Linked by Thom Holwerda on Wed 26th Sep 2012 02:57 UTC
PDAs, Cellphones, Wireless "Right now, the mobile wars have just two major combatants: Apple's iOS and Google's Android. Nokia could yet make Windows Phone a serious third player, but there are also a few more minor actors with the potential to disrupt the market. Jolla is the most mysterious of those players, which also include Firefox OS and Open WebOS. Jolla (a Finnish word for a small sailing boat) arose from the ashes of Nokia and Intel's MeeGo project, canned in favour of Microsoft's mobile OS. The Linux-based OS has not been shown off yet, but Jolla has already scored a deal with China's top phone distributor, DPhone. The first Jolla device is due later this year, so to find out more I spoke with the company's chief executive, ex-Nokian Jussi Hurmola." Please let Jolla succeed. Pretty please with sugar on top. The industry needs this. Please.
Order by: Score:
Very much so
by 0brad0 on Wed 26th Sep 2012 03:03 UTC
0brad0
Member since:
2007-05-05

It'll be interesting to see what the OS is like compared to Maemo but I would be interested in this. iOS sucks and Android leaves a lot to be desired.

Reply Score: 4

RE: Very much so
by satsujinka on Wed 26th Sep 2012 03:24 UTC in reply to "Very much so"
satsujinka Member since:
2010-03-11

And that's just the interfaces... development for them isn't a whole lot of fun either (in part due to the limited language selection.)

Reply Score: 2

how do you get 2?
by zhulien on Wed 26th Sep 2012 03:36 UTC
zhulien
Member since:
2006-12-06

um, how do you get 2? they aren't the only mobile OSs - my main phone uses a different one by choice, I use an Android and an iPhone for non-phone uses.

Reply Score: 1

HTML5
by swift11 on Wed 26th Sep 2012 04:53 UTC
swift11
Member since:
2012-08-23

"We would love HTML5 to succeed fast, because it would mean our MeeGo-based ecosystem would be compatible with everything out there. But, at the moment, I think there are interests against that. It would again take away the control point from the existing platforms if suddenly everything were compatible."

I don't understand the last sentence. Can someone explain this ?

Edited 2012-09-26 04:54 UTC

Reply Score: 1

RE: HTML5
by MOS6510 on Wed 26th Sep 2012 05:39 UTC in reply to "HTML5"
MOS6510 Member since:
2011-05-12

Apps written in HTML5 would run on any phone. Now each phone needs apps specifically written for them.

Reply Score: 5

RE[2]: HTML5
by swift11 on Wed 26th Sep 2012 06:21 UTC in reply to "RE: HTML5"
swift11 Member since:
2012-08-23

Just an example: the Blackberry 10 browser has the best HTML5 score atm:
why would this "take away the control point from the platform" ?
http://html5test.com/results/mobile.html

For small players HTML5 is an opportunity, not a threat .

Edited 2012-09-26 06:24 UTC

Reply Score: 3

RE[3]: HTML5
by MOS6510 on Wed 26th Sep 2012 06:25 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: HTML5"
MOS6510 Member since:
2011-05-12

My guess would be that native (so non-HTML5) apps need to be approved by their app store operators. Thus HTML5 apps can be distributed and run on any device without anyone stopping you.

Then again I doubt they'll be as good as native ones.

The problem with something like "Jolla" that it won't have many apps, most people use iOS or Android based devices. So they need to have a system where a programmer doesn't spends his time on an app that runs on only 0.01% of the devices, but runs on 95% of them including Jolla ones.

Reply Score: 2

RE[3]: HTML5
by dsmogor on Wed 26th Sep 2012 10:46 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: HTML5"
dsmogor Member since:
2005-09-01

I really don't see why the whole classes of native apps couldn't be coded in html5. Lot's of them are simple wrappers for web services.
What HTML needs to replace them is standardized way to access native phone specific services like:
- Scheduled background jobs
- Notification
- Secure, phone sealed storage
- Keyboard dictionary access (and hooks to various input methods)
- Native authentication
- Payment
- Accessibility
It also needs a way to deliver 60 fps animated touch gui. Something like qtquick or XAML. As fat as I know I'd doesn't deliver here but given these are declarative solutions performance is not an issue here.

