AwakenedLands
Mar 31, 06:46 PM
I bet they tried, but it didn't work well. They're just feigning ignorance. As they themselves said, they cut corners. I read this as they didn't optimize the software-- it's probably very processor and RAM intensive. Just speculation though.
That's just MORE reason to open source it. Cutting corners is the one thing Apple generally doesn't do (or they spin it perfectly). If Google cut corners on Honeycomb to meet some "deadline", that's one thing that could benefit from a community of free coders willing to code for Android.
To me it sounds like there is a flaw with Honeycomb that is pretty serious, but they need to make it available for phones as soon as they can to keep up with Apple. Once fix it becomes open.
That's just MORE reason to open source it. Cutting corners is the one thing Apple generally doesn't do (or they spin it perfectly). If Google cut corners on Honeycomb to meet some "deadline", that's one thing that could benefit from a community of free coders willing to code for Android.
To me it sounds like there is a flaw with Honeycomb that is pretty serious, but they need to make it available for phones as soon as they can to keep up with Apple. Once fix it becomes open.
jmbear
Nov 29, 12:39 PM
See, that's the catch-22 for new artists. The labels are the ones that get tunes played on the radio. In the 50's and 60's they would strong-arm their stuff in, but I'm sure even nowadays they provide incentives (read: bribes) to get new stuff on the air. Especially if they think the band is really good and will make it in the long run. And don't fool yourself into thinking a new band can get huge without radio.
The internet can become the new radio. I am quite fond of looking for pre-made playlists, I will get the songs on LimeWire, listen to them, the ones I like, I buy legally, the ones I don�t I delete them. You don�t get commercials, just music. I am not saying that radio is going to dissapear completely. TV didn�t kill it. But its importance will diminish.
The problem is that the labels get the artists by the balls when they sign them up to ridiculous contracts. Your 1-4 examples look pretty good on paper, but in order to sell any significant number of copies of their music, anyone wanting it (but doesn't know it yet) has to wade through tons of (what that persons sees as) crap just to get any exposure to something they'll consider good. I'm sure there's a lot of music in the indie catalog that I would just love, but I don't have the time to wade through it all to find it. Instead, I'll listen to the radio and when I hear something I like, I'll try to pay attention to who it is. I may or may not end up buying it, or checking out what else they do, but without radio exposure, most good indie bands don't have a chance in hell of selling to anyone except those that happen to be in the bar where they're playing one weekend..
iTMS could potentially change this. There are some people that will do all the research for you (as in what is good music), then ratings will allow you to get the good songs! It�s similar (and somebody will flame me for saying this) to researching a product on Amazon or CNET, you usually look for a LCD screen, all the results pop, and you will go for the ones with the highest ratings, read the comments and eventually make up your mind. Some day you will look up for electronic music (which I love), all the DJ�s will pop, you will pick the highest rated songs or playlists (because most people like a song because other people like it), listen to their songs for free (yeah, just like radio), and then buy them if you want.
Now, if you take a look at already established and popular bands, that's a different story. Someone mentioned huge bands like Pink Floyd. Their last couple of CDs didn't need a big label to sell. People were going to buy it if they like Floyd no matter what. And in a case of that kind of popularity, the radio stations were going to play them with or without a major label. The same could be applied to other huge (classic) rock bands, as well as established artists in other music styles (country, rap, R&B, blues, etc...). Another example would be someone like Eric Clapton. He could put one out on "Clapton Records" and would sell nearly, if not exactly, the same number of CDs as he will on a major label..
I agree record labels + good music = superstars like Calpton, Floyd, U2 etc... But these bands became popular in a different time (before the internet). Internet is changing the record labels� business model, and that is what they afraid of. The new wait of creating bands and distributing their music is not as profitable for them as it used to.
Unfortunately, the number of artists (of any type of music) that could dismiss the labels and still sell as many CDs and get the same radio exposure are limited. And any new band is going to go nowhere without radio (or MTV/VH1) exposure.
Internet is offering them exposure. Right now MTV and VH1 are still popular. But YouTube, Yahoo!, MSN could become the new MTV and VH1.
Not really relevant, but interesting to think about is that most of you have probably seen the video of the ruma ruma guy (I can�t link it because I am at work and the proxie does not allow me to visit YouTube). But how many have actually seen the video for the song? YouTube made that fat kid a star, and most people probably know his face better than the guys that sing the song. Exposure.
