Linked by Thom Holwerda on Sat 28th Jul 2012 10:10 UTC
PDAs, Cellphones, Wireless In case you were still doubting whether or not Apple's lawsuits against Samsung were a case of 'if you can't compete, litigate', Samsung's financial results should seal the deal. The company shipped round and about 50 million smartphones, twice as many smartphones as Apple shipped. So, not only is Android doing better on smartphones than iOS, there's now also a single manufacturer outselling Apple. Oh, the next avenue for de-emphasizing this achievement has already reared its head: Samsung has a wider portfolio, and as such, the comparison isn't fair. Nonsense, of course - Volkswagen sells lots more models than, say, Mazda, but that doesn't mean you can't compare them. Maybe, just maybe, having a wide portfolio of devices to meet the various different needs of the market is simply a very good strategy. It'll be interesting to see just how much Apple can take back with the next iPhone, especially since the full potential of the Galaxy SIII hasn't been realised yet and will be accounted for in Samsung's next quarter as well. Fun, such a fight between titans. Just too bad one of the two titans plays dirty by opting for the courtroom.
Order by: Score:
History will repeat itself...
by moondevil on Sat 28th Jul 2012 10:28 UTC
moondevil
Member since:
2005-07-08

I am slowly convinced that the way things are going, Apple will return to the PC wars days, with the same outcome as it happened before.

Steve is no longer around to save the company a second time, and he was the soul of Apple. During the time he was away, Apple had issues to stay afloat, and was even more proprietary than Microsoft actually.

Now that he is sadly no longer with us, I am not sure how long the current board will manage to stay innovative enough to attract new customers, while not scaring existing ones.

Reply Score: 7

RE: History will repeat itself...
by ricegf on Sat 28th Jul 2012 11:42 UTC in reply to "History will repeat itself..."
ricegf Member since:
2007-04-25

What's interesting to me is that Microsoft is following Apple's lead, constraining innovation in WP phones and WinRT mobile devices, while Google has adopted Microsoft's old open approach.

The open approach worked very well last gen, and seems to be working just as well now, with Android covering a huge variety of interesting devices and rapidly growing its market share.

I'm still hoping for a third option to arise to ensure competition, but certainly not the new, closed Microsoft 2.0. Rather, an open option like Android but with a different feature set to cover different use cases. I was rooting for MeeGo until Nokia's insanity hit. Perhaps Jolla will thrive yet; certainly outselling Nokia's weak WP line would be poetic, if unlikely.

It's like all the fun of the home computer wars of the 1980's. :-)

Reply Score: 9

tanzam75 Member since:
2011-05-19

But Microsoft had a monopoly in the Windows era. They could be open because they defined the terms of the competition in that way -- compatibility with the widest array of applications. Remember: developers, developers, developers.

Windows Mobile was an open system, as well. You could do anything you wanted with it -- you could install apps simply by downloading a .CAB, edit the registry, etc.

By being slow with Windows Phone, Microsoft allowed Android to become the second entrant. Thus, Microsoft went from first entrant to third entrant. As third entrant, it now faced a radically different competitive situation. Either it could compete against free, or it could compete against Apple. Guess which one they decided would be more profitable.

Reply Score: 3

Bill Shooter of Bul Member since:
2006-07-14

Yeah its kind of funny. They thought that being open didn't work because of the hardware manufacturers not developing good devices, I think google has proved the problem with the approach was the poor software.

Reply Score: 3

moondevil Member since:
2005-07-08

Microsoft was already open in the MS-DOS days.

Even though on those days I actually preferred the development tools from Borland.

Reply Score: 5

kaiwai Member since:
2005-07-06

What's interesting to me is that Microsoft is following Apple's lead, constraining innovation in WP phones and WinRT mobile devices, while Google has adopted Microsoft's old open approach.

The open approach worked very well last gen, and seems to be working just as well now, with Android covering a huge variety of interesting devices and rapidly growing its market share.

I'm still hoping for a third option to arise to ensure competition, but certainly not the new, closed Microsoft 2.0. Rather, an open option like Android but with a different feature set to cover different use cases. I was rooting for MeeGo until Nokia's insanity hit. Perhaps Jolla will thrive yet; certainly outselling Nokia's weak WP line would be poetic, if unlikely.

It's like all the fun of the home computer wars of the 1980's. :-)


Microsoft is still more open than Apple and the problems they're having have little to do with the open or closed nature of the ecosystem but everything to do with the feeling that Windows Phone 7 was essentially put out there to say to the public, "we're still here and alive" given that rumours have been circulating even before Windows Phone 8 regarding the future of the Windows Phone platform. If I was an OEM, why would I invest a tonne of money in a phone platform running Windows Phone 7 which would essentially be stop gap measure till Windows Phone 8 was ready? Windows Phone 8, Windows RT and Windows 8 are really the starting point to which Microsoft should be evaluated as to whether they'll have success into the future regarding new devices and emerging opportunities.

Personally the biggest deciding factor as to the success or failure is whether they can bring everything together - they've failed to do that in the past but maybe this time with Steven Sinofsky in charge we're seeing a gentler version of Steve Jobs coming forth that is willing to lay out a vision then move heaven and earth to achieve it rather than doing the lazy managerial thing of 'delegating responsibility' to underlings then hoping for the best.

Reply Score: 2

bert64 Member since:
2007-04-23

Open is quite subjective in this sense...
Apple have their own closed mobile hardware, but MS are heading that way too.

OSX is considerably more open than windows in general, the only area where they're not is that they supply the hardware too.

In terms of interoperability tho, Apple are considerably more open...
Compare facetime, which is based on sip and is a published spec to skype which is totally closed.
Apple support caldav, carddav etc, ms tries to lock you in to proprietary exchange protocols.

MS have traditionally kept their file formats and protocols closed, and the only reason there is any interoperability at all (eg samba) is through reverse engineering, and they only grudgingly implement any form of standards if they have to, and do so in bad faith (eg see their implementation of formulae in odf).

Reply Score: 1

kaiwai Member since:
2005-07-06

Open is quite subjective in this sense...
Apple have their own closed mobile hardware, but MS are heading that way too.


How is it 'closed' when it has never been open? Sure, the Windows RT device is locked down but how is that any different to what else is out there? they're merely going with what the market expects and for most people the tablet is a device that allows them to get from point A to point B with the idea of tweaking being of no real concern to the average user or even power users. When it comes to openness there are two aspects that need to be looked at - openness when it comes to OEM's (the ability to dual boot, tweak at the lowest level etc) and openness when it comes to the platform itself and I doubt very much we're going to see the sorts of asshole behaviour like we see with Apple and their AppStore. In the case of Microsoft, as long as your software doesn't scam the end user, install a virus or blow up the computer they'll let you onto their marketplace which pales in comparison to Apple and their paranoia of rejecting applications for trivial reasons. Heck, compare the process of submitting applications - in the Microsoft Marketplace you actually get a website where you can track your submission, where it is in the submission process and if the application is rejected (for what ever reason) you're actually provided with useful feedback rather than trying to guess as to why it was rejected.

OSX is considerably more open than windows in general, the only area where they're not is that they supply the hardware too.

In terms of interoperability tho, Apple are considerably more open...
Compare facetime, which is based on sip and is a published spec to skype which is totally closed.
Apple support caldav, carddav etc, ms tries to lock you in to proprietary exchange protocols.


There are swings and roundabouts to the idea of openness as can cause problems if at a later date you find the standard limiting to what you wish to accomplish but are bound to using them even if it limits future growth. We only need to look at the HTML5 standardisation process and the sabotaging by the likes of Adobe every step of the way as to ensure that there is some life left in the dead carcass that is Flash. So even if you have the best of intentions you're going to end up being screwed over so in the end do you even bother trying to work within many of these open standards bodies that at times seem to be politically charged rather than debates occurring with a basis on sound reasoning.

MS have traditionally kept their file formats and protocols closed, and the only reason there is any interoperability at all (eg samba) is through reverse engineering, and they only grudgingly implement any form of standards if they have to, and do so in bad faith (eg see their implementation of formulae in odf).


It is all about choosing the level of crappiness you're happy to deal with - computers that are have planned obsolesce by the said vendor when it comes too much of a hassle to support or a software vendor who bends over backwards to get you to run their operating system on your computer but in return you have to deal with proprietary forms and protocols. I was happy to deal with the hardware/software lock in return for open protocols when I went for my first Mac 8-10 years ago but these days it just isn't worth it in the end when you're dealing with what seems to be a business (Apple) that is hell bent on turning a computer into little more than a consumer gadget - god help you if you're in my boat and actually want to use a computer for something productive! so here we are at a cross roads between Windows and Mac OS X where Apple seem to be hell bent on focusing on a yearly release cycle to cater to the people who want a disposable device and on the other side we have Microsoft who creates an operating system that attempts to cater for the consumer as well as the professional that needs the computer get things done. The biggest issue will be the third parties - will they keep bending to the will of Apple or will we start to see with the exodus of professionals from Apple's traditional marketplaces to the Windows platform that will lead the way to the likes of Adobe winding down their professional side of the business in favour of making it Windows only and simply treating Mac OS X as a platform for their 'Elements' consumer software range.

It appears that although the backbone of Apple in the past was the creative sectors the changes in the last decade have moved Apple from being a niche that dominates certain segments to now a consumer company where those once 'back bone' of the company are seen as secondary priority in favour of tapping into the i-device user base. If that is Apple's future direction then I wish them well because I know that I and many others realise that this is the moment we get off the Apple bus and rejoin Microsoft.

Edited 2012-07-29 12:38 UTC

Reply Score: 3

zima Member since:
2005-07-06

OSX is considerably more open than windows in general, the only area where they're not is that they supply the hardware too.

So, ~"OSX is considerably more open except in one of the most important areas" (if not the most important area)
Also, Apple has more of an "our way or the highway" approach with OSX, its frameworks...

In terms of interoperability tho, Apple are considerably more open...
Compare facetime, which is based on sip and is a published spec to skype which is totally closed.

That is some sort of weird joke, right? Sure, Apple took some standards for use in Facetime ...and subsequently totally closed the results - Facetime is completely locked to Apple ecosystem.