On the other hand there are areas where HTML is not suitable. But still its potentially a (superior ) solution for 90% of current style smartphone apps. And it doesn't mean having exactly the same code on all devices, JS devs are masters in handling system variances.

Reply Score: 3

RE[4]: HTML5
by WorknMan on Wed 26th Sep 2012 18:04 UTC in reply to "RE[3]: HTML5"
WorknMan Member since:
2005-11-13

I really don't see why the whole classes of native apps couldn't be coded in html5.


Well, I think Facebook tried it, and we see how well that went.

Reply Score: 2

RE[5]: HTML5
by dsmogor on Thu 27th Sep 2012 09:03 UTC in reply to "RE[4]: HTML5"
dsmogor Member since:
2005-09-01

Yes, HTML is not there yet, specifically animation support is in its infancy. Still its layout engine is more than enough to build touch GUIs.

Reply Score: 2

RE[3]: HTML5
by Bill Shooter of Bul on Wed 26th Sep 2012 14:14 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: HTML5"
Bill Shooter of Bul Member since:
2006-07-14

What the sentence means is that the mobile OS companies will not be able to act as gatekeepers. Apple works very hard to screen applications to the app store and has used that control to censor applications it doesn't approve of for their content. If HTML5 as an app format takes off, they lose that control. They lose the cachet of listing the number of ios apps in the appstore. They lose the ability to brag about the number of ios developers.

Reply Score: 6

RE[4]: HTML5
by Lennie on Wed 26th Sep 2012 17:04 UTC in reply to "RE[3]: HTML5"
Lennie Member since:
2007-09-22

While I can understand that is probably what he meant, it is a false statement.

There is nothing which prevents HTML5-apps to go through the appstore.

Hell, many apps are currently build with HTML5.

When I first read it I thought he meant these companies (Apple, Google) want developer/customer lock-in.

Reply Score: 2

RE[5]: HTML5
by Bill Shooter of Bul on Wed 26th Sep 2012 17:49 UTC in reply to "RE[4]: HTML5"
Bill Shooter of Bul Member since:
2006-07-14

Yeah, that's a good point too. Developer lock-in is something that Apple tried to acquire early on. They backed off as Android surged ahead of them in market share and third party language builders started to grumble to regulators.

Reply Score: 3

RE[5]: HTML5
by No it isnt on Wed 26th Sep 2012 18:07 UTC in reply to "RE[4]: HTML5"
No it isnt Member since:
2005-11-14

So what? There's nothing to prevent html5 apps to go outside the app store, which is the actual issue.

Reply Score: 3

RE[6]: HTML5
by Lennie on Wed 26th Sep 2012 18:22 UTC in reply to "RE[5]: HTML5"
Lennie Member since:
2007-09-22

User trust, default settings and convience.

I also mostly only install applications from my Linux distribution (where else did the appstore concept come from ? ;-) ). This is because of convience and trust in the source of the application.

And there is also no standard for installing applications strait from the mobile browsers onto the smartphone.

As far as I know all there is a standard for describing the HTML5-application: http://www.w3.org/TR/widgets-apis/#the-widget-interface

Reply Score: 2

RE: HTML5
by Radio on Wed 26th Sep 2012 06:30 UTC in reply to "HTML5"
Radio Member since:
2009-06-20

It means there would be no vendor lock-in (tying customers to a platform), and no marketplace cut (anybody would be able to bypass app stores).

Reply Score: 6

RE: HTML5
by chemical_scum on Wed 26th Sep 2012 12:38 UTC in reply to "HTML5"
chemical_scum Member since:
2005-11-02

Apps Stores !! - Controlled by Apple and Google

Apple definitely have a reason for not wanting HTML5 Apps becoming ubiquitous - tie to Apple apps store and lock in people to iOS. Not so obvious in the case of Google - eyeballs for Google Apps is more impotant to them than lock in to Android

Reply Score: 6

RE: HTML5
by shmerl on Thu 27th Sep 2012 01:41 UTC in reply to "HTML5"
shmerl Member since:
2010-06-08

I'm not sure what he meant, but see it as a good thing. It reduces lock in.