In the end, I don't see the labels going away totally any time soon. They're in cahoots with the big FM music stations and in general, they do a good job of promoting new good bands that sign up. It's just a shame that there's really nothing to keep them from raping the artists. If there were just some way for new bands to get exposure to the masses without having to sell their souls to the labels then things would be better. Unfortunately, the Internet can only go so far in helping a new band with this.
I agree, they won�t go away anytime soon, but change is coming, and change will be good for artists and consumers, not for the record labels.
Sorry for my weird grammar or mispells, I am not a native english speaker, I don�t have a spell checker on this computer (in english at least) and I am too lazy to proof read what I wrote lol :)
The internet can become the new radio. I am quite fond of looking for pre-made playlists, I will get the songs on LimeWire, listen to them, the ones I like, I buy legally, the ones I don�t I delete them. You don�t get commercials, just music. I am not saying that radio is going to dissapear completely. TV didn�t kill it. But its importance will diminish.
The problem is that the labels get the artists by the balls when they sign them up to ridiculous contracts. Your 1-4 examples look pretty good on paper, but in order to sell any significant number of copies of their music, anyone wanting it (but doesn't know it yet) has to wade through tons of (what that persons sees as) crap just to get any exposure to something they'll consider good. I'm sure there's a lot of music in the indie catalog that I would just love, but I don't have the time to wade through it all to find it. Instead, I'll listen to the radio and when I hear something I like, I'll try to pay attention to who it is. I may or may not end up buying it, or checking out what else they do, but without radio exposure, most good indie bands don't have a chance in hell of selling to anyone except those that happen to be in the bar where they're playing one weekend..
iTMS could potentially change this. There are some people that will do all the research for you (as in what is good music), then ratings will allow you to get the good songs! It�s similar (and somebody will flame me for saying this) to researching a product on Amazon or CNET, you usually look for a LCD screen, all the results pop, and you will go for the ones with the highest ratings, read the comments and eventually make up your mind. Some day you will look up for electronic music (which I love), all the DJ�s will pop, you will pick the highest rated songs or playlists (because most people like a song because other people like it), listen to their songs for free (yeah, just like radio), and then buy them if you want.
Now, if you take a look at already established and popular bands, that's a different story. Someone mentioned huge bands like Pink Floyd. Their last couple of CDs didn't need a big label to sell. People were going to buy it if they like Floyd no matter what. And in a case of that kind of popularity, the radio stations were going to play them with or without a major label. The same could be applied to other huge (classic) rock bands, as well as established artists in other music styles (country, rap, R&B, blues, etc...). Another example would be someone like Eric Clapton. He could put one out on "Clapton Records" and would sell nearly, if not exactly, the same number of CDs as he will on a major label..
I agree record labels + good music = superstars like Calpton, Floyd, U2 etc... But these bands became popular in a different time (before the internet). Internet is changing the record labels� business model, and that is what they afraid of. The new wait of creating bands and distributing their music is not as profitable for them as it used to.
Unfortunately, the number of artists (of any type of music) that could dismiss the labels and still sell as many CDs and get the same radio exposure are limited. And any new band is going to go nowhere without radio (or MTV/VH1) exposure.
Internet is offering them exposure. Right now MTV and VH1 are still popular. But YouTube, Yahoo!, MSN could become the new MTV and VH1.
Not really relevant, but interesting to think about is that most of you have probably seen the video of the ruma ruma guy (I can�t link it because I am at work and the proxie does not allow me to visit YouTube). But how many have actually seen the video for the song? YouTube made that fat kid a star, and most people probably know his face better than the guys that sing the song. Exposure.
In the end, I don't see the labels going away totally any time soon. They're in cahoots with the big FM music stations and in general, they do a good job of promoting new good bands that sign up. It's just a shame that there's really nothing to keep them from raping the artists. If there were just some way for new bands to get exposure to the masses without having to sell their souls to the labels then things would be better. Unfortunately, the Internet can only go so far in helping a new band with this.
I agree, they won�t go away anytime soon, but change is coming, and change will be good for artists and consumers, not for the record labels.
