-21

The IDC report with 2015 prediction is from 2011!
ps:some of the IDC reports are sponsored by Microsoft so you can't trust them ;)

do a google search for idc sponsored reports by microsoft

Reply Score: 1

dsmogor Member since:
2005-09-01

Is that the same company that predicted WP7 marketshare at 25% by 2012?

Reply Score: 2

2012 is the year of the Linux... smartphone?
by reez on Sun 20th May 2012 16:54 UTC
reez
Member since:
2006-06-28

I find that interesting. Everyone (exaggeration) always wanted to have Linux on the desktop and now it is dominant in form of smart phones.


I want 2030 to be the year of Plan 9 on the... ;)

Hmm, wouldn't it be really interesting to have Plan 9 based smart phones?

Maybe, if the big companies move on to smart phones projects like Haiku, Syllable or AROS will have that field for themselves. I don't think it's going to happen, but it would be really awesome.

- an OSnews reader's wet dream

Edited 2012-05-20 16:55 UTC

Reply Score: 2

zima Member since:
2005-07-06

I want 2030 to be the year of Plan 9 on the... ;)
Hmm, wouldn't it be really interesting to have Plan 9 based smart phones?
Maybe, if the big companies move on to smart phones

Yeah, Plan 9 on smartphones from (inevitably) big companies ...I'm not sure we should want that (considering how they already want to own and track everything, and the perfect for that very "network transparent" architecture of Plan 9)

Reply Score: 2

Comparable numbers
by Neolander on Sun 20th May 2012 18:00 UTC
Neolander
Member since:
2010-03-08

So, I was just wondering...

People buy "smart" phones in order to replace an older cellphone. Cellphones traditionally sell in much higher numbers than computers, because they are short-lived, cheap, and definitely single-user (whereas it is common for a family to share a desktop).

So... How are all these graphs which compare cellphone sales to computer sales worth anything ? Just because phones are now capable of running fart apps does not make them suddenly more suitable for typical office tasks such as word processing or accounting, does it ?

Edited 2012-05-20 18:02 UTC

Reply Score: 2

RE: Comparable numbers
by zima on Sun 20th May 2012 19:52 UTC in reply to "Comparable numbers"
zima Member since:
2005-07-06

Cellphones [...] are short-lived, cheap, and definitely single-user (whereas it is common for a family to share a desktop)

Not "definitely" - in developing world it's quite common for, say, a family to share one mobile phone (that's why more recent S30 Nokia phones have few available "accounts" each with its own contacts, and IIRC also costs tracker).
Generally, among more impoverished demographics, phones
tend be longer-lived, chiefly because they are relatively expensive.

As for comparison with PCs... there are over 5.6 billion mobile subscriptions by now (yes, among those are people having more than one active SIM card; but OTOH there are those shared mobiles that I mentioned, partially compensating - either way, it's probably safe to assume 5 billion people).
And last I heard, there are ~1.2 billion PCs, used by ~2 billion people.

So it's probably beyond the differences in sales dynamics - especially once (probably) ~Android handsets get firmly into sub-100$ regions.
And I don't think that many people are very interested in "typical office tasks such as word processing or accounting" (who knows how much of those tablets might grab, eventually) - but it's not uncommon to access the web only from mobile, especially in developing world http://www.opera.com/smw/2012/03/
Maybe that's what at least such places will largely settle on, mostly leapfrogging PCs (just like they did with wired telephone networks)

Reply Score: 3

RE[2]: Comparable numbers
by Neolander on Sun 20th May 2012 20:31 UTC in reply to "RE: Comparable numbers"
Neolander Member since:
2010-03-08

Indeed, I was mostly focusing on what I know ("rich" countries) here.

I did not understand this part of your reasoning though :

As for comparison with PCs... there are over 5.6 billion mobile subscriptions by now (yes, among those are people having more than one active SIM card; but OTOH there are those shared mobiles that I mentioned, partially compensating - either way, it's probably safe to assume 5 billion people).
And last I heard, there are ~1.2 billion PCs, used by ~2 billion people.