Reply Score: 3

The industry needs this?
by Lion on Wed 26th Sep 2012 05:05 UTC
Lion
Member since:
2007-03-22

I genuinely don't see why the industry needs this? Please inform me?
iOS and Android have established sufficient foothold that neither one is going away in a hurry. The smartphone space has matured to a point where it's probably too late to gain a sizeable chunk of marketshare with a new platform.
The more platforms out there fighting over the scraps left by the market leaders, the less viable each new one becomes as a commercial proposition.
If phones (like PCs) allowed for movement between multiple OSes then I could see the point in things like this as at least a hobbyist effort, but in absence of that it strikes me as encouraging a duopoly rather than fighting one.
If I am wrong, or missing the point here, please show me why?

edit: what I think would be more useful to the industry would be an agreement on some kind of hardware standard by the smaller players, allowing people to play with the various alternatives.

Edited 2012-09-26 05:10 UTC

Reply Score: 2

RE: The industry needs this?
by spiderman on Wed 26th Sep 2012 06:55 UTC in reply to "The industry needs this?"
spiderman Member since:
2008-10-23

The smartphone market is not mature at all. Current phones are crap. The phones companies iterate their model lines every 3 months. People replace their phone every year to get the next one. Phones from 3 month ago are obsolete. The phone market has been very competitive in the last 15 years and still is. Current top sellers are not guaranteed to be the next one. Today it seems that nothing can stop Samsung and yesterday it seemed that Nokia was an unstopable train and previously Erikson, Sagem, Alcatel, etc... In 1 to 2 years all current phones will be completely obsolete and you don't know which company will be at the top. You can't imagine what phones will look like in 3 years but you will laugh at what you considered to be a good phone today.

Edited 2012-09-26 07:03 UTC

Reply Score: 7

RE[2]: The industry needs this?
by unclefester on Wed 26th Sep 2012 08:09 UTC in reply to "RE: The industry needs this?"
unclefester Member since:
2007-01-13

You can't imagine what phones will look like in 3 years but you will laugh at what you considered to be a good phone today.


Phones like the iPhone 5 and Galaxy SIII will be probably be considered entry level models in three years.

Reply Score: 3

RE: The industry needs this?
by dsmogor on Wed 26th Sep 2012 11:02 UTC in reply to "The industry needs this?"
dsmogor Member since:
2005-09-01

The only way I see it is if given platform delivers qualities not possible on current competition.
Both IOS and Android have a weak spots. IOS is naturally restricted by Apple devices premium status, Android is weak on tablets. Both platforms suck in power management.
Both platforms support limited set of form factors (Android somehow better). Multitasking on Android is ok but could still be improved. Both platforms are predominantly focused on cloud integration, a goal that may not make sense in every context.

Reply Score: 3

RE[2]: The industry needs this?
by ebasconp on Wed 26th Sep 2012 16:02 UTC in reply to "RE: The industry needs this?"
ebasconp Member since:
2006-05-09

Dominating third world emerging markets and huge markets (like China and India) will drive any other company/platform/OS into a big player.

Reply Score: 2

RE[3]: The industry needs this?
by dsmogor on Thu 27th Sep 2012 09:15 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: The industry needs this?"
dsmogor Member since:
2005-09-01

Agree, language barrier along with limited access to relevant services and content diminishes a lot of value present in incumbent ecosystems. Its reliance on heavy mobile data makes it even less relevant.
That's definitely an opportunity for new entrants.
Android has shown that being free (and to some extent open source) has big impact enabling the whole segments of the industry making low cost devices make jump to producing smart phones. There are countless companies assembling those and they couldn't be bothered signing separate deals with some big oversees OS providers for every phone they push given week.

