GSlusher

Maybe the Droid Launch Wasn't So Bad After All

First, I'm a long-time (17 years) Mac user and an Apple user for even longer (25 years). I own a few shares of AAPL--my only "individual" stock--other holdings are all mutual funds. I hope to get an iPhone, maybe next year. (It was set back by losing almost $7K of photo gear to theft. I won't replace all of that, but do need enough to push back buying the iPhone--not the cost of the phone, but the service.)

However, I hope that the Droid sells well. Competition helps keep Apple pumping out improvements, though not the way many people think. If Apple based its current or next-year improvements on the Droid, they'd be in the same position as those desperately trying to catch up with the iPhone. Apple has to ANTICIPATE what its competitors WILL do, not REACT to what they HAVE done. (The Wayne Gretzky cliche comes to mind.) Apple has to assume that some companies will come out with very good phones, in some case beating the iPhone in some ways, though not the ways so many simplistic "analysts" harp on, like physical keyboards and user-replaceable batteries. (Side note: when the iPhone first came out, the non-replaceable battery was a "big deal" in the press. I asked people I knew who had an advanced phone two questions: 1) Can you replace your phone's battery? and 2) Do you have a spare battery? If so, do you carry it around with you? The surprise was that more than half didn't even know if they could replace the battery. Many assumed that they could, but didn't know how to do it. Only 3 of the 50+ I asked had an extra battery and only one carried it with her. She showed me by changing the battery, but the extra battery wasn't charged.)

Apparently, Apple was right that a user-replaceable battery wouldn't be a big issue for most people. (If it's important to YOU, then get a phone with one. 30+ million buyers apparently didn't care.) A company can lose its direction AND spend a lot of money chasing the needs/desires of that last segment of potential buyers, with negligible returns. (That's also why Apple hasn't--and probably won't--get into the "netbook" business--they don't need it.)

Instead, Apple has concentrated on the user experience, not the phone specs. Little things like the sensor that turns off the screen when you put the phone to your ear, the intelligent auto-correction that adapts to the user, the consistent interface (a big problem with Palm OS software for my TX), even the form factor (thin, rounded for comfort) are examples. Thus, to me, it will be any enhancements to the user experience in the Droid that will have an effect on Apple's plans, not the hardware.

I have a feeling that Apple was not all that serious about partnering with Verizon because of CDMA. They would have had to make two iPhones--CDMA for the US and GSM for nearly every other country. That increases R&D, manufacturing and support costs. Add to that the inherent limitations of CDMA (e.g.,no simultaneous voice & data, so you can't access the Internet while on a phone call) and Apple wouldn't be likely to go that route--not then and not now. When Verizon implements a LTE network over a significant area, then Apple may come out with an LTE iPhone.

It will be interesting to see how many Droids are sold to people who were not already Verizon subscribers. (A high percentage of iPhone sales are to "switchers.")

Does Steve Jobs Deserve Fortune's "CEO of the Decade" Award?

Of course, they knew that when they asked him.

On Nov 06 08:48 PM None-Too-Great Hits wrote:

> I too have often wondered how the Stanford officials on the podium
> felt when Steve mentioned that he had never graduated from college
> himself.

Whose Notebook PC Business Is Most Valuable?

Care to bet your life on that? I.e., if any computer using your chip experiences any problem from malware over, say, 7 years, would you commit ritual suicide in public? If your answer is "No," don't use words like "absolute certainty."

On Nov 08 09:43 AM dmeharc wrote:

> our chip works with absolute certainty.

How Apple and iPhone Blew It in China

How? You don't provide any reasons, examples, data, or anything other than a bald assertion.

On Nov 08 05:40 PM Advill wrote:

> Americentric is not working, your analysis is wrong.

Motorola's Droid Comes in Peace - For Now

That's only part of the problem. CDMA does not allow simultaneous voice & data; GSM does. Thus, a Verizon Droid user cannot check something on the Internet while on a call--she will have to terminate the call, first. While that may sound trivial, it isn't. I've known people who carry two phones, one for calls, the other for data, for this reason. If a client calls, they need to be able to access their company's private web site & database. Telling a client (or boss or spouse/significant other/partner), "I have to hang up so that I can check that on my brand-new Droid. I'll call you back," is not good.


On Nov 07 05:31 AM kbear2 wrote:

> Regarding the CDMA/GSM issue, there are phones that can work on either
> system. The HTC TouchPro2 has capabilities built in for both but
> the GSM has been disabled by firmware in order to avoid FCC testing.
> It would be very easy for Apple to include dual use capability.

Quest for the Droid Crowds: Not So Epic

Congrats on your new Droid! Try a little experiment: make a call, then check something on the web, or send or receive email, while you're on the call.

Once you have the results of the experiment, imagine that the person on the other end was 1) your spouse/significant other/partner; 2) your boss; 3) your most important client; 4) your mother. Suppose 1) your spousigothpartner wanted the address of a restaurant where you will meet at lunch--a restaurant you've never been to; 2) your boss wanted some data from a report that you have on the company's network, but not on the Droid; 3) your client wanted information on a product or service, information that's on the company's private web site, but not on the Droid; 4) your mother said that she had just emailed you a photo of your new nephew and wanted to know if you think he's as adorable as she does--she's waiting in her usual impatient way and wants an answer right now.

Apple's App Store Numbers Continue to Amaze

"Apple (AAPL) had been making MP3 tracks available for a few years on the iStore."

No, it hadn't, as there is and never was anything called "iStore." It was originally, "iTunes Music Store," then became iTunes Store. That is sloppy writing that has no place in professional journalism.