Meanwhile, Microsoft Skype is available for... pretty much anything, including Linux. And even contributes to some open standards, releasing SILK for example.

MS have traditionally kept their file formats and protocols closed, and the only reason there is any interoperability at all (eg samba) is through reverse engineering, and they only grudgingly implement any form of standards if they have to, and do so in bad faith (eg see their implementation of formulae in odf).

Not nearly the only reason - you know, regulation does work ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/European_Union_Microsoft_competition_c... ). And BTW, saner support for standards was a contributing factor for IE victory in the first browser war (its main fault was that the winning version lived too long afterwards)

Edited 2012-08-04 23:51 UTC

Reply Score: 2

ricegf Member since:
2007-04-25

I suppose on a "openness" scale of 1 to 10, with Android being 10 and Apple 1, I would give Microsoft a 3, given their tight constraints on hardware and software and the special privileges given to Nokia.

If I'm wrong, please point me to the innovative WP 7.x phones that have resulted.

WP8 and WinRT may have different rules, of course, but they aren't shipping yet.

But I do strongly disagree that "the problems they're having have little to do with the open or closed nature of the ecosystem". I believe WP has failed to take off because all WP phones are basically the same. The iPhone also lacks variety, of course, but at least it provides a highly predictable experience, insanely comprehensive app store, and a certain brand cachet.

But this is just my opinion. Who really knows why customers buy what they buy? Only the Madison Avenue research firms, I suppose, and they aren't giving away their research. *shrugs*

Reply Score: 2

kaiwai Member since:
2005-07-06

I suppose on a "openness" scale of 1 to 10, with Android being 10 and Apple 1, I would give Microsoft a 3, given their tight constraints on hardware and software and the special privileges given to Nokia.


I doubt they're going to be as controlling as Apple given that if your application does something different or dares to add functionality that challenges some built in functionality you soon find your application rejected for some inane reason.

If I'm wrong, please point me to the innovative WP 7.x phones that have resulted.


You are wrong because I never said Windows Phone 7 devices were innovative - the focus of my post was on Windows Phone 8. Re-read what I wrote and this time actually read it and think about it instead of quickly scanning it and hoping that a few key words will pop out at your when you do so.

WP8 and WinRT may have different rules, of course, but they aren't shipping yet.


So why did you even reply to my post when the crux of the post was centred around Windows Phone 8?

Reply Score: 3

ricegf Member since:
2007-04-25

Wow, sensitive much?

I read your entire post. The sentence that set you off was in response to "the problems they're having have little to do with the open or closed nature of the ecosystem".

I'm afraid it does, IMHO, because the closed nature of the ecosystem prevents innovation, and whether you commented on innovation or not doesn't change that fact.

Reply Score: 1

kaiwai Member since:
2005-07-06

Wow, sensitive much?


No, frustrated that I write a post and a person replying couldn't even be bothered reading it, digesting it, thinking about then then coming up with a carefully considered answer/critique of what was actually written rather than what was assumed to have been written.

I read your entire post. The sentence that set you off was in response to "the problems they're having have little to do with the open or closed nature of the ecosystem".

I'm afraid it does, IMHO, because the closed nature of the ecosystem prevents innovation, and whether you commented on innovation or not doesn't change that fact.


Again, it has nothing to do with it - if you're Samsung why the hell would you invest in a platform that supports a crap range of SOC's that are available thus limiting your ability to differentiate your product even at the hardware level, the lack of commitment by Microsoft when in reality that Windows Phone 7 is a stop gap measure rather than the basis of Windows Phone going forward and the limitations of the platform itself which put many developers off. Would you go off and develop a range of 'Samsung only applications" for a platform that was more or less going to be killed in 2 years? margins are razor thin already - is there really a business case to justify investment in a emerging platform that is pretty much going to be relegated to the dust bin in 2 years time? look at the issue purely from a technology basis not the so-called open or closed. You're trying to make out as if Microsoft limited these simply on the basis of being a prick - Microsoft put these limits on because the operating system itself is the limiting factor - the limits that exist are a non-issue when it comes to Windows Phone 8 hence the reason why I stated there is a better chance of Microsoft pulling off Windows Phone 8 now that there aren't those technological limitations.

Reply Score: 3

ricegf Member since:
2007-04-25

OK, I've re-read both of your posts numerous times and thought about them for a solid day. I'm not being snide here - even though I read your posts end to end before responding, I want to be fair and try to understand your points thoroughly before responding. But I still disagree with both your premise and conclusions. Here's why.

If I was an OEM, why would I invest a tonne of money in a phone platform running Windows Phone 7 which would essentially be stop gap measure till Windows Phone 8 was ready?


Microsoft invested a couple of billion dollars in a stop gap measure? They negotiated one of the largest smartphone launches and marketing campaigns of the year with AT&T for a stopgap measure, when the main event was only months away? I just don't buy it.

Clearly, Microsoft has acted and invested as if WP 7.x was the main event. It was not until that product failed - and by failed, I mean grow at a slower rate than Windows Mobile contracted, leading to an ever-decreasing Windows market share in mobile - that they retrenched to the old standby, trying to tie to their desktop monopoly.

Windows Phone 8, Windows RT and Windows 8 are really the starting point to which Microsoft should be evaluated


True to the extent that every major new product launch is a fresh opportunity to succeed. But one of the key flaws in the original strategy (I know you hate to hear this) was that the platform was more constrained than the Win CE base required. Nothing in CE required that multitasking be limited to system threads, for example - Microsoft merely copied Apple's approach there. Nothing in CE required exactly 6 buttons. Nothing prevented manufacturer skins to tailor to a given network. And so on. These were Microsoft decisions to position their brand.

And thus, all Win 7.x phones look alike to me, especially compared to the radical variation with Android - two screen models, mini-tablet size displays, innumerable skins, models that plug into docks and become desktop-like, models with physical keyboards, screens of every shape and size. And while you can complain that this results in fragmentation, it's hard to argue that it doesn't sell, as evidenced by the incredible market share growth now north of 50%.

And specifically because these were Microsoft choices rather than technical limitations, and because Microsoft is still over-regulating their ecosystem with the Windows 8 line (only two screen resolutions are permitted, for example), I don't expect to see the innovation gap narrow much with the new product launch.

This problem is exacerbated by two other problems.

One is their decision not to upgrade the Win 7.x phones to 8. This is partly a technical challenge - the current product line is too anemic to handle 8 well - but it's also both a heavy PR hit and may well sink their "privileged" partner Nokia, whose stock is already selling at junk prices. I know many friends, including one who actually owns a 7.x device, who insist they won't look at WP 8 specifically because of the failure to upgrade. It's not fair - how many Android 2 phones or 3 tablets made the jump to Ice Cream Sandwich, after all - but the perception is that Microsoft is abandoning their existing customers, and that hurts them.

The other is that Microsoft is directly competing with their OEMs at launch with a highly publicized and well-reviewed product, confusingly reusing the Surface trademark before the table product of the same name is cold in its grave (and it was equally innovative, though in the Ballmer-Microsoft tradition, incredibly poorly marketed). Why would I, as an OEM, want to try to compete in the Windows tablet market any longer now that the vendor of my proprietary OS is making a major push into that market?

(No, the Nexus lines are not a good counter-example. First, they are point products designed to showcase the core Android product itself - it's well-understood that this is the point of Nexus, to showcase the base OS in a market overrun with variation. Second, Android is fully open, so OEMs can innovate the product space to any extent they choose without Google's permission. It's not comparable to a small, closed market where your OS vendor is creating products you're not permitted to introduce on your own.)

-----

Ok, this is what I said before, only in Ayn Randian exposition. I understand that you'd rather start fresh with WP 8, as if the entire WP 7 fiasco didn't happen. For the reasons above, I don't agree with your premise (that WP 7 was merely a stopgap, and wasn't really intended to be successful), or your conclusion (that WP 8 will be a serious contender because it's technically a more competent product), because the ill will generated by WP 7 coupled with the inhospitable OEM climate will limit (sorry) innovative products using the platform.

And since a product recognized for its excellence, the iPhone, can't hold the market share lead from a deluge of market point-targeted Android products that lack the same rave revues, why would I expect a similarly constrained set of WP 8 products to suddenly start outselling the ocean-wide product space that is Android?

I may be wrong. While I predicted the Android success back when it was still a single ridiculed T-Mobile point product, and the WP 7 fiasco, like anyone else I can miss an important consumer trend or two.

But it's my opinion, honestly held, and it hasn't changed as a result of another day's worth of reading and thought.

And, as always, the market will decide, and our 20-20 hindsight will explain why in just as excruciating detail. :-D

I intend everything I have said here with the warmest regards, with great respect for your opinion (which may prove to be absolutely correct, in which case you have my full promise not to complain if you then remind the world that my longest post ever proved to be wrong ;-), and in the hopes that you'll understand that I really, really did read everything you wrote, and merely failed to convey in a few words why I didn't agree. I hope you'll forgive my lack of concise clarity in exchange for extremely, dare I say unforgivably, verbose penance.

Reply Score: 3

Carewolf Member since:
2005-09-08

I suppose on a "openness" scale of 1 to 10, with Android being 10 and Apple 1


What? Would that make the Nokia N9, 20 on that scale? Please Android while pretty open on some fronts, is not a 10. Give it 8, and Apple does allow 3rd party apps, while they control which, you could imagine a phone like the first iPhone where native apps are not allowed at all.

So on a more absolete openness scale:
First iPhone: 1
Current iPhones: 2
Androids: 6-8
Nokia N9: 10
WP7: 3
Win8 RT: (guess) 5
Win8 non-RT: 9

Reply Score: 2

ricegf Member since:
2007-04-25

Haha! I was establishing a scale from 1 to 10 using iPhone and Android as relative anchors, kind of like setting Celsius with 0 arbitrarily at water's freezing point and 100 it's boiling point.

For an absolute. (Kelvin?) scale of openness, your's wouldn't be a bad starting point.

Reply Score: 2

RE: History will repeat itself...
by Sodki on Sat 28th Jul 2012 12:13 UTC in reply to "History will repeat itself..."
Sodki Member since:
2005-11-10

I am slowly convinced that the way things are going, Apple will return to the PC wars days, with the same outcome as it happened before.