Reply Score: 2

RE: The industry needs this?
by shmerl on Thu 27th Sep 2012 01:40 UTC in reply to "The industry needs this?"
shmerl Member since:
2010-06-08

Because normal Linux is way better (technically) than dumbed down Android, and because it's way more open than barbed wired iOS. Both are big pluses for developers.

Reply Score: 2

Phones and data gathering
by flypig on Wed 26th Sep 2012 10:59 UTC
flypig
Member since:
2005-07-13

The thing that shocks me is how utterly unusable Android is without a Google account. The OS practically locks you out until you log in.

I can understand why having all of your actions identifiably channelled through Google is good for Google, but I don't think this should be a requirement for a functional device. At the moment, it's just a Trojan Horse.

However, an important question for me would be whether Jolla is an improvement on this front. At the moment it's not clear, but I'd hope its Maemo heritage would make data collection less likely. Jussi Hurmola's comments about the Cloud in the article don't bode well though.

I'd be interested to know if the iPhone is any better.

Reply Score: 7

RE: Phones and data gathering
by Neolander on Wed 26th Sep 2012 13:59 UTC in reply to "Phones and data gathering"
Neolander Member since:
2010-03-08

Depends on what you call "unusable". The only task for which I have found a Google account to be absolutely necessary on Android is installing stuff from Google Play, and on this front they are on par with Apple's App Store offering.

However, what is highly annoying on Android is that when you do link the phone to your Google account, if you do not want it to leak lots of personal information to Google servers, you have to hunt obscure privacy settings all around the system apps. There is no centralized option to state "hands off my personal data !".

I don't know if Apple are any better on this front, I think I have heard somewhere that they do not even provide a way to opt out of personal monitoring on iOS, as is possible but painful on Android, but I don't know if it is true or not.

Edited 2012-09-26 14:00 UTC

Reply Score: 4

RE[2]: Phones and data gathering
by Alfman on Wed 26th Sep 2012 16:18 UTC in reply to "RE: Phones and data gathering"
Alfman Member since:
2011-01-28

Personally what I find exceptionally annoying is the lack of control over application privacy settings. At least the installation shows us what those settings are, but it's all or nothing. A user should be able to install an application without loosing control over privacy.

This is such an obvious shortcoming that we have to conclude google deliberately designed it to remove a user's choice in the matter. This is decidedly evil IMHO.

Reply Score: 3

RE[3]: Phones and data gathering
by Neolander on Wed 26th Sep 2012 20:05 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: Phones and data gathering"
Neolander Member since:
2010-03-08

Personally what I find exceptionally annoying is the lack of control over application privacy settings. At least the installation shows us what those settings are, but it's all or nothing. A user should be able to install an application without loosing control over privacy.

This is such an obvious shortcoming that we have to conclude google deliberately designed it to remove a user's choice in the matter. This is decidedly evil IMHO.

Well, considering that Cyanogenmod implemented selective privacy setting changes in a seemingly trivial fashion, I would tend to agree with you on this one.

Reply Score: 1

RE[4]: Phones and data gathering
by BushLin on Fri 28th Sep 2012 14:00 UTC in reply to "RE[3]: Phones and data gathering"
BushLin Member since:
2011-01-26

True for Cyanogenmod 7.2 (Gingerbread) and it's a dream to use as a result.
However, permission controls have been removed from CM9 (Ice Cream Sandwich) and CM10 (Jellybean) with precious little information coming out from the devs as to why they removed the best feature in the OS.
Feel free to concoct your own conspiracy theory as to why this happened but my money is on Google threatening to block access to Google Play, would prefer an official response though, there's been many requests which have gone unanswered.

Reply Score: 2

RE[5]: Phones and data gathering
by Neolander on Fri 28th Sep 2012 14:58 UTC in reply to "RE[4]: Phones and data gathering"
Neolander Member since:
2010-03-08

As a whole, they removed quite a lot of things in CM9, which was IIRC an attempt to get closer to AOSP and keep the features that remain under closer watch. I can also see why permission control was a good candidate for removal : they had many support requests from newbie CM users that experienced software breakage after trying to play too much with permissions and didn't relate one thing to another.