So it's probably beyond the differences in sales dynamics - especially once (probably) ~Android handsets get firmly into sub-100$ regions.


I was just arguing that PCs and cellphones are different devices with use cases that do not overlap much, and that as such their sale figures should probably not be compared.

For a metaphor, this feels like arguing that microwave ovens are eating traditional ovens' lunch because they sell more. However, they are two different devices. Ovens are for cooking foods, microwaves are for warming it up. The two devices only compete on side functionality, not in their core area of competence. As such, it's not that microwaves are better than ovens, but rather that people are more into microwave functionality than oven functionality (probably due to the sad state of cooking knowledge in our societies). Which is another debate entirely.

It so happens that in the past, some people used to warm up food in an oven (and to browse basic, phone-compatible websites on a PC). Then they realized that they could do it more efficiently with a cheap microwave (a "smart" phone), and they had the money, so they bought one. But in the end, the microwave has not replaced their oven. It is just a side device that complements it. If you want to cook anything more tasty than a yoghourt cake (which is akin to any serious content creation job on a computer), you will still need an oven. You just do not try to use it for things that it is not good at anymore. Which is a good thing.

(And then, there are tablets, which could be the computer equivalent of microwave+oven combos as a killer do-it-all device for students... Except that their limited OSs make them more like a microwave on steroids that warms stuff up superfast but is still unable to bake the most basic chocolate cake... Okay, okay, I stop here)

Edited 2012-05-20 20:52 UTC

Reply Score: 1

RE[3]: Comparable numbers
by zima on Sat 26th May 2012 23:55 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: Comparable numbers"
zima Member since:
2005-07-06

Well I was just going on further about how (when looking at "all these graphs which compare cellphone sales to computer sales") it's more than just "Cellphones traditionally sell in much higher numbers than computers, because they are short-lived, cheap, and definitely single-user" - mobile OS numbers are/will swamp PC also because their market is huge, not only because of sales dynamics (short-lived, cheap - which anyway isn't always the case, together with "single-user", which I also pointed out)

And you came up with a very poor metaphor ...kitchen analogy?! While we have the gold standard of car analogies: in this case, say, cars vs. bikes ;) (also cars and bikes ...or even a folding bike kept in the trunk of a car, as a combo)

Edited 2012-05-27 00:14 UTC

Reply Score: 2

RE[2]: Comparable numbers
by Neolander on Sun 20th May 2012 20:56 UTC in reply to "RE: Comparable numbers"
Neolander Member since:
2010-03-08

About this :

And I don't think that many people are very interested in "typical office tasks such as word processing or accounting" (who knows how much of those tablets might grab, eventually)


I still find it hard to believe that people would have justified the purchase of a computer just by "I will use it to go on Facebook". Most of the computers which I see at the house of relatives are either work tools or children toys, which are used as web terminals because they can also do that. But I may have weird relatives :/

Reply Score: 1

RE[2]: Comparable numbers
by zima on Sat 26th May 2012 23:57 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: Comparable numbers"
zima Member since:
2005-07-06

I don't know, it often seemed like "everybody is getting a computer so we will also, to show that we can afford to just like that, and that we care for our children"

Edited 2012-05-27 00:15 UTC

Reply Score: 2

Comment by shmerl
by shmerl on Sun 20th May 2012 19:06 UTC
shmerl
Member since:
2010-06-08

Smartphone is a bad term if you want to highlight the general purpose nature of them (it also sounds weird at least to me). Better use PDA or handset computers for that.

Edited 2012-05-20 19:06 UTC

Reply Score: 3

Smartphones
by henderson101 on Sun 20th May 2012 23:06 UTC
henderson101
Member since:
2006-05-30

As a bored iPhone owner, I kind of started looking around. I see 3 options... None are ideal.

1) android. Except, all the high end handsets are too big. Like, stupidly big. I was standing in a store comparing various handsets, and the HTC One X, Galaxy 3s, Whatvever the Sony Experia is, are all HUGE! Did I mention my utter dislike for Java?