Sorry for my weird grammar or mispells, I am not a native english speaker, I don�t have a spell checker on this computer (in english at least) and I am too lazy to proof read what I wrote lol :)
Buschmaster
Aug 16, 10:36 PM
Was there any doubt it wouldn't be a lot faster? I mean, I know it was already plenty fast, but come on...
depperl
Aug 7, 04:30 PM
if leopard is not enough here's some more new features: Leopard-Server (http://www.apple.com/server/macosx/leopard/)
i think leopard-server is going to have some cool things for the enterprise-market :rolleyes:
i think leopard-server is going to have some cool things for the enterprise-market :rolleyes:
dgree03
Apr 6, 02:09 PM
What bothers me is people think because an iPad sells more it is superior, unless you made the iPad or work at Apple I don't see how that makes sense. Also most people on here have never even played with a XOOM.
I own both an iPad2 (my wife's technically) and my XOOM. I had an iPad1 since launch until I sold it for a XOOM. For me, Apps are lacking on XOOM but it's made up for with the true tablet OS and excellent first party apps.
Find me a better GMail/Email, Maps, Browser on the iPad and other stuff you will actually use most often and I'll sell my XOOM. Since I've had my XOOM, I haven't touched the iPad2. Everytime I pick it up I miss using the XOOM.
Took the words right out of my mouth. I am in the EXACT same situation as you.. with the EXACT same reaction.
I own both an iPad2 (my wife's technically) and my XOOM. I had an iPad1 since launch until I sold it for a XOOM. For me, Apps are lacking on XOOM but it's made up for with the true tablet OS and excellent first party apps.
Find me a better GMail/Email, Maps, Browser on the iPad and other stuff you will actually use most often and I'll sell my XOOM. Since I've had my XOOM, I haven't touched the iPad2. Everytime I pick it up I miss using the XOOM.
Took the words right out of my mouth. I am in the EXACT same situation as you.. with the EXACT same reaction.
dernhelm
Aug 7, 03:48 PM
Hey nice to see osx will have system restore =D
YOU MUST BE KIDDING. Have you actually used System Restore to restore a single file? Oh that's right, you can't. All you can do it reset your system back to a point where the file existed.
This is MUCH more powerful, and more like something users would actually want.
System Restore is great for those times when you want to apply a system patch that could be iffy, and you are willing to "snap" a restore point, apply the patch, and roll back if something didn't fly.
But for the normal user, it is much more useless.
YOU MUST BE KIDDING. Have you actually used System Restore to restore a single file? Oh that's right, you can't. All you can do it reset your system back to a point where the file existed.
This is MUCH more powerful, and more like something users would actually want.
System Restore is great for those times when you want to apply a system patch that could be iffy, and you are willing to "snap" a restore point, apply the patch, and roll back if something didn't fly.
But for the normal user, it is much more useless.
hyperpasta
Aug 5, 05:53 PM
why no mbp? its a pro machine so shouldnt it be updated?
The upcoming MacBook Pro is expected to use a chip known as the Core 2 Duo, versus today's Core Duo. Code-named Merom, this chip will not ship in volume until later this month/early next month. Therefore, IF a Merom laptop is shown, it will not ship for month(s). It is much more likely that we see new Macs using the desktop version of the Core 2 Duo, which is codenamed Conroe and is already being readied to ship as I write this.
The upcoming MacBook Pro is expected to use a chip known as the Core 2 Duo, versus today's Core Duo. Code-named Merom, this chip will not ship in volume until later this month/early next month. Therefore, IF a Merom laptop is shown, it will not ship for month(s). It is much more likely that we see new Macs using the desktop version of the Core 2 Duo, which is codenamed Conroe and is already being readied to ship as I write this.
(L)
Sep 19, 02:42 AM
If all MBPs came with a gig of RAM standard, DL DVD drives, and a better graphics card (and Merom CPU), I would be thrilled.
Look, I don't mean to pick on anybody, and I'm sure this is valid and relevant, but just about anybody would love to see things get generally better. Like, I wish the MacBooks were as fast as the Mac Pros and weigh in at 1 lb. Realistically, while I do agree that MBP's would make sense with 1gb ram standard, I'm not so sure about the other updates. As for updating the CPU, Apple does well to keep up on the technology so long as they can afford to, even if it is the operating system that draws most new users, and I do think they will update it soon, at least for MBPs. But, this is to stay competitive and to offer a pro model that can really be used as a pro model - not to thrill consumers with just how much they can upgrade the machines.