All that being said, I have to say that the conspiracy theory just sounds better ;)

Reply Score: 2

RE[2]: Phones and data gathering
by moondevil on Wed 26th Sep 2012 18:53 UTC in reply to "RE: Phones and data gathering"
moondevil Member since:
2005-07-08

I don't know if Apple are any better on this front, I think I have heard somewhere that they do not even provide a way to opt out of personal monitoring on iOS, as is possible but painful on Android, but I don't know if it is true or not.


They are worse, because until version 6, iOS allowed access to your personal data to all applications.

Reply Score: 4

RE: Phones and data gathering
by ichi on Wed 26th Sep 2012 15:57 UTC in reply to "Phones and data gathering"
ichi Member since:
2007-03-06

The thing that shocks me is how utterly unusable Android is without a Google account.


Hardly shocking, I'd say, when the exact single thing that tells Android from AOSP is that it's integrated with all the Google services, and yet most OEMs are licensing Android rather than going with AOSP.

I wouldn't call it "utterly unusable", though, but you do miss a lot.

Reply Score: 2

RE[2]: Phones and data gathering
by flypig on Sat 29th Sep 2012 12:18 UTC in reply to "RE: Phones and data gathering"
flypig Member since:
2005-07-13

I know this is an old story now, but I thought it was worth coming back to explain what I meant by 'utterly unusable'.

Hardly shocking, I'd say, when the exact single thing that tells Android from AOSP is that it's integrated with all the Google services, and yet most OEMs are licensing Android rather than going with AOSP.

I agree, it's obvious from Google's point of view, but not from mine. There's no reason most of the Google installed apps (maps, calendar, free apps on Google Play, etc.) need a Google account.

I wouldn't call it "utterly unusable", though, but you do miss a lot.

The new tablet I received recently wouldn't allow access to any of the Google services, including maps and calendar. This might sound obvious, but there's no reason why this should have been the case. I couldn't install any new software, even free software. Some of the third party applications that came with the device, such as Glowball ( http://www.tegrazone.com/games/glowball ) required a Google account. Why does a graphics tech demo require a Google account?!

Polaris Office and the web browser worked and are useful (without the ability to install Flash, of course). So, I agree 'utterly unusable' is hyperbole, but frankly there was no point me keeping the device unless I was going to sign in to Google (or install a different OS). No ordinary person would keep such a device without logging in.

Apologies for returning to such an old thread.

Reply Score: 2

v Equal time
by wocowboy on Wed 26th Sep 2012 13:20 UTC
RE: Equal time
by anevilyak on Wed 26th Sep 2012 13:35 UTC in reply to "Equal time"
anevilyak Member since:
2005-09-14

Like the one that was posted yesterday?
http://www.osnews.com/comments/26403

Reply Score: 6

Comment by ilovebeer
by ilovebeer on Wed 26th Sep 2012 15:07 UTC
ilovebeer
Member since:
2011-08-08

I don't believe the mobile phone market has peaked yet but to suggest it's still in its infancy as some of you are..... Come on.

Btw, mobile phones will always be handicapped by their little screens and they can already do what people want -- play/record HD video, take pictures, Facebook for useless updates in real-time, store music collections, provide web access, GPS navigation... Oh and make phone calls (they still do that right?). There isn't much more room for growth of things that actually matter. People don't want and won't pay the extra cost for their cell phone to be a miniature xbox360 or be as fast as their desktop because mobiles will never be a serious gaming platform or workstation. The headroom to load/bloat mobiles down with a bunch of near-useless crap isn't exactly what I would a call market in its infancy.

Reply Score: 3

RE: Comment by ilovebeer
by Lennie on Wed 26th Sep 2012 17:27 UTC in reply to "Comment by ilovebeer"
Lennie Member since:
2007-09-22

The features I'm missing/would think or hope might improve in the future are:
- batterytime
- lower price (I would expect it to drop even further)
- more storage space
- more memory
- more processing power
- better screens ?
- better peripheral support ? Not sure if this is needed, on a lot of smartpones could already support it through existing drivers.

