Linked by Thom Holwerda on Fri 29th Jan 2010 22:42 UTC
PDAs, Cellphones, Wireless During the iPad presentation, I was rather perplexed by Apple's claim to be the largest mobile device company in the world. Apparently, I wasn't the only one scratching his head, as Nokia itself, and even the Financial Times, is calling Apple out on its juggling with figures and definitions.
E-mail Print r 4   · Read More · 66 Comment(s)
Thread beginning with comment 406844
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
JonathanBThompson
Member since:
2006-05-26

And another inappropriate car analogy comes out! YAY!

Seriously: by the same logic you're using, the earth is mobile, because it moves in terms of rotating while also orbiting the sun, which also is moving throughout the galaxy, which is then, at the next level of scale, moving throughout the universe!

"Mobile" in practical relation to humans means: something *A* human can carry reasonably enough without assistance, and isn't location-dependent in any meaningful way, say, by needing to be plugged in. As such, a car of any type that can be transportation for one or more humans fails, but a bicycle can still qualify. Now, if we knew true giants, they just might consider a human-sized automobile.... a mobile device they can carry around, as a toy, like humans might also consider toy cars, because we can throw them in a bag, a box, or a pocket, or something reasonable to transport them, or just in a hand or two. So, while the word "automobile" in english denotes it's self-mobile, it still isn't a truly... mobile device by a human. Of course, no doubt you'll conclude I'm splitting hairs.

Just because Nokia wants to be overly restrictive in their definition of "Mobile electronic devices" does not make their rant valid against Apple stating their definition of the various devices they spelled out: this is purely a case of Nokia splitting hairs like you are, which only results in intellectual split-ends that are often best to cut off.

Reply Parent Score: 0

Thom_Holwerda Member since:
2005-06-29

ust because Nokia wants to be overly restrictive


You're turning it around here. It's Apple whowants to be overly loose, just so they can make another nice PR claim. Which is fine - that's what companies do - but that doesn't make it right.

Mobile devices have been defined they way they have for a long time, and Nokia is right in pointing that out. I'm wondering if all the Apple fanatics, such as yourself, would've been arguing in favour of including laptops if it had helped Nokia become the largest mobile device maker instead of Apple. I'm pretty sure you'd all be arguing against including laptops.

You don't just change a definition willy-nilly to suit your PR purposes. Sure, a laptop is mobile, but arguing that a 17" MacBook Pro belongs in the same product category as an iPhone or Nokia 3310 "just because it's mobile" is idiotic, at best.

Edited 2010-01-30 09:35 UTC

Reply Parent Score: 1

Chaos_One Member since:
2005-07-18

So you do admit a laptop is mobile, but we can't consider it to be a mobile device, because it's not a cell phone?

The "category" discussed here is "mobile devices". Steve mentioned a number of mobile device subcategories, including camcorders. He wasn't comparing a laptop to a cell phone.

Mobile devices is a very broad and general category. If it's a device and it's mobile you can fit it in here. Apple makes a number of these devices so why can't that say they're a big player in that department?

You're trying to disprove Steve/Apple's claim not by fact, but by some semi-official definition.

Reply Parent Score: 1

JonathanBThompson Member since:
2006-05-26

The great thing about standards is that there's so many to choose from!

Nokia is bitching and whining because Apple didn't use their perceived definition of "mobile devices" which you're defending religiously: I'm pointing out the simple fact of the matter that Apple clearly defined their definition of "mobile devices" as though they'd handed you a glossary with their definition, and proceeded to state what was what using that. In no manner was what Apple did remotely incorrect: it was merely different.

You only argue your point to argue your point and be heard, and it has nothing to do with logic of reality of valid word use, and then you go and accuse me of being a fanatic, when I'm merely arguing that you're being overly sensational just to prove you're "right" about something that's... whining from one big company about what their competitor has stated, stating it's an invalid statement, when measured purely objectively with full context, is not. This whole article you posted is... of invalid reasoning, as much as your earlier posting about Apple calling the A4 their custom-designed processor, and arguing what "is" "is" ala Bill Clinton during the impeachment hearings, all while taking the word of a piss-poor alternate site as being the gospel truth.

Believe it or not (I don't expect you will) I'd defend Microsoft, or even Nokia, just as strongly, if they were making sense, or Google, or Yahoo!: two of those named corps are competitors of a former employer of mine, one of those is a former employer of mine, and one of those may soon become the next employer of mine, and I'll let you puzzle that statement out ;)

Reply Parent Score: 4