Look, I don't mean to pick on anybody, and I'm sure this is valid and relevant, but just about anybody would love to see things get generally better. Like, I wish the MacBooks were as fast as the Mac Pros and weigh in at 1 lb. Realistically, while I do agree that MBP's would make sense with 1gb ram standard, I'm not so sure about the other updates. As for updating the CPU, Apple does well to keep up on the technology so long as they can afford to, even if it is the operating system that draws most new users, and I do think they will update it soon, at least for MBPs. But, this is to stay competitive and to offer a pro model that can really be used as a pro model - not to thrill consumers with just how much they can upgrade the machines.
Bill McEnaney
Feb 28, 12:52 PM
What is a "gay lifestyle" exactly? We get up, take a shower, brush our teeth, go to work and come home to our families just like anyone else.
A same-sex attracted person is living a "gay lifestyle" when he or she dates people of the same sex, "marries" people of the same sex, has same-sex sex, or does any combination of these things. I think that if same-sex attracted people are going to live together, they need to do that as though they were siblings, not as sex partners. In my opinion, they should have purely platonic, nonsexual relationships with one another.
Heterosexual couples need to reserve sex for opposite-sex monogamous marriage. If I had a girlfriend, I might kiss her. But I wouldn't do that to deliberately arouse either of us. If either of us felt tempted to have sex with each other, the kissing would stop right away. I know of a woman who gave an excellent answer when men asked her why saved sex for marriage. She said, "I"m worth waiting for." She lived by her Catholic convictions, and she wouldn't risk letting any man use her as a mere object, as a mere tool.
Some may say, "I have sex with my girlfriend to show her that I love her." If I had a girlfriend, I would hope I would love her enough to protect her from the physical and psychological risks that come with non-marital sex. The best way for me to do that is for my hypothetical girlfriend and me to be celibate before marriage.
Sacramentally same-sex "marriage" isn't marriage. Neither is merely civil marriage of any sort. If I understand what the Catholic Church's teachings about marriage merely civil, it teaches non-sacramental marriage, whether same-sex or opposite-sex, is legal fornication.
A same-sex attracted person is living a "gay lifestyle" when he or she dates people of the same sex, "marries" people of the same sex, has same-sex sex, or does any combination of these things. I think that if same-sex attracted people are going to live together, they need to do that as though they were siblings, not as sex partners. In my opinion, they should have purely platonic, nonsexual relationships with one another.
Heterosexual couples need to reserve sex for opposite-sex monogamous marriage. If I had a girlfriend, I might kiss her. But I wouldn't do that to deliberately arouse either of us. If either of us felt tempted to have sex with each other, the kissing would stop right away. I know of a woman who gave an excellent answer when men asked her why saved sex for marriage. She said, "I"m worth waiting for." She lived by her Catholic convictions, and she wouldn't risk letting any man use her as a mere object, as a mere tool.
Some may say, "I have sex with my girlfriend to show her that I love her." If I had a girlfriend, I would hope I would love her enough to protect her from the physical and psychological risks that come with non-marital sex. The best way for me to do that is for my hypothetical girlfriend and me to be celibate before marriage.
Sacramentally same-sex "marriage" isn't marriage. Neither is merely civil marriage of any sort. If I understand what the Catholic Church's teachings about marriage merely civil, it teaches non-sacramental marriage, whether same-sex or opposite-sex, is legal fornication.
eoblaed
Apr 25, 02:41 PM
�We take issue specifically with the notion that Apple is now basically tracking people everywhere they go,� Aaron Mayer, an attorney for the plaintiffs, said today in a telephone interview. �If you are a federal marshal you have to have a warrant to do this kind of thing, and Apple is doing it without one.
Hyperbole and ignorance all in one fell swoop.
Apple isn't tracking people. Your device is storing data. The same way it stores all your contact information, your text conversations, your photographs, and your web history -- yet no one is claiming that Apple is tracking your text conversations or contact information.
It angers me when people like this Mayer guy not only take advantage of people's lack of understanding about what's going on, but exploit it for sensationalistic gain. I'd love to poke him in the eye.
Hyperbole and ignorance all in one fell swoop.
Apple isn't tracking people. Your device is storing data. The same way it stores all your contact information, your text conversations, your photographs, and your web history -- yet no one is claiming that Apple is tracking your text conversations or contact information.