Why the last one ? Because I wouldn't be surprised if desktops and workstations become more and more a niche market.

If someone makes a desktop-UI for the smartphone in a couple of years (could be based on existsing Linux distribution or Windows classic desktop), then smartphones will support "plugging in" keyboard, mouse and larger (probably non-touch) screen through a wire, wireless or near field communication.

It would be incredible strange if it did not happen.

As you have all these trends pushing towards it:
- cloudcomputing: your data is stored on some server
- bring-your-own-device: the office worker uses his every-day device at the job
- a smartphone is just a small-formfactor computer" it can basically run most applications people need
- very high volume production of smartphones means a very low price

As an example, the Raspberry Pi has a desktop and it basically is a wired smartphone tablet without the touchscreen.

Edited 2012-09-26 17:30 UTC

Reply Score: 3

RE[2]: Comment by ilovebeer
by ilovebeer on Wed 26th Sep 2012 17:53 UTC in reply to "RE: Comment by ilovebeer"
ilovebeer Member since:
2011-08-08

The features I'm missing/would think or hope might improve in the future are:
- batterytime
- lower price (I would expect it to drop even further)
- more storage space
- more memory
- more processing power
- better screens ?
- better peripheral support ? Not sure if this is needed, on a lot of smartpones could already support it through existing drivers.

Why the last one ? Because I wouldn't be surprised if desktops and workstations become more and more a niche market.

I would be extremely surprised by that. As someone who uses both daily for personal & professional work, I would say there's zero chance of it happening. I absolutely do not believe smartphones will replace desktops/workstations, or even come remotely close to turning them into niche devices.

If someone makes a desktop-UI for the smartphone in a couple of years (could be based on existsing Linux distribution or Windows classic desktop), then smartphones will support "plugging in" keyboard, mouse and larger (probably non-touch) screen through a wire, wireless or near field communication.

It would be incredible strange if it did not happen.

As you have all these trends pushing towards it:
- cloudcomputing: your data is stored on some server
- bring-your-own-device: the office worker uses his every-day device at the job
- a smartphone is just a small-formfactor computer" it can basically run most applications people need
- very high volume production of smartphones means a very low price

If all you need to do is check email, google things, use a calculator, etc. then a smartphone may suit those needs. However, there are tons of other applications in which a smartphone doesn't even give a slight glimmer of light being useful for. It blows me away that anyone would think smartphones are on track to replace desktops/workstations.. Then again I actually use desktop/workstations, and do more than check email on them.

As an example, the Raspberry Pi has a desktop and it basically is a wired smartphone tablet without the touchscreen.

That's absolutely not what a Raspberry Pi is. Don't let the ARM cpu fool you -- a smartphone and a Raspberry Pi are vastly different.

Reply Score: 1

RE[3]: Comment by ilovebeer
by Lennie on Wed 26th Sep 2012 18:10 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: Comment by ilovebeer"
Lennie Member since:
2007-09-22

If all you need to do is check email, google things, use a calculator, etc. then a smartphone may suit those needs. However, there are tons of other applications in which a smartphone doesn't even give a slight glimmer of light being useful for. It blows me away that anyone would think smartphones are on track to replace desktops/workstations.. Then again I actually use desktop/workstations, and do more than check email on them.


So what is the biggest market for desktop machines ? The consumer market.

What do consumers do on their desktop which a smartphone/tablet could not do in a couple of years ?

Or which they don't already have a dedicated device for (like games -> Xbox, Playstation, whatever).

Do tell me, I'd like to know.

The "only" missing piece is software.

I also see more and more business moving their legacy applications to central servers again (think terminal servers and so on).

Edited 2012-09-26 18:13 UTC

Reply Score: 3

RE[4]: Comment by ilovebeer
by ilovebeer on Wed 26th Sep 2012 20:04 UTC in reply to "RE[3]: Comment by ilovebeer"
ilovebeer Member since:
2011-08-08

If all you need to do is check email, google things, use a calculator, etc. then a smartphone may suit those needs. However, there are tons of other applications in which a smartphone doesn't even give a slight glimmer of light being useful for. It blows me away that anyone would think smartphones are on track to replace desktops/workstations.. Then again I actually use desktop/workstations, and do more than check email on them.