Steve is no longer around to save the company a second time, and he was the soul of Apple. During the time he was away, Apple had issues to stay afloat, and was even more proprietary than Microsoft actually.


I'm not sure. Steve Jobs managed to do something else, the creation of the Apple identity and mindset. I'm sure it's "pupils" learned the lesson and will try to use it well. When Jobs went away the first time, his ideas were thrown away and substituted by others. Not this time.

Reply Score: 2

cdude Member since:
2008-09-21

Just having great ideas leads you nowhere. You also need to execute them, bring them to the market in a great way and react to market changes in an even greater way. Having just the Steve spirit and some ideas left does not cover that.
The worst thing that can happen is if Apple loses its stand as the company with taste, as inventor (not that they did invent much new but they did bring it to market and hit the right buttons to trigger that impression) and as leader.
That is where Steve was a genius and not on the ideas themselfs. He was good making a product out of them, executing the process and hiting the market. That is gone from Apple.
We will see the result as soon as there are new products from Apple rather then the n-iteration of what Steve made. Only then we are able to see if the spirit, the ideas and structures he left is of any use for Apple in a post-Steve time. I have my doubts. Also I think all the sueing of compitors going on and yet Samsung is kicking them away to a poor 2th place is not helping. Apple is, in the public, turning from an inventor that fights competition with great products into a suer tgat fights competition with dirty tricks.
Over time more people may see that change Apple puts itself into. That will have a downwards-effect since if Apple is not seen to be cool any longer then the products will suffer. Its already happening but needs a bit more time till we are able to see it. Apple is going down. The spirit left does not help to prevent that.

Edited 2012-07-29 04:18 UTC

Reply Score: 1

RE: History will repeat itself...
by tanzam75 on Sat 28th Jul 2012 15:26 UTC in reply to "History will repeat itself..."
tanzam75 Member since:
2011-05-19

iPhone has gotten an immense boost in the US from the higher carrier subsidies given to it, vs. Android phones. When you can buy a $600 iPhone for $200, and a $400 Android phone for $200, then Apple gets the benefit of the doubt.

At some point, Android phones will have enough market share -- even in the US -- that the iPhone subsidy will no longer be justified. If a $600 iPhone sells for $400, and a $400 Android phone sells for $200, then a lot of iPhone users will think twice about upgrading.

And then, there's the possibility that carriers will eventually eliminate subsidies. The current Verizon CEO has publicly spoken about the need to eliminate subsidies -- something that no previous Verizon CEO has ever stated publicly before. And T-Mobile has always been very grumpy at being forced by the other three carriers to play the subsidy game.

$600 vs. $400 presents a smaller relative price difference, but $600 will cause consumers who are used to $200 iPhones to reel from sticker stock. In addition, a deferred upgrade is just as bad for Apple as a sale lost to Samsung.

In other words, Apple has relentlessly maximized its profits under the current market structure -- just like they did back in the late 1980s, when the price of a Mac gave you a nosebleed. But they're not considering what is sustainable over the long run, after the market structure changes.

Reply Score: 6

Bill Shooter of Bul Member since:
2006-07-14

For what its worth with at&t

cheapest iphone is 650 off contract,, 200 on
samsung galaxy s3 550 off contract ,200 on

So yes there is a discrepancy, but its not quite as large as you think.

Reply Score: 1

zima Member since:
2005-07-06

w8, cheapest iPhone vs top Android?

Reply Score: 2

unclefester Member since:
2007-01-13

A senior Telstra (Australia's largest phone carrier) executive recently stated that Telstra hate the iPhone because of the massive subsidies they must provide.

Reply Score: 2

kaiwai Member since:
2005-07-06

A senior Telstra (Australia's largest phone carrier) executive recently stated that Telstra hate the iPhone because of the massive subsidies they must provide.


I wouldn't be surprised but then again I've never been a fan of the idea of subsidies. Personally I think all handsets should be sold full price to the customer and then if you want a handset rebate then it should be done on a flat rate regardless of how expensive the phone is. With that being said, check out the subsidies in NZ:

http://www.telecom.co.nz/mobile/mobile/iphone/iphone4s/

I don't know what the Telstra executive is doing by going by what Telecom NZ are doing the subsidies are hardly breaking the bank. I've just gone onto Telstra's website:

http://telstra.com.au/mobile-phones/mobile-phones/iphone/

What an almighty clusterfuck that website is - what is the handset cost? are they giving them away for free on contract? Who ever designed the Telstra website needs to be chained to a fence post and beaten without mercy.

Reply Score: 2

kaiwai Member since:
2005-07-06

A senior Telstra (Australia's largest phone carrier) executive recently stated that Telstra hate the iPhone because of the massive subsidies they must provide.


I wouldn't be surprised but then again I've never been a fan of the idea of subsidies. Personally I think all handsets should be sold full price to the customer and then if you want a handset rebate then it should be done on a flat rate regardless of how expensive the phone is. With that being said, check out the subsidies in NZ:

http://www.telecom.co.nz/mobile/mobile/iphone/iphone4s/

I don't know what the Telstra executive is doing but going by what Telecom NZ are doing the subsidies are hardly breaking the bank. I've just gone onto Telstra's website:

http://telstra.com.au/mobile-phones/mobile-phones/iphone/

What an almighty clusterfuck that website is - what is the handset cost? are they giving them away for free on contract? Who ever designed the Telstra website needs to be chained to a fence post and beaten without mercy.

Reply Score: 2

unclefester Member since:
2007-01-13

In Ausralia phones are usually provided "free" on 24 month plans. An iphone 4s would be free on a $49/month plan inclusing calls and data. This essentially means almost zero profit.

Reply Score: 2

lemur2 Member since:
2007-02-17

In Ausralia phones are usually provided "free" on 24 month plans. An iphone 4s would be free on a $49/month plan including calls and data. This essentially means almost zero profit.


No, it means that the number/total duration of calls and the amount of data must necessarily be less than a $49/month plan with an Android phone.

It also means that when a customer walks into a mobile phone store, the salesman is always going to recommend an Android phone over an iPhone. And that salesman has a very good chance of selling the Android phone deal, since the Android phone deal will offer more phone features and a better call & data limit to the customer for his/her money.

Reply Score: 2

quality
by Janvl on Sat 28th Jul 2012 11:05 UTC
Janvl
Member since:
2007-02-20

My customer bought 2 iPhones, he has his office in an old building with thick bricks and therefore less signal. His former nokia phones did work, the iphones have trouble staying connected.
Seems Apple did not solve the issue with the antenna.

I own an extremely cheap samsung (20 Euro) that stays connected inside this building, I only need it for phonecalls and that works flawlessly, batterylife of almost a week.

So my point what is "design" good for, if the basic function (telephone) is crappy?

Reply Score: 3

RE: quality
by Thom_Holwerda on Sat 28th Jul 2012 11:12 UTC in reply to "quality"
Thom_Holwerda Member since:
2005-06-29

I wouldn't attribute that to the phone alone. There's so many factors involved in reception that it might very well be possible that in the building next to you, things are reversed and the iPhone has better reception.

This is a subject that really can only be judged using hard science.

Reply Score: 2

RE[2]: quality
by _txf_ on Sat 28th Jul 2012 13:40 UTC in reply to "RE: quality"
_txf_ Member since:
2008-03-17

This is a subject that really can only be judged using hard science.


Even then It is notoriously difficult to classify the environment for radio transmission.

If you ever buy any radio silicon of some kind, the datasheets are extremely vague on on things like transmission range, data rate etc. simply because providing a definitive relationship is extremely difficult.

Radio in controlled environments is difficult to understand but can be understood. Radio in the open environments is still pretty much black magic.

Reply Score: 2

RE[3]: quality
by earksiinni on Sat 28th Jul 2012 16:02 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: quality"
earksiinni Member since:
2009-03-27

Do you have any references for this (i.e., how one goes about analyzing radio in open vs. closed environments)? I'd be interested to learn more.

Reply Score: 2

RE: quality
by viton on Sat 28th Jul 2012 11:30 UTC in reply to "quality"
viton Member since:
2005-08-09

So my point what is "design" good for, if the basic function (telephone) is crappy?

iPhone4/s has high sensitivity antenna.
Probably your customer is holding it "incorrectly" =)
http://www.pcworld.com/article/241186/new_iphone_4s_antenna_death_g...

Reply Score: 4

RE[2]: quality
by Tony Swash on Sun 29th Jul 2012 09:52 UTC in reply to "RE: quality"
Tony Swash Member since:
2009-08-22

"So my point what is "design" good for, if the basic function (telephone) is crappy?

iPhone4/s has high sensitivity antenna.
Probably your customer is holding it "incorrectly" =)
http://www.pcworld.com/article/241186/new_iphone_4s_antenna_death_g...
"

Full guide to 'not holding it wrong' is here

http://dontholditwrong.tumblr.com

Reply Score: 1

RE[3]: quality
by zima on Sat 4th Aug 2012 23:56 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: quality"
zima Member since:
2005-07-06

With other manufacturers, those are some general guidelines about not covering the antenna.

In the case of iPhone 4, a gentle touch in one small spot (happening to be where you'd keep fingers) bridged the exposed antennae elements, destroying reception. It's not a "death grip" as it was presented - more a "death smudge".

But I'm not surprised at the dishonesty of ignoring such "detail"...

Reply Score: 2

RE: quality
by chithanh on Sat 28th Jul 2012 11:31 UTC in reply to "quality"
chithanh Member since:
2006-06-18

Nokia knows how to build proper antennas. Motorola knows it too. Apple doesn't. The other manufacturers are somewhere in between.

Reply Score: 2

Lawsuits
by michaelz on Sat 28th Jul 2012 14:44 UTC
michaelz
Member since:
2007-03-23

Why is Osnews allways stating that there's just one party suiing the other? They both filed suits at one and each other.

Btw; own à galaxy s and an htc and they both suck. Rebooting randomly, crashing at will. It's like running Windows 95 all over again.

Reply Score: 1

RE: Lawsuits
by Thom_Holwerda on Sat 28th Jul 2012 15:16 UTC in reply to "Lawsuits"
Thom_Holwerda Member since:
2005-06-29

Defensive vs. offensive. There's a difference.

