peter02l

Apples to Apples: Will History Repeat Itself as Android Gains on the iPhone?

I don't see how any of your arguments and analogies hold.

Your account of the rise of MSDOS is a bit off. Apple did not have anything like a virtual monopoly. They never had a 90% market share, not even 50%.

Why should we substitute MSDOS with Andriod? Why not with Windows Mobile, or even better, with Symbian? Both are available on smartphones from multiple manufacturers, and both are losing market share. Furthermore, Symbian is now open source and free just like Android. So availability on phones from many manufacturers is not necessarily a recipe for success. Not to mention that both of these existed way before the iPhone. In fact, the only smartphone manufacturer that has been able to hold it's market share even after the release of the iPhone is Research in Motion, which like Apple makes the hardware and the software. So this business model in smartphones seems to be superior.

As for the rubbish camera! You probably have not used the iPhone. It's camera produces superior quality pictures to many smartphone cameras with higher megapixel specs.

If there were a company that is a marketing company first and a technology company second, I don't know how Microsoft slipped your mind. The amount of press they buy, the pre-announcements of upcoming technologies, and the money they spend is notorious. Apple's marketing budget for a company it's size is not anything to brag about. If you mean they know how to successfully spend that money, I agree you are right. But Apple is a technology company first. Their software, hardware, and industrial design are arguably ahead of competitors in using technology to provide solutions that work better and are enjoyable to use.

The iPhone, just as with Andriod based phones is available from multiple carriers in many countries. And those who have not signed any distribution contracts are very eager to do so. So there is no barrier there.

It is amusing that you finally say:

"In terms of range of products they have left every other platform behind. However the business model employed here is easily copied."

This business model is one that ties the software, ecosystem and the hardware to the same company. The only way Google can copy this is to make their own smartphone. I am sure you have heard the rumors, but I don't think there is a chance of that happening.

As for developing for several devices simultaneously, it is not as easy as you think. It's very expensive and code maintenance is a challenge. If it were easy, developers would not have abandoned the Macintosh in the 90s. Most developers find it more cost effective to limit their efforts to the dominant platform. That is the relevant lesson from the MSDOS days.

The $99 iPhone Is James Bond, The Others Are Joe Schmoe

Don't waste your breath talking to a Motorola i365.


On Jun 29 04:26 PM EJL wrote:

> You have been pumping the Pre well before it was released. Your
> analysis of the plans is accurate, but I can't get on board with
> the notion that the Pre is a better device than the 3G iPhone. I
> had one for a few weeks to test it out and my feeling is that it
> is neither beats out iPhone for a gooey UI and media/web nor does
> it beat out the Blackberry for messaging/core communication. I feel
> like it's stuck in between. The screen on the Pre is a little too
> small and the keyboard is usable at best (if you don't accidentally
> cut yourself on the sharp edge). I honestly felt like it's iPhone
> junior as it basically copies iPhone with the web browser and gestures.
> The finger gestures were usually accurate, but iPhone still has best
> in class touch. Your myth about the iPhone not multitasking is a
> joke. Of course it does, Apple just chooses to control it in the
> name of a great user experience. This will not end up being a persistent
> competitive advantage, especially in light of Sprint/Palm's marketing
> of this feature so heavily.
>
> What is most striking to me is that the feedback I am seeing on the
> 3G and 3GS is that the new software makes the device faster and improves
> usability and the new hardware really makes a difference in speed.
> While I don't agree with your analysis, the good news is that a rising
> tide lifts all boats and Palm will do fine as more users gravitate
> to smarter devices.

The $99 iPhone Is James Bond, The Others Are Joe Schmoe

I am sure he weighed everything!

(ounce for ounce)


On Jun 29 04:11 PM EJL wrote:

> comedy. please support this with facts. other than a few EAS policies,
> what else is there?

The $99 iPhone Is James Bond, The Others Are Joe Schmoe

Just bum a phone. You don't need a rate plan.


On Jun 29 10:58 AM User 389824 wrote:

> Its the Rate Plan, stupid! Even though the consumer gets one heck
> of a deal at $99, they will end up paying hundreds more over the
> term of the AT&T rate contract, compared to Sprint or T-Mobile.
> And the horrible AT&T coverage. The cost of the phone is only
> the beginning. Doubtless, Apple has produced a wonderful handset
> but it is married to a bum!

The $99 iPhone Is James Bond, The Others Are Joe Schmoe

This is the absolute best article I have read in a long while. Perfect characterization!

The EU Stabs Apple in the Back

P.S.

I didn't know it was the job of the EU or any government to create greater potential for Qualcomm.

The EU Stabs Apple in the Back

"The EU is now mandating that all cell phones be compatible with 3rd-party MicroUSB chargers by January 1, 2012."

This will not affect Apple much. Apples current charger has a USB connector to which the cable connect. That is the cable is not part of the connector. So all they have to do is to replace the USB connector on the charger with MicroUSB, and supply the appropriate cable.

This has nothing to do with the 30-pin connector. EU's concern is that people over the years end up with a multitude of chargers for various devices which they don't know what to do with. That is very wasteful, so I applaud what EU is trying to do here.

iPhone Versus the Rest: More Evidence Smartphone Makers Are in Trouble

To the first couple of fellows that posted:
As you say there are by far many more phone/music players being sold than iPods. The phone market is much bigger. Why is it then that sales of iPod haven't dropped. Why would anyone who's got an mp3 player in his phone buy an iPod too? The answer is iTunes. How do you know people who have got one of those phones all use them to listen to music?

Regarding Sanghvi: So anyone who switches from a Dell to a Mac and is happy with his/her choice is a Mac nut? You must be a regular Rush Limbaugh listener.

Just recall what a lot of people like you were saying about the iPod in the first two years after it came out. Apple's market share is almost 10 times that of the number 2 seller, Sandisk. And those two own almost 90% of the market.