So what is the biggest market for desktop machines ? The consumer market.

What do consumers do on their desktop which a smartphone/tablet could not do in a couple of years ?

Or which they don't already have a dedicated device for (like games -> Xbox, Playstation, whatever).

Do tell me, I'd like to know.

The "only" missing piece is software.

I also see more and more business moving their legacy applications to central servers again (think terminal servers and so on).

...So I take it you're completely oblivious to how wide-spread desktops/workstations are outside of Joe Average sitting at his computer desk watching youtube video clips and checking his email. Boy are you in the dark.

Btw, the world has already established that smartphones and tablets are absolutely no replacement for people requiring desktops/workstations. Also, a whole world of computing needs exists outside of youtube, email, and facebook. I guess you never got either of those memos. Go ahead and keep believing smartphones and tablets are going to dominate computing in the (near) future though if that's what you truly believe. Even though it's tinfoil hat'ish, you have the right to believe anything you want no matter how much reality opposes it.

Reply Score: 1

RE[5]: Comment by ilovebeer
by Lennie on Thu 27th Sep 2012 07:17 UTC in reply to "RE[4]: Comment by ilovebeer"
Lennie Member since:
2007-09-22

No I'm not in the dark.

I'm just saying there are 2 desktop uses ("simple" office workers and the consumer) which are very wide spread uses of the desktop.

Would you really be surprised if they could do all tasks on hardware which is also used as a smartphone.

Reply Score: 3

RE[6]: Comment by ilovebeer
by ilovebeer on Thu 27th Sep 2012 15:16 UTC in reply to "RE[5]: Comment by ilovebeer"
ilovebeer Member since:
2011-08-08

No I'm not in the dark.

I'm just saying there are 2 desktop uses ("simple" office workers and the consumer) which are very wide spread uses of the desktop.

You're not in the dark but you completely ignore the existence of workstations and desktops that require more from ram, cpu, and/or video than you are going to get from a cell phone? Wow.... I guess you think it's easy to make your case when you refuse to acknowledge anything that opposes it.

Sorry to break the bad news to you, again, but there's no question you're in the dark.

Would you really be surprised if they could do all tasks on hardware which is also used as a smartphone.

If you only need to check email and google, no. If you need to do anything half-serious, yes. And it seems anyone with common sense or half-sane agrees.

Reply Score: 1

RE[7]: Comment by ilovebeer
by Lennie on Fri 28th Sep 2012 07:19 UTC in reply to "RE[6]: Comment by ilovebeer"
Lennie Member since:
2007-09-22

Hey, it's hard to predict the future. I'll admit it.

Netbooks didn't "kill" the desktop, but many people are now buying ultrabooks instead of laptops.

from a report from IHS:

"...average memory amount was 256 MB in Q1 2010, while the average in Q1 2012 was 800 MB. Average selling prices for low-power DDR2 (LPDDR2) DRAM retreated by 48 percent from $2.59 to $1.34 during 2011."

The high-end smartphones have 2GB, the low-end desktops have 4GB.

You don't see a trend ?

Reply Score: 3

RE[7]: Comment by ilovebeer
by Lennie on Mon 1st Oct 2012 19:19 UTC in reply to "RE[6]: Comment by ilovebeer"
Lennie Member since:
2007-09-22

Countries with crap landline infrastructure are obviously the first to adopt a society with more mobile Internet users than desktop/laptop Internet users:

India:

http://gs.statcounter.com/#mobile_vs_desktop-IN-daily-20120924-2012...

And some graphs based on much less users:

Nigeria:

http://gs.statcounter.com/#mobile_vs_desktop-NG-monthly-201110-2012...

Somalia:

http://gs.statcounter.com/#mobile_vs_desktop-SO-monthly-201110-2012...

Sudan:

http://gs.statcounter.com/#mobile_vs_desktop-SD-monthly-201110-2012...

Edited 2012-10-01 19:39 UTC

Reply Score: 2