Reply Score: 4

RE[2]: Lawsuits
by Bill Shooter of Bul on Sat 28th Jul 2012 17:15 UTC in reply to "RE: Lawsuits"
Bill Shooter of Bul Member since:
2006-07-14

I understand the analogy a bit, but its also kind of like arguing who the good guys are in a nuclear war.

Reply Score: 2

RE[2]: Lawsuits
by michaelz on Sat 28th Jul 2012 19:43 UTC in reply to "RE: Lawsuits"
michaelz Member since:
2007-03-23

You're own article Thom; http://www.osnews.com/story/25174/Samsung_Launches_Offensive_Agains...
They both are offensive patent trolls.

I really get the impression as of late, that when it's an Apple vs. Samsung/Android article, you take the Samsung/Android side. Where's the article about Samsung (possibly) quite knowingly copied Apple's iPhone? Quite some other site's have those; http://allthingsd.com/20120725/apple-google-warned-samsung-against-...

(PS; I'm an Apple and Linux sysadmin, love Apple for the desktop and the user experience somewhat more. Just don't like android for what it is and the experience that it gives me).

Reply Score: 1

RE[3]: Lawsuits
by cdude on Sun 29th Jul 2012 05:03 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: Lawsuits"
cdude Member since:
2008-09-21

Well, here you see how patents work. If someone attacks you with there patents you can only defend using your patents by attacking yourself. That is offensive vs defensive as Thom wrote and there is indeed a HUGE difference.

It is Apple attacking there and there are no question about that. They where the ones that tried and still try to fight compitors competing on the market against there products using there patents. They started the patent war. That Samsung defends themself using the same tactick is just the consequence.

Now there are 2 options left:
1. Escalade the war. That is what happens.
2. Come to and end and compete again. That is in Samsungs best interest cause, as we see, they are winning on the market. But its not in Apples best interest.

Sooner or later 2 will happen cause 1 reached its peak and from there, once everybody used all there weapons, its done and things can move on.

Edited 2012-07-29 05:14 UTC

Reply Score: 2

v RE[2]: Lawsuits
by Tony Swash on Sun 29th Jul 2012 10:04 UTC in reply to "RE: Lawsuits"
RE[3]: Lawsuits
by lemur2 on Sun 29th Jul 2012 10:14 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: Lawsuits"
lemur2 Member since:
2007-02-17

"Defensive vs. offensive. There's a difference.


You mean Apple is trying to defend itself against IP theft?
"

No. Android is not a copy of iOS, there is not one line of code in common.

Apple is trying to destroy Android, and also eliminate all serious competition.

It is attempting to do so by arguing that Motorola or Samsung should get only $0.0049 (half a cent) per device for essential, expensive R&D hardware patents that make up the actual working core of a mobile phone (and then not paying out even that much), yet Apple should get from Motorola and Samsung $24 per device for a rectangular-box-with-rounded-corners cosmetic "design" which it stole from Sony anyway.

http://www.muktware.com/4029/apple-stole-iphone-design-sony-patente...

http://www.muktware.com/sites/default/files/images/applications/son...

So who exactly is the IP thief? I'll give you a hint ... it isn't Motorola or Samsung.

Edited 2012-07-29 10:20 UTC

Reply Score: 3

RE[4]: Lawsuits
by michaelz on Sun 29th Jul 2012 11:22 UTC in reply to "RE[3]: Lawsuits"
michaelz Member since:
2007-03-23

Too bad android copies the interface. Here you can see some images;
http://www.karthikk.net/2011/10/how-android-looked-before-and-after...

You can see that, pre-iPhone, the Android was more MacOS like (dock, big background screen). After the iPhone, it became iPhone like.

I clearly agree with apple on some points;
1. Samsung makes the devices far too iPhone/iPod/iPad like, too be just a "natural" evolvement. The tables pre-iPad where big clunky unusable devices and Samsung has never shown any real own creative minds to come up with the current productline (as far as I can tell, and this is a limited mindset from all the products I have seen from Samsung).
2. Android clearly appears to have grown towards iOS, after the first iPhone got released. Samsung added functionality to make it even more iOS-like.

That code hasn't been copied, doesn't make the product a copy. This way you would justify all the copies that exist. Because you type over a book, that action doesn't make the text yours. It's still from the original author.

Don't get me wrong, I love a world where we have choice. Be free too choose the OS / Phone of your liking and be a fan of it if you really think it's the best thing in the world, please, do that. That's what makes us human. But copying and stealing ideas is something that's in human nature as well, but that's something we decided long ago to try to ban.

I think it would be best if Samsung would create an original device, not too iPhone/iPad like, and add Android to it in a way that differentiates it from iOS. That would be good for Samsung, for Apple and the consumer (more choice)

Reply Score: 1

RE[5]: Lawsuits
by lemur2 on Mon 30th Jul 2012 04:33 UTC in reply to "RE[4]: Lawsuits"
lemur2 Member since:
2007-02-17

That code hasn't been copied, doesn't make the product a copy. This way you would justify all the copies that exist. Because you type over a book, that action doesn't make the text yours. It's still from the original author.


No, this isn't the case at all. Android is totally different "words" to iOS, but "telling a similar story".

The analogy you are looking at is best described like this:
http://www.amazon.com/Robin-Hood-Novels-Other-Fiction/lm/R1KEYXE5JU...

Those are all books featuring, or about, Robin Hood by different authors. They all have different words, but they tell similar stories.

These books are not copies of each other. There is no theft of IP here, there is no copyright violation at all.

A very similar situation exists with iOS and Android. Apps for iOS will not work on an Android phone, and vice versa. Android is not a copy of iOS, and even though it has somewhat similar functionality it is most decidedly NOT a copy of iOS, and no IP has been stolen.

Reply Score: 3

RE: Lawsuits
by earksiinni on Sat 28th Jul 2012 16:03 UTC in reply to "Lawsuits"
earksiinni Member since:
2009-03-27

If I could get a phone that ran Windows 95, I would buy it this very second.

Reply Score: 5

RE[2]: Lawsuits
by patrix on Sun 29th Jul 2012 02:41 UTC in reply to "RE: Lawsuits"
patrix Member since:
2006-05-21
Same for Macs
by grahamtriggs on Sat 28th Jul 2012 15:02 UTC
grahamtriggs
Member since:
2009-05-27

This is the primary reason why MacOS X is still a very small percentage of the overall computer market.

Apple would dominate the OS market - if not already, certainly after Windows 8 is released - apart from the limited and expensive choice of hardware that it runs on.

Reply Score: 2

RE: Same for Macs
by ilovebeer on Sat 28th Jul 2012 16:02 UTC in reply to "Same for Macs"
ilovebeer Member since:
2011-08-08

Apple would dominate the OS market - if not already, certainly after Windows 8 is released - apart from the limited and expensive choice of hardware that it runs on.

Have you been drinking?

Reply Score: 4

Comment by Stephen!
by Stephen! on Sat 28th Jul 2012 15:06 UTC
Stephen!
Member since:
2007-11-24

So, not only is Android doing better on smartphones than iOS


Probably inevitable in some ways. They did initially tie the iPhone to a single carrier, leaving the rest of the market wide open.

Reply Score: 3

RE: Comment by Stephen!
by zima on Wed 1st Aug 2012 00:06 UTC in reply to "Comment by Stephen!"
zima Member since:
2005-07-06

The same thing happens, even more so, in places that never had iPhone exclusivity to one carrier. Which is most of the world.

Reply Score: 2

umm ...
by kristoph on Sat 28th Jul 2012 15:19 UTC
kristoph
Member since:
2006-01-01

I am not sure what it is your desperately trying to communicate here. That Android is doing better than iOS? No question of that. That Samsung is doing better by selling more stuff? No question of that either. That all this proves that Apple is trying to keep Samsung down through litigation - that seems like tin foil hat territory.

All of Apple's legal efforts have a marginal effect on the business of either company. Even if Apple were to win it's suit and get $8 billion from Samsung it would be a one quarter impact for both. I don't much agree with Apple's suits over these minor patents but really their a sideshow, business wise.

Also, keep in mind that Apple shipped 36 million iPhones while maintaining a net margin of 20%+ (and that includes their crazy tax discount thing).

Samsung shipped 50 million phones of various types at a net profit margin under 5%.

Do you think Apple could outsell Samsung if they cut their margins in half or if they released more phone in a broad range of categories. I've no idea. It doesn't matter. Your comparing Apples to Watermelons and making random inflammatory arguments that have no basis.

And you know, I actually think the really good stuff on Android is not even from Samsung. The Meizu MX and the Google Nexus 7 are by far the best Android device I've owned.

Reply Score: 3

RE: umm ...
by tomcat on Sun 29th Jul 2012 02:38 UTC in reply to "umm ..."
tomcat Member since:
2006-01-06

That all this proves that Apple is trying to keep Samsung down through litigation - that seems like tin foil hat territory.


Oh, please. Stop. Apple is most certainly trying to restrain Samsung through litigation. Only the most diehard Apple fanboy would deny that. Look, it's simple. Apple lost its grip and head start in the home computer market to Microsoft because it was undercut by a lower-cost competitor that gradually increased functionality until it was on par with much of what Apple offered. Microsoft wasn't as good as Apple but, so what, it didn't matter because "good enough" was good enough to start taking away market share from Apple. Jobs resented Gates and, eventually, he came to resent Eric Schmidt, then-CEO of Google, for aping iOS with Android. Jobs went as far as to declare war on Android. Read the background on this history; it's illuminating. Apple learned its lesson from earlier times. Apple wants to slow down competitors until it gains such an advantage over its supply chain that no one else will be able to match its scale on pricing. Apple is in a race against competitors on that market axis. Samsung is the biggest threat, so Apple sues them in pretty much every market possible.

Reply Score: 4

lol
by Nelson on Sat 28th Jul 2012 15:20 UTC
Nelson
Member since:
2005-11-29

Apple can't compete supposedly, but let's just remember this is Samsung, serial PRICE FIXER we're talking about. Their LCD price fixing schemes spit in the face of the very core of competition.