2) Nokia Lumia 800 - played with it. Loved th OS. Having previously written off Windows phone, this is a true 180. Then I looked in to developing apps for it. $99??? Um.. No.

3) Nokia N9 - looks as good as the Lumia 800, but try finding one. Development s pretty sweet though.

So, unless Apple pull magic rabbits out of hats for he next handset, Windows phone looks to be te direction. Just needs hacked phone to allow side lading of apps.

Reply Score: 2

RE: Smartphones
by shmerl on Mon 21st May 2012 00:45 UTC in reply to "Smartphones"
shmerl Member since:
2010-06-08

N9 is not hard to find. Amazon sells them for instance. Windows phone is a dead end. Same DRMed locked in idea as iOS.

Edited 2012-05-21 00:46 UTC

Reply Score: 3

RE[2]: Smartphones
by henderson101 on Mon 21st May 2012 01:36 UTC in reply to "RE: Smartphones"
henderson101 Member since:
2006-05-30

From a pure development perspective, Windows phone is ahead of both Android and N9 in every way except for the lock in. The UI is really nice. Really fresh. I honestly hated the concept of it before I played with it. Most carriers will give me a free handset on a comparable tariff to my current one on a 2 year contract. I can buy a sim unlocked one for under £350! Where as N9 is at east £30 more than the best price I can find. And the N9 is not carred by anyone in te UK.

Reply Score: 2

RE[3]: Smartphones
by shmerl on Mon 21st May 2012 06:07 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: Smartphones"
shmerl Member since:
2010-06-08

Ahead? I dislike MS proprietary and non portable solutions. Nothing ahead there. No OpenGL (ES), no native code compilers. Simply a waste of time. If you care about what's ahead - you won't even bother with Windows Phone.

Carried you mean contract plans which offer the device with discount? I never use those. I get devices for full price and get non contract plans. It always comes out cheaper, of course if you plan to use the device long enough. Those who change handsets every year will probably prefer contract options.

Edited 2012-05-21 06:12 UTC

Reply Score: 3

RE[4]: Smartphones
by zima on Mon 21st May 2012 16:20 UTC in reply to "RE[3]: Smartphones"
zima Member since:
2005-07-06

Lock in (somewhat unfortunate in itself, sure) doesn't preclude the platform from being damn nice and pleasant "from a pure development perspective" (so yeah, kinda ahead in that)

BTW, last I checked, WP7 handsets could be had curiously inexpensively (without contract of course) ...well, probably they were hardly selling.

Reply Score: 2

RE[5]: Smartphones
by shmerl on Mon 21st May 2012 16:24 UTC in reply to "RE[4]: Smartphones"
shmerl Member since:
2010-06-08

I pointed out both issues. Besides the lock in, I don't find non portable solutions without a native code option to be "nice" from a pure developer's perspective. To be nice, the platform needs to support OpenGL and to have native code option for high performance applications. Supporting mature cross platform UI toolkits adds to the niceness as well. Windows Phone fails in all of those.

Edited 2012-05-21 16:27 UTC

Reply Score: 3

RE[6]: Smartphones
by zima on Mon 21st May 2012 16:50 UTC in reply to "RE[5]: Smartphones"
zima Member since:
2005-07-06

But those don't really matter for bedroom coder (what the implied use seemed to be; even likely mostly apps "for oneself") - somebody like that won't aim for some high-perf multiplatform engine; "little" games and apps are fine with XNA, and it's not like such apps are very portable when starting from SDK of any platform.

Plus, in fact, such little projects might actually, possibly, be most portable when starting from WP7 and its stack - there is a project allowing easy porting to iOS and Android (and more), with existing examples in their appstores
http://monogame.codeplex.com/

Reply Score: 2

RE[7]: Smartphones
by shmerl on Mon 21st May 2012 17:02 UTC in reply to "RE[6]: Smartphones"
shmerl Member since:
2010-06-08

I'd be wary of MS shadow behind it. Their patent trolling is notorious and they aren't to be trusted. So better use real cross platform solutions (OpenGL) if you care.