It angers me when people like this Mayer guy not only take advantage of people's lack of understanding about what's going on, but exploit it for sensationalistic gain. I'd love to poke him in the eye.
Multimedia
Jul 30, 03:25 PM
Gee, talk about getting ahead of yourself.
Core 3 will be out before Vista is. I'm going to call it now.
Everybody, be my witness, Core 3 (any processor that goes beyond Core 2 because I don't know if they'll call it "Core 3") will be out before a consumer version of Vista is shipped.Here's an example of a post based in fantasy instead of fact. Core 3 is a distinct next generation set of processors based on a 45nm manufacturing process that will not begin before LATE 2008 and reign all of 2009 and 2010. :rolleyes:
We are your witness. And what we are witnessing is that you have not studied the Intel Roadmap at all.You don't think Vista will be out before the revision to the Core 2 Duo due in Q1 2007 with the Santa Rosa chipset??? I bet Vista will ship by the time the Santa Rosa chipset is ready, especially because MS is suggesting Vista systems use harddrives or Mobos with flash RAM to speed up the boot process.Vista ships early 2007 and way preceeds the Core 3 launch. :rolleyes:
Core 2 is with us for the next two years, all of 2007 and most of 2008.:)
Core 3 will be out before Vista is. I'm going to call it now.
Everybody, be my witness, Core 3 (any processor that goes beyond Core 2 because I don't know if they'll call it "Core 3") will be out before a consumer version of Vista is shipped.Here's an example of a post based in fantasy instead of fact. Core 3 is a distinct next generation set of processors based on a 45nm manufacturing process that will not begin before LATE 2008 and reign all of 2009 and 2010. :rolleyes:
We are your witness. And what we are witnessing is that you have not studied the Intel Roadmap at all.You don't think Vista will be out before the revision to the Core 2 Duo due in Q1 2007 with the Santa Rosa chipset??? I bet Vista will ship by the time the Santa Rosa chipset is ready, especially because MS is suggesting Vista systems use harddrives or Mobos with flash RAM to speed up the boot process.Vista ships early 2007 and way preceeds the Core 3 launch. :rolleyes:
Core 2 is with us for the next two years, all of 2007 and most of 2008.:)
LightSpeed1
Mar 26, 12:07 AM
i wonder if apple will release a version in the app store???They should.
ssk2
Mar 22, 04:40 PM
You know, on second thought....there never will be an iPad "killer".
Show me a single tablet, from any manufacturer...that will out-sell the iPad.
You can't.
Which of the announced competitors will sell over 15 million in a year? To be the iPad killer...something will have to sell at least 15 million...and that was before iPad2 was released.
Even if you take into account something that has not been announced yet...you can't find an iPad killer. There are too many competitors to the throne...how can the public differentiate between the competitors, some of which are the same thing hardware and software wise....and pick one that will be the "killer".
There has not been an iPhone killer released ever....there has not been an iPod killer released ever...and there will not be an iPad killer released...ever.
And yes, the Android fanboi cult will chime in and tout the latest and greatest...which will be superseded in two weeks by something else from HTC or Motorola or whoever...if any of these are the killer..why are their sales so much lower than a comparative iDevice?
And don't toss me total number of Android sales or activations....show me a single model from any manufacturer that has sold greater than any comparable Apple portable device (iPad, iPhone, iPod)....there isn't one.
(awaiting the "sales don't matter" comments...and "specs are where its at" dribble.....)
This is EXACTLY what I was talking about in my first post on this thread - fanboyism at its worst.
"There will never be an iPad killer"? What a ridiculous statement to make. Who knows where mobile tablet computing is heading in the next 1/2/3/10 years. Maybe demand for small tablets will rise? Maybe other operating systems will outstrip iOS? You knows how many units ANY particular tablet will sell next year? It so dismaying to see such a ridiculous view spouted as gospel.
And anyway, why the obsession with a 'killer'? People don't use a Dyson vacuum cleaner because its a Bosch vacuum killer, people don't use chopsticks because they are cutlery killers, hell, apply the analogy to anything. People will ALWAYS pick (rabid fanboys aside) the consumer tool that works best for them. If that means that I find the Playbook fits my needs, I don't give two hoots if it's not an iPad killer. It really doesn't matter to the sane individual.
FWIW, I believe that for all its failings, Android's spread across many developer platforms DOES have its benefits - who knows, we may seem a really strong Android OS this time next year?