Reply Score: 3

RE: lol
by broken_symlink on Sat 28th Jul 2012 15:29 UTC in reply to "lol"
broken_symlink Member since:
2005-07-06

The two are completely unrelated. The subsidiary that makes mobile devices has nothing to do with the one that makes lcds.

Reply Score: 2

RE[2]: lol
by Nelson on Sat 28th Jul 2012 15:37 UTC in reply to "RE: lol"
Nelson Member since:
2005-11-29

No, that is completely untrue. They're both part of Samsung Electronics. There's also DRAM price fixing.

Reply Score: 4

RE: lol
by _txf_ on Sat 28th Jul 2012 19:23 UTC in reply to "lol"
_txf_ Member since:
2008-03-17

Apple can't compete supposedly, but let's just remember this is Samsung, serial PRICE FIXER we're talking about. Their LCD price fixing schemes spit in the face of the very core of competition.


Apple does some price fixing of its own...

Reply Score: 2

Comment by ilovebeer
by ilovebeer on Sat 28th Jul 2012 16:01 UTC
ilovebeer
Member since:
2011-08-08

To all of you with Android hard-ons... Be careful. Some of you have put the OS, undeserving, on a pedestal standing far taller than reality can justify.

Android has managed to become `the new shiney` but it has a long way to go before it's proven and has its stripes. Try really hard to keep that in mind next time you feel the wave of fanaticism coming on.

Reply Score: 1

RE: Comment by ilovebeer
by Thom_Holwerda on Sat 28th Jul 2012 16:13 UTC in reply to "Comment by ilovebeer"
Thom_Holwerda Member since:
2005-06-29

To all of you with Android hard-ons... Be careful. Some of you have put the OS, undeserving, on a pedestal standing far taller than reality can justify.

Android has managed to become `the new shiney` but it has a long way to go before it's proven and has its stripes. Try really hard to keep that in mind next time you feel the wave of fanaticism coming on.


"The Americans are not in Baghdad. They are burning in their tanks", the Iraqi minister of information said, as the American tanks rode through the city, and bombs were dropping all around him.

Reply Score: 7

RE[2]: Comment by ilovebeer
by ilovebeer on Sat 28th Jul 2012 20:58 UTC in reply to "RE: Comment by ilovebeer"
ilovebeer Member since:
2011-08-08

"To all of you with Android hard-ons... Be careful. Some of you have put the OS, undeserving, on a pedestal standing far taller than reality can justify.

Android has managed to become `the new shiney` but it has a long way to go before it's proven and has its stripes. Try really hard to keep that in mind next time you feel the wave of fanaticism coming on.


"The Americans are not in Baghdad. They are burning in their tanks", the Iraqi minister of information said, as the American tanks rode through the city, and bombs were dropping all around him.
"
Two things...

First, you do realize that your response doesn't relate to what I said in any way, ....right?

Second, you seem to have been around the tech industry long enough to know that it takes time for any `new shiney` to prove itself. It's the long run that matters most and for Android the long run hasn't happened yet.

Keep in mind, I'm not telling you to resist ejaculating on yourself over Android. I'm just cautioning you not to do so prematurely. Any sane & half-knowledgeable person knows that's good advice. Let's check back and see how things are going for the little OS that could in a few years, once it's out of its diaper.

Reply Score: 2

RE[3]: Comment by ilovebeer
by cdude on Sun 29th Jul 2012 05:38 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: Comment by ilovebeer"
cdude Member since:
2008-09-21

you do realize that your response doesn't relate to what I said in any way, ....right?


Since you ask: wrong. His response hits the nail and that you do not even understand the meaning...

Let me translate: Android already won. It did already prove itself. Its number #1. It got the gold medal. It kicked compitors a** all of them. Most customers buy Android. It made it. Its THE success story. Its the market leading OS. Its ahead everything. It even sells better then Windows Desktop. Its silver, gold and platin in one. It is there, it is real, it won already.

More clear?

Reply Score: 1

RE[4]: Comment by ilovebeer
by ilovebeer on Sun 29th Jul 2012 17:36 UTC in reply to "RE[3]: Comment by ilovebeer"
ilovebeer Member since:
2011-08-08

"you do realize that your response doesn't relate to what I said in any way, ....right?


Since you ask: wrong. His response hits the nail and that you do not even understand the meaning...

Let me translate: Android already won. It did already prove itself. Its number #1. It got the gold medal. It kicked compitors a** all of them. Most customers buy Android. It made it. Its THE success story. Its the market leading OS. Its ahead everything. It even sells better then Windows Desktop. Its silver, gold and platin in one. It is there, it is real, it won already.

More clear?
"

Let me guess.. You also believe the moon is made of cheese & the Earth is flat. The irony actually is his reply. It's guys like you and him who are the Iraqi Information Minister declaring that Android has already won the war.

Reply Score: 1

RE[5]: Comment by ilovebeer
by MOS6510 on Tue 31st Jul 2012 05:12 UTC in reply to "RE[4]: Comment by ilovebeer"
MOS6510 Member since:
2011-05-12

The average customer doesn't give a damn about Android. It's a "success" because any manufacturer can use it to dump zillions of phones on the market. Can anyone name all Samsung models on the market right now?

People don't buy Android, they buy a phone that allows them to run a few apps. A lot probably don't even know their phone runs Android. Do ads even mention it?

If everyone dumped Android today and shipped their phones with WP8 people would buy that.

So Android is only a "success" for manufacturers and when looking at the profits leaves only Samsung right now.

Reply Score: 0

RE[6]: Comment by ilovebeer
by Soulbender on Tue 31st Jul 2012 05:31 UTC in reply to "RE[5]: Comment by ilovebeer"
Soulbender Member since:
2005-08-18

People don't buy Android, they buy a phone that allows them to run a few apps.


Imagine that, purchasing something based on it's functional value rather than glitzy exterior and marketing hype.

Can anyone name all Samsung models on the market right now?


Uh no, they have a diverse selection of models. Why is this in any way important? I can't name every single shoe that Nike makes.

Do ads even mention it?

Plenty of ads here mention Android, it's a selling point.

Reply Score: 4

RE[2]: Comment by ilovebeer
by kaiwai on Sun 29th Jul 2012 10:08 UTC in reply to "RE: Comment by ilovebeer"
kaiwai Member since:
2005-07-06

"The Americans are not in Baghdad. They are burning in their tanks", the Iraqi minister of information said, as the American tanks rode through the city, and bombs were dropping all around him.


So when are we going to see Android vendors actually give a crap about their customers by providing Android updates and upgrades in a timely manner like we see with iOS? If I'm going to spend NZ$999 on a Samsung Galaxy SIII I want to make damn sure that it actually has more than 6 months of support which seems to be the high water mark when it comes to Samsung's policy of "ship a phone then let the customer fend for him or herself". I'm all for a robust competitor but people cheerleading on Android is just plain stupid.

Reply Score: 2

RE: Comment by ilovebeer
by Bill Shooter of Bul on Sun 29th Jul 2012 05:00 UTC in reply to "Comment by ilovebeer"
Bill Shooter of Bul Member since:
2006-07-14

What are the metrics you are referring to? I dabble in both android and ios development, so I think I've had a good deal of experience with both operating systems. I have no idea why anyone would think that android the operating system hasn't earned its stripes or proven its worth.

I'd still prefer meego or mameo on simular hardware available from my us carrier at simular on contract prices, but android is decent.

Reply Score: 2

RE[2]: Comment by ilovebeer
by ilovebeer on Sun 29th Jul 2012 05:13 UTC in reply to "RE: Comment by ilovebeer"
ilovebeer Member since:
2011-08-08

What are the metrics you are referring to? I dabble in both android and ios development, so I think I've had a good deal of experience with both operating systems. I have no idea why anyone would think that android the operating system hasn't earned its stripes or proven its worth.

I'd still prefer meego or mameo on simular hardware available from my us carrier at simular on contract prices, but android is decent.

I never said Android is trash. I think it's decent as well, but I don't think it's greatest thing since sliced bread as some here do. It wouldn't surprise me if a number of them go overboard with Android-praise simply because it's not Apple-praise, the same way Linux users do because Linux isn't Windows.

Let's face it.. Android hasn't introduced any game-changers. Being less closed than the competition isn't exactly worthy of a parade imo.

Reply Score: 2

RE[3]: Comment by ilovebeer
by Bill Shooter of Bul on Mon 30th Jul 2012 01:35 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: Comment by ilovebeer"
Bill Shooter of Bul Member since:
2006-07-14

I think it's decent as well, but I don't think it's greatest thing since sliced bread as some here do.


No, its the greatest thing since meego ;)

Being less closed than the competition isn't exactly worthy of a parade imo.


It is in my book. I can and have *changed* the way my phone works to make it better *because* its less closed. That makes it worthy of a parade, and I don't even like parades.

Reply Score: 2

Apple isn't Mazda.
by sergio on Sat 28th Jul 2012 16:28 UTC
sergio
Member since:
2005-07-06

Nonsense, of course - Volkswagen sells lots more models than, say, Mazda, but that doesn't mean you can't compare them.


Apple product line is more similar to Mini than Mazda. Very small and focused product line with high prices.

You can't compare Volkswagen sales with Mini sales. Nonsense.

Reply Score: 3

RE: Apple isn't Mazda.
by CapEnt on Sat 28th Jul 2012 17:59 UTC in reply to "Apple isn't Mazda. "
CapEnt Member since:
2005-12-18

The sales not, but the product you can compare.

Reply Score: 3

RE: Apple isn't Mazda.
by gilboa on Sat 28th Jul 2012 18:35 UTC in reply to "Apple isn't Mazda. "
gilboa Member since:
2005-07-06

"Nonsense, of course - Volkswagen sells lots more models than, say, Mazda, but that doesn't mean you can't compare them.


Apple product line is more similar to Mini than Mazda. Very small and focused product line with high prices.

You can't compare Volkswagen sales with Mini sales. Nonsense.
"

Funny that you compare Apple to a small subsidiary of BMW that only sells smallish vintage-like cards for a ludicrous price...