"Bedroom" coders as you coined it, usually don't care much about quality, so their perspective isn't really interesting.

Reply Score: 2

surpassed sales? no wonder
by l3v1 on Mon 21st May 2012 09:13 UTC
l3v1
Member since:
2005-07-06

Sales surpassed those of personal computers in 2010


I don't think that's a surprise. We're talking about phones here after all. Since smartphones got fashionable, it's becoming increasingly hard to buy a quality non-smart phone, and this will continue, so after a while it becomes fairly straightforward that smartphone sales will surpass computer sales (after all, there have and will be always more phones than general computers). This is just the trend that shows how regular phones get bit-by-bit replaced by smartphones.

Edited 2012-05-21 09:14 UTC

Reply Score: 3

Chrispynutt
Member since:
2012-03-14

I think these numbers are misleading.

I'd rather like to see the in use numbers rather than sold numbers.

I expect desktop PCs to last around 4-5 years. Smartphones get regularly upgraded every 1-2 years. It's like the HD TV market or the mobile market in the early 2000s. This will fall off once we are at saturation.

The only silver lining is that mobile contracts are still around 2 years so a lot will still upgrade, but we will start seeing sim only contracts picking up again.

Reply Score: 1

TRON?
by spiderman on Mon 21st May 2012 10:46 UTC
spiderman
Member since:
2008-10-23

It looks like the author of this article has ignored the most used operating system in the world: TRON. Android and iOS are surpassing Windows in the media but Windows has been surpassed a long time ago by TRON, S40 and other OSes.

Reply Score: 2

RE: TRON?
by zima on Mon 21st May 2012 14:57 UTC in reply to "TRON?"
zima Member since:
2005-07-06

TRON is presumably more a specification than single OS, though. Anyway, when it comes to mobile phones, S40 is most likely on top (yeah, presumably not "smartphone OS" - but, if we would try to apply any resemblance of rigorous definition, S40 is more a smartphone than iPhone in its first year).
Maybe with http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/REX_OS as the closest contender? (apparently, perhaps, being the underlying RTOS at least in tons of Samsung "feature phones" - curiously, based on L4 microkernel)

Too bad the info about TRON in EN web is so scarce - I would definitely like to see screenshots of BTRON, the ~PC variant ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/BTRON
http://tronweb.super-nova.co.jp/btron.html )

Edited 2012-05-21 14:57 UTC

Reply Score: 2

RE: TRON?
by kateline on Thu 24th May 2012 16:48 UTC in reply to "TRON?"
kateline Member since:
2011-05-19

Good point about Tron. My guess is that the author excluded it as more of a special purpose (embedded) system rather than a general-purpose OS. Still...

Reply Score: 1

dusanyu
Member since:
2006-01-21

Then i leave the house it is ti get away from the computer and phone (Still have a wall phone with a dial on it as they have yet to upgrade the phone wires in my neck of the woods)

as far as a computer i still use a desktop with a GNU/Linux Distro and TWM

I am a 35 year old troglodyte and I am happy.

Reply Score: 1

zima Member since:
2005-07-06

Mobile phones can be turned off, you know, if you want to get away from them most of the time...

But it's handy to have one in reserve, even if just for emergencies.

And the costs of that are almost negligible by now. If you insist on a new phone... something like http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nokia_1202 sets you back 20€ tops, without contract. Or more recent Nokia 103, 10€ http://www.gsmarena.com/nokia_103-4690.php
(plus, such handsets are often handy for another reason - they typically include quite bright LED torch)

Though, really, plenty of people have old operational handsets in their drawers (there's such decade-old Nokia 3510i in mine); at least one buddy of yours would likely hand one down for free.

That leaves just the cost of SIM card - preferably prepaid (on the prepaid offer that I use, an equivalent of less than 1.5€ keeps the account alive & able to make outgoing calls for a year, as long as there's still some credit left of course - if not, one can still receive calls for over a year).
Well, if you'd decide to keep a mobile phone just for emergencies, even that isn't necessary - any GSM phone will dial 112 even without a SIM card inside.

Reply Score: 2