Show me a single tablet, from any manufacturer...that will out-sell the iPad.
You can't.
Which of the announced competitors will sell over 15 million in a year? To be the iPad killer...something will have to sell at least 15 million...and that was before iPad2 was released.
Even if you take into account something that has not been announced yet...you can't find an iPad killer. There are too many competitors to the throne...how can the public differentiate between the competitors, some of which are the same thing hardware and software wise....and pick one that will be the "killer".
There has not been an iPhone killer released ever....there has not been an iPod killer released ever...and there will not be an iPad killer released...ever.
And yes, the Android fanboi cult will chime in and tout the latest and greatest...which will be superseded in two weeks by something else from HTC or Motorola or whoever...if any of these are the killer..why are their sales so much lower than a comparative iDevice?
And don't toss me total number of Android sales or activations....show me a single model from any manufacturer that has sold greater than any comparable Apple portable device (iPad, iPhone, iPod)....there isn't one.
(awaiting the "sales don't matter" comments...and "specs are where its at" dribble.....)
This is EXACTLY what I was talking about in my first post on this thread - fanboyism at its worst.
"There will never be an iPad killer"? What a ridiculous statement to make. Who knows where mobile tablet computing is heading in the next 1/2/3/10 years. Maybe demand for small tablets will rise? Maybe other operating systems will outstrip iOS? You knows how many units ANY particular tablet will sell next year? It so dismaying to see such a ridiculous view spouted as gospel.
And anyway, why the obsession with a 'killer'? People don't use a Dyson vacuum cleaner because its a Bosch vacuum killer, people don't use chopsticks because they are cutlery killers, hell, apply the analogy to anything. People will ALWAYS pick (rabid fanboys aside) the consumer tool that works best for them. If that means that I find the Playbook fits my needs, I don't give two hoots if it's not an iPad killer. It really doesn't matter to the sane individual.
FWIW, I believe that for all its failings, Android's spread across many developer platforms DOES have its benefits - who knows, we may seem a really strong Android OS this time next year?
TangoCharlie
Jul 20, 11:28 AM
any talk of a quad core merom or mobile cpu?
No. I shouldn't think any laptop will be getting Kentsfield for a while....
No. I shouldn't think any laptop will be getting Kentsfield for a while....
glassbathroom
Jul 28, 03:21 AM
Ok, here goes. (Quick pass)
http://img161.imageshack.us/img161/3350/macminidblwidepk4.jpg
Eeek. Not so sure I like that.
Hmmm... maybe with just one slot?
http://img54.imageshack.us/img54/4436/macminidblwideunislotvr9.jpg
A little better. I personally prefer the taller narrower one, though.
Big is the new small.
http://img161.imageshack.us/img161/3350/macminidblwidepk4.jpg
Eeek. Not so sure I like that.
Hmmm... maybe with just one slot?
http://img54.imageshack.us/img54/4436/macminidblwideunislotvr9.jpg
A little better. I personally prefer the taller narrower one, though.
Big is the new small.
awesomebase
Mar 31, 07:16 PM
I would add I never understand the comparison of Smartphones running Android to smartphones running IOS.
Neither Google or Apple sell their phone operating systems, and the Android spectrum is made up of 50 handsets from 10 different manufacturers who are in direct competition with each other. They are not one big group working together to take on Apple. It makes absolutely zero sense to make that kind of comparison.
It is just as weird as loping off iPod and iPad IOS users...
If people want to compare smartphones, then compare actual sales of individual smartphones, each which only use one OS. People should not draw meaningless lines in the sand lumping all android based handsets together, because they are not together other than they run android. They might as well compare black phones to white phones.
I imagine if you made a chart of the top selling smartphones in the last 5 years, it would consist of the iPhone 4, the iPhone 3GS, the iPhone 3G and the iPhone.
Why not group smartphones by what kind of graphics chip they have or what type of memory chip they use? The OS is irrelevant. Nobody in the smartphone business is directly making money off any of these oses, it is a stupid way to categorize smart phones.
Of course it happens because if they didn't lump them together it would look absurd with Apple totally dominating the smart phone market with their latest phone every year while 100 android commodity phones all have tiny market shares just to get replaced by the next one.
How does HTC running android OS benefit or relate to a Motorola phone running android? It does not, at all.