I wonder if the author also calls the iPod touch the "iTouch"?

It's fairly trivial when a layman or commentor uses those terms, but a very different situation when a professional journalist does it.

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

Some things to ponder:

1. What will happen when a Droid user is on a call with her boss or a very important client and need to check something on the company's web site. As I understand it, she will have to terminate the call in order to get the information, as Verizon's CDMA network cannot handle voice and data simultaneously. Will her boss be pleased? Will the client stick with her? In both cases, her own choice led to the difficulty. (The one person I know who bought a Pre is ready to ditch it and get another phone--probably an iPhone--for this very reason.)

2. What will happen when the first virus strikes Android phones? "Open source" could equate to "virus heaven." Combine that with little or no control of applications and there may be a major disaster just waiting to happen. It could make the problems with the Sidekick look benign.

3. What will happen if the Android phones start crashing because of poorly-designed apps, as well as malware? The Treo was plagued by "problem" applications that could crash the phone, even if they weren't "viruses." ("Multitasking" in the sense that Android uses it could make the probability of crashing higher.)

4. One reason that Verizon seems to have the "better" network may be that they don't have to support the data load that ATT does. Will their system stand up to a much greater data load?

Google Should Make Apple Beg for Maps Navigation

Consider the Droid. What will happen if you're "navigating" with Google Maps and you get a call? As I understand it, if you answer the call, you will cease to get data, due to the limitations of CDMA (Verizon & Sprint). Poof! There goes the navigation.

On top of that, I wouldn't be so sanguine about Streetview. I've yet to find it to be more accurate than 200 feet. I've always had to move the view manually to find the correct address. Besides, Streetview would be useless while driving--the screen is too small and it would require looking away from the road. In some states, using a handheld device while driving can get you arrested--a nice thing if you like to pay fines and higher insurance premiums.

Google's Android vs. Apple: History Repeats Itself

Lest someone think I was repeating John-Galt's points, his message was posted while I was writing mine.

Google's Android vs. Apple: History Repeats Itself

Re: Apple's "closed" OS & platform
There's a lot of hype about "open" systems, but, lest we forget, Windows is NOT "open," yet 90+% of computers run it. What happens with some "open" systems can best be demonstrated by the older Palm devices. There was no control, no certification, no checking. The result was that some applications routinely crashed the system. A friend had a Treo (don't know which, but it wasn't a Windows Mobile version). He installed a game and, within a day, the Treo started crashing DURING CALLS--and the game was NOT running. I had a game on my Palm TX that would turn the TX back ON if I turned it off while the game is showing. The TX looks like it turns off, but, 5-10 seconds later, it turns back on. It caused the battery to run down dozens of times before I noticed the behavior. (I keep the TX in a metal case and would shut the case after turning it off.) I contacted Palm, who told me it wasn't their problem. I finally contacted the developer, who told me to go p*ss up a rope. He wasn't supporting the game any more.

That's the beauty of an "open" system: you can get hosed and even pay for the privilege, and no one will accept responsibility.

The Problem with iPhone Killers

Sorry, Tom B, but the Razr was made by Motorola. Palm had nothing to do with it. That rather negates your first paragraph.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...

On Oct 27 01:38 PM Tom B wrote:

> I had two friends who had RAZR's; they both hated them. Like Peter
> Lynch, I believe first hand exposure to products can really help
> inform buying decisions. I'm not SURPRISED the Palm RAZR sucked;
> I owned an early Palm and two later iterations.

Not Everyone Likes Windows 7

Not quite so fast. A FEW major upgrades have been unusable on older Macs, but not many. My 2004 iMac G4 (NON-Intel) can use every OS through 10.5, though it initially came with OS 9 & OS 10.3. The same is true for my 2004 12-inch PowerBook G4. My first 15" iMac G3 (2002) could have run through 10.4, though it came with OS 9 & 10.1. Even the very first iMac can run through OS 10.3.9, even though it came with OS *8*. That meant that it could run EVERY Apple OS that came out from the time it was released in 1998 until OS 10.4 came out in 2005--almost 8 years.

OS 10.6 "Snow Leopard" can run on any Intel Mac, which means essentially any sold new since early 2006.

That is quite different from a friend who found that his 1-1/2-year-old laptop couldn't use the "full" version of Vista, but only a crippled version. (Note that Apple doesn't make but ONE version of OS X---not counting the server version.)

On Oct 26 09:12 AM wusseldussel wrote:

> The problem with Mac: when there is a major upgrade of OS you have
> to buy all the hardware new since the new OS does not support the
> old hardware.

Why Apple Is Worth $80

isn't the point of a "free" market that something (including a share of stock) is "worth" what someone will pay for it? I may contend that a Ventures LP I have is "worth" $1,000, but, if I can only get $1.98 for it on eBay, it's "worth" $1.98.

How Apple's Market Share Will Propel Stock to $500, Part 1

Microsoft commands only X% of the **OS** market. Apple isn't in the business of selling an OS. It sells hardware AND the OS, plus a bundle of software that IT creates. Sure, Apple sells updates to the OS and software (iLife, etc), but that's probably minor compared to the revenue from hardware sales. As long as the consumer has to buy a Mac to get the Mac OS, Apple's sales will go up and up.

Yes, I realize that MSFT sells more than Windows but guruji referred to the "97%" number. Many copies of WIndows are sold for directly to the PC manufacturers for relatively little (compared to the retail price).


On Oct 23 10:57 PM guruji wrote:

> Get real AAPL cheerleaders. 500$ per share translates to nearly half
> trillion market cap. Nearly one and half times the Microsoft's value
> which is currently commanding 97 percent of the market share.