- Gilboa

Reply Score: 3

RE[2]: Apple isn't Mazda.
by sergio on Sat 28th Jul 2012 23:02 UTC in reply to "RE: Apple isn't Mazda. "
sergio Member since:
2005-07-06

Design and high prices are a common denominator between Mini and Apple. I agree with you and that's why We can't compare Mini sales with VW sales.

Samsung has only two or three high quality Apple-like smartphones, the rest of their product line are poor man's $50 dollars phones that not play in the same league as iPhone at all.

If you really want to know Samsung/Apple performance, you have to compare total revenue and not the number of phones sold.

Reply Score: 2

RE[3]: Apple isn't Mazda.
by Thom_Holwerda on Sat 28th Jul 2012 23:11 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: Apple isn't Mazda. "
Thom_Holwerda Member since:
2005-06-29

So, when comparing total revenue the differing portfolios magically no longer matter, but when comparing phones sold, it does matter?

Arbitrariness ftw. Apple wins on profits, Samsung on number of devices sold, and arguing you can compare the companies on one metric but not the other is ridiculous, and you know it. Now that 70% (or so) of Apple's revenue comes from iOS, it's clear Samsung is a massive threat. Hence the lawsuits.

Reply Score: 3

RE[4]: Apple isn't Mazda.
by sergio on Sun 29th Jul 2012 00:04 UTC in reply to "RE[3]: Apple isn't Mazda. "
sergio Member since:
2005-07-06

Yeap, because you're comparing dollars with dollars and not iPhones with tomatoes.

Nokia sells more units than Apple too (83 millons vs. 26 millons)... is Nokia doing it better than Apple? C'mon...

Revenue and profits are better indicators to measure the performance of a company than units sold. Business 101.

Reply Score: 2

RE[5]: Apple isn't Mazda.
by Thom_Holwerda on Sun 29th Jul 2012 00:12 UTC in reply to "RE[4]: Apple isn't Mazda. "
Thom_Holwerda Member since:
2005-06-29

I didn't say Samsung is doing better than Apple. You made that up all by yourself. I said Samsung sells more smartphones than Apple.

Reading comprehension 101. You're tripping over your own fanboy threads you've spun.

Reply Score: 2

RE[6]: Apple isn't Mazda.
by sergio on Sun 29th Jul 2012 02:33 UTC in reply to "RE[5]: Apple isn't Mazda. "
sergio Member since:
2005-07-06

Oh, the next avenue for de-emphasizing this achievement has already reared its head: Samsung has a wider portfolio, and as such, the comparison isn't fair. Nonsense, of course


You wrote that not me, calling "nonsense" to a fact.

You are in love with your Samsung Galaxy telling us every day how fantastic Samsung is. Who's the fanboy?

I don't care about iPhones nor Galaxies, they're over-priced junk. I'm only saying: hey, this comparison is technically incorrect and biased.

Reply Score: 1

RE[7]: Apple isn't Mazda.
by Thom_Holwerda on Sun 29th Jul 2012 05:26 UTC in reply to "RE[6]: Apple isn't Mazda. "
Thom_Holwerda Member since:
2005-06-29

Your reply has nothing to do with my comment.

Reply Score: 1

Samsung Knows how to play the game...
by redshift on Sun 29th Jul 2012 02:47 UTC in reply to "RE[5]: Apple isn't Mazda. "
redshift Member since:
2006-05-06

Samsung knows how to play the game too.... they fired back with 10 infringements by Apple.

http://www.engadget.com/2011/04/21/samsung-strikes-back-at-apple-wi...

From the picture in that article, it does seem that they style their default screen to be a little more iOS like than other android phones I have seen. They probably will end up paying Apple something. But I doubt it will stop them from continuing to be a strong competitor.

I am glad to see Android has become a worthy competitor. I have loved my iPhones, But I am worried that Apple's new mapping app may not do everything that I liked using in Google's app. If that is the case, and if they don't allow google provide a map app through the app store, I am very likely to get get a Android phone next time.

Reply Score: 1

RE[6]: Apple isn't Mazda.
by kristoph on Tue 31st Jul 2012 04:28 UTC in reply to "RE[5]: Apple isn't Mazda. "
kristoph Member since:
2006-01-01

Reading comprehension 101. You're tripping over your own fanboy threads you've spun.


Randomly accusing people of fanboyism to support your own arguments - which, let's be honest, are usually sort of like Michael Bay movies: lot's of screaming and shouting and virtually no substance - is pretty lame, don't you think?

You could at least make an effort when someone challenges your pet theories.

Reply Score: 1

RE[5]: Apple isn't Mazda.
by cdude on Sun 29th Jul 2012 05:50 UTC in reply to "RE[4]: Apple isn't Mazda. "
cdude Member since:
2008-09-21

You compare apples with oranges. Google, that is the one making Android vs Apple, the one making iOs, and there revenues on devices sold is irrelevant.
Google never had the goal to make with Android.money by sold devices. Heck, they are not even the ones who sell most Android devices! There business plan with Android is very different then those Apple has with iphone. You cannot compare on pure revenue AND especially not with Samsung who, and I repeat myself, have 1. another business-model then google and Apple and 2. are not even the once who do Android.

Comparing devices sold and hence market share of the ecosystem is the most logical if not only way to compare both. Also cause Google, the Android maker, does not give numbers out about its real source of income for Android. Let alone that Android secures there number #1 income-source and is, in my eyes, more competing with Windows+Bing+Azure rather then with Apple.

Reply Score: 2

RE[4]: Apple isn't Mazda.
by henderson101 on Sun 29th Jul 2012 18:47 UTC in reply to "RE[3]: Apple isn't Mazda. "
henderson101 Member since:
2006-05-30

I have 5 bananas, you have 20. You sell all of your bananas for a total of €20. I sell mine for €5 each. One of us shifts a lot of bananas. One of us makes the most profit. You do the Maths.

Reply Score: 1

RE[5]: Apple isn't Mazda.
by lemur2 on Mon 30th Jul 2012 04:37 UTC in reply to "RE[4]: Apple isn't Mazda. "
lemur2 Member since:
2007-02-17

I have 5 bananas, you have 20. You sell all of your bananas for a total of €20. I sell mine for €5 each. One of us shifts a lot of bananas. One of us makes the most profit. You do the Maths.


The people who eat bannanas are far better off buying their bananna from one seller and not the other. 20 people are getting a reasonable deal, and 5 are getting utterly ripped off. You do the math.

Reply Score: 4

RE[3]: Apple isn't Mazda.
by gilboa on Sun 29th Jul 2012 13:51 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: Apple isn't Mazda. "
gilboa Member since:
2005-07-06

If you really want to know Samsung/Apple performance, you have to compare total revenue and not the number of phones sold.


I agree.
Though, keep in mind that given the direction the economy is sliding, high-end mass product manufacturers with limited product portfolio are *far* more vulnerable.
If I was sitting at Apple HQ, I would be *very* worried.

- Gilboa

Reply Score: 2

RE: Apple isn't Mazda.
by zima on Sat 4th Aug 2012 23:59 UTC in reply to "Apple isn't Mazda. "
zima Member since:
2005-07-06

Apple product line is more similar to Mini than Mazda. Very small and focused product line with high prices.
You can't compare Volkswagen sales with Mini sales.

Nonsense, of course you can. VW has the very same kind of car in its lineage - the (new) Beetle. Which is more than competitive with Mini, also in sales...

And is a somewhat better car overall, can draw heavily on the broader VW technology, automotive platforms. Almost all car manufacturers which refused to adapt, to do it that way, eventually vanished - because those which did adapt were able, for quite some time already, to better push the real state of the art forward; at some point, that is what creates new image and its value, retires the traditional.

Edited 2012-08-05 00:10 UTC

Reply Score: 2

Getting tired of iSheep
by wargum on Sat 28th Jul 2012 16:45 UTC
wargum
Member since:
2006-12-15

Argument after argument about why Apple is doing just fine against Android and isn't in any trouble has been dismissed by reality.

1) When Android picked up some pace, there was this 'shipped vs. sold' BS.

2) Then it all didn't matter because the metrics failed to include the iPod touch and the iPad, which gave them iSheep the warm feeling of platform dominance for a short period.

3) Then the argument was that, of course (!) all the Android phones of different manufacturers combined with their gazillion models outsell the iPhone, but Apple still sells the highest volume of any company.

4) Oh and they complained how Apple is not on every carrier, totally ignoring that this was Apple's self made trap.

5) Apple's slower sales growth compared to Android was even excused by limits in the supply chain and manufacturing process. Again, self-inflicted.

6) Then it was App count (more = better).

7) Then it was and still is profits.

8) Then it was App exclusiveness.

9) Now it is App quality.

I am really getting tired of it. The next arguments to crack down are:

A) A single phone model of a competitor will outsell the best selling iPhone model.

B) App count of Play Store will top App Store.

C) App quality and exclusiveness of Apps will soon be equal or are there already.

But there is one thing that may be true a bit longer: Apple is the most profitable smartphone maker. If you've read Gruber and collegues lately, squeezing every cent out of your customers is now the coolest thing. Absurdly high margins are now THE benchmark. And those poor minds don't even realize that this is exactly what leads to the market share losses of the iPhone that we currently observe. Full throttle back into the niche.

Apple needs to go for market share now! Otherwise, they will become a relatively irrelevant also-ran with a tons of money, that won't help. They are already hit by their static release cycle, the fact that carriers recommend Android phones over iPhones because that gives them higher margins and their self-inflicted restriction in resulution/screen size of their devices, that makes it extremely difficult to introduce more models and diversity of their smartphone lineup.

Reply Score: 10

RE: Getting tired of iSheep
by CapEnt on Sat 28th Jul 2012 17:56 UTC in reply to "Getting tired of iSheep"
CapEnt Member since:
2005-12-18

Indeed.

Apple have dilemma: become a mass product company, and began diversifying their product lineup, severely restricting their profit margins and then compensate with volume, or become a Bang & Olufsen style company, selling only to a premium market.

I doubt that Apple will sunk to near bankruptcy like they did in 90's, but based on their current refusal to adapt their business model, they will become increasingly niche.