From an engineering perspective and from a manufacturer's perspective, you're correct. But from an investment's perspective your argument doesn't work. Investors are concerned about Google's ability to profit from this and they compare "Platforms" to get an idea about where people are trending to. That is why despite BB growing, their stock is actually going to be in the trash in a couple of years if not sooner. Their "OS" is basically worthless... people don't value it as much as Android or iOS and as the phones that run those platforms continue to drop in price and become more capable, BB has no choice but to practically give their phones away to make their numbers (albeit at carrier-subsidized prices, but their prices and margins get severely eroded over time).
Just wanted to point that out... your logic is correct, just not applicable to all scenarios...
Neither Google or Apple sell their phone operating systems, and the Android spectrum is made up of 50 handsets from 10 different manufacturers who are in direct competition with each other. They are not one big group working together to take on Apple. It makes absolutely zero sense to make that kind of comparison.
It is just as weird as loping off iPod and iPad IOS users...
If people want to compare smartphones, then compare actual sales of individual smartphones, each which only use one OS. People should not draw meaningless lines in the sand lumping all android based handsets together, because they are not together other than they run android. They might as well compare black phones to white phones.
I imagine if you made a chart of the top selling smartphones in the last 5 years, it would consist of the iPhone 4, the iPhone 3GS, the iPhone 3G and the iPhone.
Why not group smartphones by what kind of graphics chip they have or what type of memory chip they use? The OS is irrelevant. Nobody in the smartphone business is directly making money off any of these oses, it is a stupid way to categorize smart phones.
Of course it happens because if they didn't lump them together it would look absurd with Apple totally dominating the smart phone market with their latest phone every year while 100 android commodity phones all have tiny market shares just to get replaced by the next one.
How does HTC running android OS benefit or relate to a Motorola phone running android? It does not, at all.
From an engineering perspective and from a manufacturer's perspective, you're correct. But from an investment's perspective your argument doesn't work. Investors are concerned about Google's ability to profit from this and they compare "Platforms" to get an idea about where people are trending to. That is why despite BB growing, their stock is actually going to be in the trash in a couple of years if not sooner. Their "OS" is basically worthless... people don't value it as much as Android or iOS and as the phones that run those platforms continue to drop in price and become more capable, BB has no choice but to practically give their phones away to make their numbers (albeit at carrier-subsidized prices, but their prices and margins get severely eroded over time).
Just wanted to point that out... your logic is correct, just not applicable to all scenarios...
FlameofAnor
Apr 7, 11:33 PM
I was in Best Buy the other day and they had a stack of 64GB WiFi iPad 2's on the counter, and a salesman was looking for the key to lock them away.
I asked him if these were available for sale, and he said they were all spoken for...... now, I wonder if that was really the case.
I asked him if these were available for sale, and he said they were all spoken for...... now, I wonder if that was really the case.
citizenzen
Mar 17, 11:36 AM
How many times did Barack Obama attempt to draw a difference between himself and Hillary by saying "I was against the war from the beginning."? Lots.
Being against a specific military action doesn't make one a military dove.
I see you included lots of "lots" but no "links". I'm sorry, but mere rhetoric only goes so far in this forum. If there are so many instances that prove your point, why haven't you actually produced them?
Being against a specific military action doesn't make one a military dove.
I see you included lots of "lots" but no "links". I'm sorry, but mere rhetoric only goes so far in this forum. If there are so many instances that prove your point, why haven't you actually produced them?
kdarling
Apr 20, 04:34 PM
Knowing about the record label wasn't on the front page of the newspaper, this was the 1970's...there was no internet, it's more than just a little possible that Jobs did not know this. And you're assuming that logo was everywhere, and you're wrong.
Actually, anyone above the age of six knew about Apple Records.
We all lived and breathed vinyl back then :)
Actually, anyone above the age of six knew about Apple Records.
We all lived and breathed vinyl back then :)
Reach9
Apr 11, 02:28 PM
I don't think that's the market Apple wants. They already have the #1 selling smart phone. They make more profit than all competitors combined off of the iPhone. The Cell phone market is very fluid and Apple knows it just has to keep producing the coolest and more desired phone and they will always have a decent share of the market and make tons of money.
in the mean time, Moto, Samsung, HTC, LG and others all battle it out with the same OS and dropping prices to get market share. A race to the bottom strategy that I'm not sure will last forever.
