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.
Thread beginning with comment 528791
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
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 Parent 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 Parent 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 Parent 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 Parent 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 Parent 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 Parent 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 Parent Score: 2