Reply Score: 3

RE: Getting tired of iSheep
by kristoph on Sat 28th Jul 2012 18:47 UTC in reply to "Getting tired of iSheep"
kristoph Member since:
2006-01-01

No offense here dude, but the *reality* is that Apple just reported revenue growth of 26% the last quarter, up to $9 billion. Samsung reported $6 billion. It looks like a reasonably comparison except for the fact that Samsung has 6 times the employees of Apple and has a margin below 5%.

Also ...

Apple is the largest tech company by revenue.
Apple is the largest company by market cap.
Apple has the highest margin of any tech company.
Apple has the highest customer service rating of any tech company.

None of this is really subjective so you can't blame it on 'sheep'.

That's not to say Android, Google and Samsung are not doing well. They are. Android is by far the most popular smart phone OS and that's not going to change anytime soon.

So there is lots to be happy about for both Android and iOS fans. Can't we all just get along?

Reply Score: 2

RE[2]: Getting tired of iSheep
by _txf_ on Sat 28th Jul 2012 19:30 UTC in reply to "RE: Getting tired of iSheep"
_txf_ Member since:
2008-03-17

So there is lots to be happy about for both Android and iOS fans. Can't we all just get along?


Doubtful.

We can't get along BECAUSE Apple is doing fine right now despite the existence of Android. It really doesn't need to assert BS patents against others in order to compete...

And if it does then it surely doesn't deserve to compete.

Edited 2012-07-28 19:30 UTC

Reply Score: 4

RE[2]: Getting tired of iSheep
by wargum on Sat 28th Jul 2012 19:55 UTC in reply to "RE: Getting tired of iSheep"
wargum Member since:
2006-12-15

Apple obviously doesn't want coexistence with Android. Remember Steve Jobs' quote about how he want to go "thermonuclear" on Android and "right this wrong"? The multitude of law suits around the world are the direct result of this view of a "stolen" product.

I am all for a competitive marketplace with different platforms to choose from. Most people are, I guess.

Reply Score: 3

Bill Shooter of Bul Member since:
2006-07-14

I don't understand why the financials of the company are relevant in terms of smartphone platform. As a developer I just care that the platform itself will survive, and that there are a number of potential users of my app.

Hp has always done well, but I'm not porting my app to webos, nor to windows phone 7.

Reply Score: 3

RE[2]: Getting tired of iSheep
by unclefester on Mon 30th Jul 2012 08:26 UTC in reply to "RE: Getting tired of iSheep"
unclefester Member since:
2007-01-13

No offense here dude, but the *reality* is that Apple just reported revenue growth of 26% the last quarter, up to $9 billion. Samsung reported $6 billion. It looks like a reasonably comparison except for the fact that Samsung has 6 times the employees of Apple and has a margin below 5%.


Samsung has subsidiaries involved in high fashion clothing, banking, hotels, insurance, steelmaking, automobiles, agriculture, chemicals and biotechnology. It is one of the most diversified large corporations in the world.

Reply Score: 3

RE[2]: Getting tired of iSheep
by Dr.Mabuse on Thu 2nd Aug 2012 01:45 UTC in reply to "RE: Getting tired of iSheep"
Dr.Mabuse Member since:
2009-05-19


Also ...

Apple is the largest tech company by revenue.
Apple is the largest company by market cap.
Apple has the highest margin of any tech company.
Apple has the highest customer service rating of any tech company.

None of this is really subjective so you can't blame it on 'sheep'.


But this was his point. Apple are gouging the customer.

Other than the last point, none of these things are particularly positive in my mind and at least one makes me very uncomfortable (margins.)

It's like boasting to friends that you just bought a house where the builder made four times the profit off you ... Like it's a good thing? Really?

Is the shine starting to wear off Apple? I've heard some recent comments from friends buying phones where they went into a store wanting to buy an iPhone, only to walk out with an Android.

"Full throttle back into the niche."

Indeed.

Reply Score: 1

RE[3]: Getting tired of iSheep
by ilovebeer on Thu 2nd Aug 2012 02:45 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: Getting tired of iSheep"
ilovebeer Member since:
2011-08-08

But this was his point. Apple are gouging the customer.

Other than the last point, none of these things are particularly positive in my mind and at least one makes me very uncomfortable (margins.)

It's like boasting to friends that you just bought a house where the builder made four times the profit off you ... Like it's a good thing? Really?

If you believe that Apple is gouging its customers then you must also believe that companies like Intel, Amazon.com, Nvidia, and so on are too because all these companies have similar profit margins. In some cases even higher. The profit margin Apple enjoys isn't that much higher than the common numbers.

If you want to talk about companies that are ripping people off, have a conversation about the members of Opec or someone else worthy of that discussion. Apple is making money off you, but they aren't bending you over and giving it to you raw.

Reply Score: 2

RE[4]: Getting tired of iSheep
by Dr.Mabuse on Thu 2nd Aug 2012 03:07 UTC in reply to "RE[3]: Getting tired of iSheep"
Dr.Mabuse Member since:
2009-05-19

Apple is making money off you, but they aren't bending you over and giving it to you raw.


Compared to Samsung (20% vs 5%) in the mobile market place they are making a lot more money per device, no? Depends on your definition of gouging I guess.

Also, they are not bending *me* over full stop. I don't buy Apple. If they were more "open" (i.e. I own my device and I do with it as I please) I would consider owning one from that perspective, but the price difference still makes it a non-starter for me.

The point is that Android has momentum now and Apple has yet to make the adjustment that they *probably* cannot enjoy the margins they've had in the past if they want to to stay competitive in the market place. This reflects my experience anyway.

On the other hand ... Or maybe they do, because people don't mind paying more for the luxury of having an iPhone? Personally I feel this era is drawing to a close.

Reply Score: 1

RE[5]: Getting tired of iSheep
by ilovebeer on Thu 2nd Aug 2012 04:15 UTC in reply to "RE[4]: Getting tired of iSheep"
ilovebeer Member since:
2011-08-08

Compared to Samsung (20% vs 5%) in the mobile market place they are making a lot more money per device, no? Depends on your definition of gouging I guess.

You can always find a company with vastly different/lower profit margins but that's nothing more than a smoke screen to try hiding the fact that Apple's margins are only slightly higher than common margins. What says more about a companies margins? How it compares against someone else with margins far below the average, or how it compares to the average itself?

The definition of price gouging is pretty clear. It's not as if there's a lot of grey area to debate. By that very definition, Apple certainly isn't price gouging.

Btw, how many people do you know who paid full price for an iphone? I can't think of any off-hand.

It's also not as if the pricing between say an iphone and a comparable android phone is that different either.

The point is that Android has momentum now and Apple has yet to make the adjustment that they *probably* cannot enjoy the margins they've had in the past if they want to to stay competitive in the market place. This reflects my experience anyway.

The only problem with that is if you look at the last 12 months worth of sales, Apple has experienced growth while Android has flattened so it would seem that the momentum has shifted back to Apple.

On the other hand ... Or maybe they do, because people don't mind paying more for the luxury of having an iPhone? Personally I feel this era is drawing to a close.

People always have been and always will be willing to pay more for luxury. As far as this era, I think there's still a lot of fight left. I don't believe anyone has won the war yet, if it even can be.

Reply Score: 2

RE[6]: Getting tired of iSheep
by Dr.Mabuse on Thu 2nd Aug 2012 04:29 UTC in reply to "RE[5]: Getting tired of iSheep"
Dr.Mabuse Member since:
2009-05-19

The definition of price gouging is pretty clear. It's not as if there's a lot of grey area to debate. By that very definition, Apple certainly isn't price gouging.


Wikipedia on Price Gouging: "Price gouging is a pejorative term referring to a situation in which a seller prices goods or commodities much higher than is considered reasonable or fair"

It's also not as if the pricing between say an iphone and a comparable android phone is that different either.


I live in Australia and there is what I would consider a big difference by at least a couple of hundred dollars between something like a 4S and a Galaxy S2, which are reasonably comparable. It might not be called gouging, but I think Apple is too expensive for what it has to offer. They are taking their customers for a ride.

Reply Score: 1

RE: Getting tired of iSheep
by tomcat on Sun 29th Jul 2012 02:47 UTC in reply to "Getting tired of iSheep"
tomcat Member since:
2006-01-06

Apple needs to go for market share now! Otherwise, they will become a relatively irrelevant also-ran with a tons of money, that won't help. They are already hit by their static release cycle, the fact that carriers recommend Android phones over iPhones because that gives them higher margins and their self-inflicted restriction in resulution/screen size of their devices, that makes it extremely difficult to introduce more models and diversity of their smartphone lineup.


Great post. But, keep in mind, that Apple essentially backfills the low- and mid-points of the market with older models. Which allows it to cover a wider range than simply the high-end. Now, of course, a lot of people would rather opt for a less expensive Android phone than a one- or two-year old iPhone model; but it's part of the dynamic, nonetheless.

Reply Score: 2

Samsung makes a better phone
by ze_jerkface on Sat 28th Jul 2012 17:05 UTC
ze_jerkface
Member since:
2012-06-22

The iPhone has better apps but feels like a brick when compared to any of the new Samsung phones.

The call quality is better as well.

Reply Score: 1

Go Samsung!
by phti on Sat 28th Jul 2012 20:11 UTC
phti
Member since:
2012-06-02

Go Samsung! Go! Win the championship!
Anything but Apple!!
Apple is evil, everyone else is good!






(seriously guys, you're getting ridiculous)

Reply Score: 2

RE: Go Samsung!
by tomcat on Sun 29th Jul 2012 02:49 UTC in reply to "Go Samsung!"
tomcat Member since:
2006-01-06

Go Samsung! Go! Win the championship!
Anything but Apple!!
Apple is evil, everyone else is good!






(seriously guys, you're getting ridiculous)


That's a bit of an exaggeration. A lot of people here are standing on the sidelines, hoping that ANYONE will give Apple a run for its money, so that competition remains alive and well. It's in no one's interest to have a single monolithic competitor.

Reply Score: 2

kyousefi
Member since:
2012-07-28

If you think what apple does -fighting for it's patents- is immoral, check -using your browser- which countries Samsung products are sold using its official channels. Many of them are enemies of human rights and brutal regimes that uses it's technologies to suppress their own people. What Samsung does is not only immoral, but illegal and contrary to international laws and UN sanctions.

