Linked by Thom Holwerda on Wed 8th Sep 2010 18:53 UTC
Google Hold on to your security blanket, people, because Google is rolling out a pretty big change to its search engine. Not too long ago the internet was in a shock because Google rolled out a new feature that allowed you to pick a background image for the Google home page, just like Microsoft's Bing. Google went a lot further today, and has launched Google Instant, adding search-before-you-type results to the Google home page.
Permalink for comment 440132
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
RE[5]: Comment by Tony Swash
by Neolander on Thu 9th Sep 2010 20:16 UTC in reply to "RE[4]: Comment by Tony Swash"
Neolander
Member since:
2010-03-08

Nokia couldn't build a touch based modern smart, and still can't, because they lack the software engineering and UI skills.

Touchscreen is not that special, an good UI team could code something for it in a matter of months. That is, if the widget set is flexible enough.

In my opinion, this is Nokia's problem : the UI code in s60 was probably made with only keyboard interface in mind, with manually specified pixel size for buttons and so on. So adapting symbian to touchscreens require a major rewrite, a rewrite which takes time, even when they have the necessary skills around.

Apple did not have that problem because they started coding with touchscreens in mind right away.

That made me laugh. Apple are the most financially successful tech company and that includes specifically being the most financially successful phone company. Since launching the iPhone Apple have basically walked of with the entire profits of the whole phone business. (...)

Sure. That's normal, because
1/They took the market by surprise
2/They were there first, so they have a reputation advantage
3/Their product is of reasonably good quality
4/The app store is the only mean of getting applications on the device, and because of this monopoly Apple can introduce insanely high charges for developers who use it.
5/They sell only one device and charge an insanely high price for it

My point is that they could have made more money. By being more attractive for the BlackBerry userbase, as an example. Apple could have made more money with things like better mail management, a user-accessible and properly organized filesystem, and arguably in the long term if they did not choose the App store-only + iTunes-only business.

So what? Even if that scenario came true Apple would almost certainly keep taking the bulk of profits and would still sell tens of millions of iPhones per quarter.

Do you think so ? This is not certain, because the current iPhone ecosystem only appeals to the wealthier people, while the Android ecosystem is for almost everyone.

If Apple hits 10% of the market with a device which costs $700 (actual cost for Apple : $200) and Android hits 80% of the market with a device which costs $300 (Actual cost for the manufacturer : $150), the sad truth is that Android still wins, because 8x150$ = 1200$ and 1x500$ = 500$. App sales undergo a similar equation : less profit per user, but on a much larger user base, can mean more profit.

So in the end, unless Apple understand that and sell lower-end models, or let other brands do it, they will lose the game. But, in my opinion, Apple probably won't allow other brands to make iOS device because they are still pissed off an obscure Macintosh clones story and won't dare to admit that the PC was successful because of its clones. History made them control freaks.

Trying to think that this is a rerun of the past with Android as Windows will lead to misunderstanding the realities today.

Who knows... Discussion gets too speculative on this path, so I think we should stop it there, and wait to see how things go.

In my opinion the most likely outcome will be a big share of the market each for Apple and Android, Windows Phone 7 is a dark horse and too early to call but it could be a runner.

May you be right. We can't afford another Windows story, the current shape of the smartphone market would make it far worse, partly due to jerky moves from Apple (*cough* App Store *cough*) that have been widely accepted and have now become the norm.

No one will be defeated or eclipsed except almost certainly Nokia (unless it adopts Android or there is a miracle) and probably RIM.

May you be wrong. Nokia is one of the best phone makers out there, it would be great if they came up with their great ideas on the touchscreen market.

As of RIM, their problem will be to change their use base : their smartphones are seen as a products for boring people in smoking and ties, changing this image without losing their current user base will be difficult, though they try their best with things like BlackBerry Messaging.

Many hand set mnakers will continue to operate on razor thin profit margins.

Again, this can be a way to profit. Thin margins + Much higher market acceptance = Higher profit, in the end...

Neither Android or Chrome guarantee Google an income earning future in the mobile world of tomorrow, and as long as (financially) they remain a one trick company they will remain vulnerable.

This again becomes too speculative, so I won't answer that.

Apple have just approved third party development tools for the iPhone including Flash based tools.

Indeed, they have surprised me with this one. Guess this means that they're finally fully ditching the Mac platform. One victory for software freedom in the mobile space, though many ugly things still remain...

Edited 2010-09-09 20:16 UTC

Reply Parent Score: 2