All Apple needs to do is keep the "coolness" coming. Reward us with nice iOS updates and keep us happy with the best support in the market.
Are you talking about hardware? Because software wise Android is the #1 selling. It has a greater market share than iOS. (only because there are more of them though).
in the mean time, Moto, Samsung, HTC, LG and others all battle it out with the same OS and dropping prices to get market share. A race to the bottom strategy that I'm not sure will last forever.
All Apple needs to do is keep the "coolness" coming. Reward us with nice iOS updates and keep us happy with the best support in the market.
Are you talking about hardware? Because software wise Android is the #1 selling. It has a greater market share than iOS. (only because there are more of them though).
NAG
Apr 27, 08:50 AM
And here I thought that data wasn't sent to Apple? At least they encrypted it so that you can't tell what actually is sent.
Edit:
But really, they are doing the right thing by truncating the size, removing it from files being backuped, and encrypting the file.
Correct me if I'm wrong, but I thought the wasn't sent argument was short for wasn't sent to Apple to track you personally. You're always sending out some sort of location data whether it be your IP or the wifi data. This was announced as a feature back when they first showed of location tracking on the iPhone (so you can't say it was secret). I guess the assumption was that people would remember context of what was said before. The context was that we knew about the anonymous wifi data and people were claiming location database on the phone was being used by Apple to track people personally (the 3rd party local access as a reasonable concern although a bit unlikely). I guess we should have been more explicit in and hoped people try to understand context instead of only becoming irrationally angry at the words "location". Oh well.
Oh, and I like how people are claiming the non-encryption was said by Apple to be a bug and then acting incredulous. Yeah, that tends to happen when you make something up. The only thing that was a bug was the cache not getting culled over time or deleted completely when location services is off. Encryption is a new feature (that arguably should have been there to start) and the file being backed up was probably an oversight. I have no idea how Apple handles their audits but they should probably look into it since they messed up here and only addressed it after we got yet another "-gate" in the media. (Do they even have a fence at this point or is it just a bunch of gates? Maybe they should make a "-gate" for that.) Informing people is, of course, good. However hysterics and hyperbole don't really do a very good job of that.
Edit:
But really, they are doing the right thing by truncating the size, removing it from files being backuped, and encrypting the file.
Correct me if I'm wrong, but I thought the wasn't sent argument was short for wasn't sent to Apple to track you personally. You're always sending out some sort of location data whether it be your IP or the wifi data. This was announced as a feature back when they first showed of location tracking on the iPhone (so you can't say it was secret). I guess the assumption was that people would remember context of what was said before. The context was that we knew about the anonymous wifi data and people were claiming location database on the phone was being used by Apple to track people personally (the 3rd party local access as a reasonable concern although a bit unlikely). I guess we should have been more explicit in and hoped people try to understand context instead of only becoming irrationally angry at the words "location". Oh well.
Oh, and I like how people are claiming the non-encryption was said by Apple to be a bug and then acting incredulous. Yeah, that tends to happen when you make something up. The only thing that was a bug was the cache not getting culled over time or deleted completely when location services is off. Encryption is a new feature (that arguably should have been there to start) and the file being backed up was probably an oversight. I have no idea how Apple handles their audits but they should probably look into it since they messed up here and only addressed it after we got yet another "-gate" in the media. (Do they even have a fence at this point or is it just a bunch of gates? Maybe they should make a "-gate" for that.) Informing people is, of course, good. However hysterics and hyperbole don't really do a very good job of that.
sockgap
Jul 14, 04:58 PM
It would help cooling to put the power supply on the top.
This is why newer energy efficient refridgerators put the compressor on the top.
This is why newer energy efficient refridgerators put the compressor on the top.
BornAgainMac
Aug 11, 01:54 PM
Mac Mobile should be the name of the phone. Remember that Steve said he wants Mac in the name. Mac Mobile will be perfect. Complete with Pocket Photo, Pocket Movie, Pocket Tunes, and Pocket iChat.
4God
Jul 14, 02:35 PM
... and the other one HD-DVD! :eek: ;) :D
Doh! Well, again IMHO, it is my preference to have only one optical drive built in. I could always add an external later.
Doh! Well, again IMHO, it is my preference to have only one optical drive built in. I could always add an external later.
No comments:
Post a Comment