So, if we follow your logic, Samsung goes a lot farther when it comes to protecting it's perceived profit than Apple. If it could sue apple for it's refrigerator and microwave oven patents, it wouldn't hesitate.

What follows is not specific to this post, but it's my take on OSNEWS recent tone on Apple, but some of it is related to this post:

You are throwing everything you've got at Apple, connecting unrelated matters like market capitalization and legal issues to prove your point, maybe because you like open source - or hate apple "fanboys".Maybe, many like open source and understand its benefits, but creating an evil from a company to prove your point is unfair. Also hating some brand simply because "commons" discovered and liked it in recent years, the trend I witnessed in OSnews in recent years after Apples revival (Before that you were less critical to apple). It's snobbish and elitist. Its not journalism, it's "fanboy" wars.

So, if you can't report neutrally on complexities of business world and politics, please focus on what you are good at: Technology

Reply Score: 2

Soulbender Member since:
2005-08-18

Many of them are enemies of human rights and brutal regimes that uses it's technologies to suppress their own people.


Right, because Apple has no official presence in, say, China.
I don't think this is an argument you want to make.

What Samsung does is not only immoral, but illegal and contrary to international laws and UN sanctions.


Out of curiosity, exactly how is Samsung getting away with breaking international law?

but creating an evil from a company to prove your point is unfair


Yet you did exactly this just now.

Edited 2012-07-28 21:50 UTC

Reply Score: 3

kyousefi Member since:
2012-07-28

1-Apple presence in china is within international law. But Samsung is working with a government under harshest UN security council sanctions in history.

See for yourself :
http://m.samsung.com/iran/

2-if you don't understand the difference between Iran and China, it's your problem. Skip your next galaxy 5 and buy a ticket to Tehran. I'll show you around. Btw, Don't forget to write your last will. I've been in China too and it's heaven in comparison.Not to mention many Iranians dying to have some place like Foxconn to work.

3-I didn't meant to use the same method that the original author used. I wanted to mock his reasoning by my own example. I wanted to show mixing politics and sensational whinings about patents and their immorality is too big to handle by the author who apparantly has limited political and business knowledge.

Reply Score: 1

Soulbender Member since:
2005-08-18

if you don't understand the difference between Iran and China, it's your problem.


Maybe you should have said it was Iran then, instead of vaguely alluding to a country that could quite frankly be one of a number of different regimes.

Reply Score: 3

Player OS stats?
by Bobthearch on Sat 28th Jul 2012 23:25 UTC
Bobthearch
Member since:
2006-01-27

Does anyone track the OS stats for portable media players, the iPad Touch vs. Galaxy Player for example? It is even possible to track OS usage on those devices?

Not knowing much about iOS or Android, nor modern Apple quality or Samsung quality, I compared the features and costs of various models and went with the Galaxy Player 5.0. Built-in GPS, built-in FM radio, expandable memory, no special computer software required for transferring files, larger screen... and less $$.

Just wondering where the player market fits into the story...

Reply Score: 2

RE: Player OS stats?
by tomcat on Sun 29th Jul 2012 02:53 UTC in reply to "Player OS stats?"
tomcat Member since:
2006-01-06

Does anyone track the OS stats for portable media players, the iPad Touch vs. Galaxy Player for example? It is even possible to track OS usage on those devices?

Not knowing much about iOS or Android, nor modern Apple quality or Samsung quality, I compared the features and costs of various models and went with the Galaxy Player 5.0. Built-in GPS, built-in FM radio, expandable memory, no special computer software required for transferring files, larger screen... and less $$.

Just wondering where the player market fits into the story...


I don't have enough data to justify what I'm about to say; however, from my own observations, I see very few people using standalone media players like the iPod anymore. Most people carry around a phone, and it's a little too klunky to have to carry around a separate gadget to play music when the phone will perform the same task; hence, I think that the iPhone and Android phones are essentially cannibalizing the media player market over time. Furthermore, a lot of music is delivered via streaming versus individual MP3 files, and iPod-type devices often don't have the necessary kind of connectivity beyond WiFi. I'd be surprised if there's even a standalone media player category in 5 years. So, nobody seems to pay that much attention to that market anymore.

Edited 2012-07-29 02:55 UTC

Reply Score: 2

RE[2]: Player OS stats?
by ilovebeer on Sun 29th Jul 2012 03:47 UTC in reply to "RE: Player OS stats?"
ilovebeer Member since:
2011-08-08

"Does anyone track the OS stats for portable media players, the iPad Touch vs. Galaxy Player for example? It is even possible to track OS usage on those devices?

Not knowing much about iOS or Android, nor modern Apple quality or Samsung quality, I compared the features and costs of various models and went with the Galaxy Player 5.0. Built-in GPS, built-in FM radio, expandable memory, no special computer software required for transferring files, larger screen... and less $$.

Just wondering where the player market fits into the story...


I don't have enough data to justify what I'm about to say; however, from my own observations, I see very few people using standalone media players like the iPod anymore. Most people carry around a phone, and it's a little too klunky to have to carry around a separate gadget to play music when the phone will perform the same task; hence, I think that the iPhone and Android phones are essentially cannibalizing the media player market over time. Furthermore, a lot of music is delivered via streaming versus individual MP3 files, and iPod-type devices often don't have the necessary kind of connectivity beyond WiFi. I'd be surprised if there's even a standalone media player category in 5 years. So, nobody seems to pay that much attention to that market anymore.
"


I tend to agree with you with one exception. There is still a large market for portable players and I don't believe it will ever be replaced by cell phones. Not everybody needs or wants a cell phone and the price tag + financial commitment that comes with it. I know many people who own both.

As with tablets vs. desktops.. While each may share some common tasks, they're not the same thing and cater to different types of users.

Edited 2012-07-29 03:47 UTC

Reply Score: 2

RE[3]: Player OS stats?
by cdude on Sun 29th Jul 2012 06:25 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: Player OS stats?"
cdude Member since:
2008-09-21

You do not need any longer a smartphone to play music, download music from a music store or transfer your mp3's to. Today even the most cheap dumphones like Nokia Asha have all that integrated and, that are strong points, are very cheap, available everywhere and have all the gimmics like bluetooth integrated to easily transfer music between devices without computer.

Monthly bills are rather uncommon in most parts of our world. So are stupid requirements like itunes or Zune to transfer music.

Edited 2012-07-29 06:37 UTC

Reply Score: 2

RE[4]: Player OS stats?
by tomcat on Mon 30th Jul 2012 18:41 UTC in reply to "RE[3]: Player OS stats?"
tomcat Member since:
2006-01-06

You do not need any longer a smartphone to play music, download music from a music store or transfer your mp3's to. Today even the most cheap dumphones like Nokia Asha have all that integrated and, that are strong points, are very cheap, available everywhere and have all the gimmics like bluetooth integrated to easily transfer music between devices without computer.

Monthly bills are rather uncommon in most parts of our world. So are stupid requirements like itunes or Zune to transfer music.


That's true. The cost of smartphones has gotten to the point where I'm seriously thinking about getting an unlocked phone next time, and shopping for the lowest possible plan on a month to month basis.

Reply Score: 2

RE[2]: Player OS stats?
by Bobthearch on Sun 29th Jul 2012 05:07 UTC in reply to "RE: Player OS stats?"
Bobthearch Member since:
2006-01-27

I can't speak for other shoppers, but I wanted a smartphone-like gadget (GPS, touchscreen, apps, modern OS) but without a monthly bill. Really just wanted a toy to play with while traveling, an updated PDA.

Reply Score: 2

Whatevs. Competition is good.
by siraf72 on Sun 29th Jul 2012 10:20 UTC
siraf72
Member since:
2006-02-22

And the pie is big enough for both. This is not a zero sum game.

6 years ago you would have been thought a madman if you said Apple and Samsung would dominate the mobile smartphone market.

Reply Score: 1

RE: Whatevs. Competition is good.
by gilboa on Sun 29th Jul 2012 17:07 UTC in reply to "Whatevs. Competition is good."
gilboa Member since:
2005-07-06

And the pie is big enough for both. This is not a zero sum game.

6 years ago you would have been thought a madman if you said Apple and Samsung would dominate the mobile smartphone market.


In theory it could be a non-zero-sum game.
However, given Apple's decision to wage a religious war against Android (In the late Mr Jobes words: "Thermonuclear"), I doubt that co-existence is possible.

One of two options: Apple victory, kicking Anroid out of the market, or Apple loses, after depleting most of its vast resources.

- Gilboa

Edited 2012-07-29 17:10 UTC

Reply Score: 3

siraf72 Member since:
2006-02-22

I predict a third outcome:

Both company waste precious time and money in court and get nothing of value. Meanwhile both companies continue to release products that make both companies rich. Samsung will have a larger market share. Apple will have higher margins. Both sets of shareholders will be happy.

Reply Score: 1

Both are doing great
by Alexandre on Sun 29th Jul 2012 12:52 UTC
Alexandre
Member since:
2008-10-30

Apple is doing great, Samsung too.
Android is taking the lead with Samsung in front, I wouldn't be surprised if in the following quarter sales of galaxy 3 become very close to iphone sales... obviously next iphone will probably change that.
Having more profit margins is not a good sign for consumers, they are buying less for more, but I doubt between similar devices profit margins are very different - say between s3 and 4s.

Apple doesn't have to sell more than all android or even just Samsung to be a successful company.

For me and objectively android is way better than ios and s3 is a few steps above 4s - bigger battery, bigger display and resolution, more powerful and scalable OS.
Jelly beans, things like "google now" and more, are showing to the World that google and android are leading smart phone software.

Reply Score: 1

Only one company plays dirty?
by koffie on Mon 30th Jul 2012 14:34 UTC
koffie
Member since:
2010-05-06

And who sued for 3G FRAND patents? Patents are a dirty game, and they are both playing it. There are no "good guys" when it comes down to patents these days.

Reply Score: 1

Comment by ilovebeer
by ilovebeer on Thu 2nd Aug 2012 15:19 UTC
ilovebeer
Member since:
2011-08-08

Australia is the exception I think when it comes to pricing. My understanding is that prices are indeed inflated there, and don't reflect what's common here for example, in North America.

Reply Score: 2