Slashdot Mirror

http://techcrunch.com/2011/02/21/861-5-percent-growth-android-puny/

But Android users don't buy apps....
http://techcrunch.com/2011/02/21/861-5-percent-growth-android-puny/

They don't surf the web
http://news.cnet.com/8301-30685_3-20128243-264/android-browser-bumps-opera-for-no-2-spot/?tag=mncol;txt

And even 2/3rd's of Google's mobile traffic comes from iOS devices....

http://www.mobilemarketingwatch.com/two-thirds-of-googles-mobile-search-traffic-comes-from-ios-devices-18718/

http://techcrunch.com/2011/09/02/gartner-idc-windows-phone-to-steal-second-place-from-ios-by-2015/

On the other hand, you're absolutely right. Microsoft and their OEMs should dissolve themselves and give the money back to shareholders since failing at one thing means they will fail at another and they shouldn't even try to go against Apple who is the invincible winner forever and ever in tablets. I mean look at the Touchpad and Android tablets failing. Right?

It has more than 500k apps, so I am pretty sure people are profiting from it.

Not really.

http://techcrunch.com/2011/02/21/861-5-percent-growth-android-puny/

I don't understand the relevance of these estimates of Samsung and HTC shipment figures, for three reasons:

1. The shipment estimates are made by analyst companies, not by Samsung or HTC themselves. Samsung, as of last summer, has stopped providing shipment numbers of its smartphones and tablets. Then these other companies (Strategy Analytics and Canalys) step in with their own estimates that are dodgy at best. How do they get their numbers? If Samsung is not providing their shipment numbers, why should we believe a third party?

2. One shipment to a vendor (e.g. Best Buy) does not map to one sale to an end consumer. A vendor can always return the item back to the seller.

3. What is counted as a smartphone? Phone manufacturers are cramming more smartphone features into low-end devices; remember that even the most basic Symbian phone was counted by Nokia as a smartphone, and look how those ostensibly great sales turned out for Nokia.

Note that Apple always lists its sales in its SEC statements. And these are sales figures to the end consumer, not shipments.

I agree. Forget android hate or love, these are just purely crap. At least the Motoactv (note their weird spelling) is more interesting since it combines heart rate monitoring + gps + music + android sync stuff. How much are people really expecting to do out of a wristwatch?

I don't consider $500 M a pittance. I would say they didn't get the result they wanted but it wasn't because they didn't spend.

Comparing:

http://techcrunch.com/2011/10/24/creator-of-lisp-john-mccarthy-dead-at-84/

and

  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Colonel_Sanders

I smell chicken.......

Siri was a good way along. But to become a real PA, it needed more integration. Here's a Siri review of the App Store version:
http://techcrunch.com/2010/02/04/siri-iphone-personal-assistant/

As you can see easily, it integrated with a lot of websites, but little on the phone itself. But that's exactly what you want in a PA - make calls, set reminders (real ones, not the "send me an email" kind of the original Siri app), interface with contacts, calendar and all the other data you already have on there.

Apple are resting on their laurels. They've done good and have come out of nowhere to dominate the market ... but Android is still outselling them. Wow. 4 million iPhone 4S sold .. who's willing to bet that will be a significant number of the total sales?

Yes, because a profit seeking entity making 66% of all mobile phone profit worldwide is "failing".

http://www.asymco.com/2011/07/29/apple-captured-two-thirds-of-available-mobile-phone-profits-in-q2/

And before you reply with the usual slashdot retort about developers caring about market share.....

http://techcrunch.com/2011/02/21/861-5-percent-growth-android-puny/

Just so I can avoid the other usual retort about "why would fanbois be proud of the fact that they are spending more on iPhones than Android phones". In the U.S., I pay $200 for a $699 iPhone. An Android user pays $200 for a $500 phone. I don't care that the carrier pays a larger subsidy to Apple. My bill is the same every month,

try this test: Write down a verbose description of the design, using as few actual measurements as possible. For the iPad, this would be something like "A rectangular platform with a glossy front surface. The front has a touch screen surrounded by a bezel roughly half an inch wide. There is a single concave button on a short side of the bezel with a picture of a house on it. The reverse is nondescript, with few markings except an Apple logo. In profile, the device has an overall flat appearance and curved edges, and is roughly a quarter of an inch thick." Now write one for the Galaxy Tab, and the 2001 tablet. Compare all three. If two descriptions are mostly the same (in meaning), the products are likely indistinguishable.

Funny, you should probably try that test with this or this or any one of these.

Yep, you have to ignore CrunchPad that looked very much like a flat slab with a single flat front surface.
http://techcrunch.com/2009/06/03/crunchpad-the-launch-prototype/ - Ooops... That's 6 months before iPad...

You linked to the second prototype. The introduction prototype looked like this. Note that this is about 9 months before the iPad came out.

Now I'll grant you that by that time they had the iPhone to inspire them, but it is definitely incorrect to say that the iPad was the first high-profile tablet to look like that. I can't find a phone that looked as clean as the iPhone prior to it's introduction, and the iPad really just looks like a giant iPhone.

This is patently false.

Techcrunch: Yes, others have done voice controls before — even Apple has had them baked into iOS for a few years. But most, including Apple’s previous attempt, have been awful. Others, like Google’s voice services built into Android, are decent. Siri is great.

In the coming weeks and months, we’re going to hear: “both fill-in-the-blank-Android-phone and the iPhone 4S have voice control functionality”. But that’s like saying both Citizen Kane and BioDome are films. True on paper. Decidedly less true when you have to actually experience them.

You really have to use it yourself to see just how great Siri actually is. Using it for the past week, I’ve done everything from getting directions, to sending emails, to sending text messages, to looking up information on WolframAlpha, to getting restaurant recommendations on Yelp, to taking notes, to setting reminders, to setting calendar appointments, to setting alarms, to searching the web. The amount of times Siri hasn’t been able to understand and execute my request is astonishingly low. I’ll say something that I’m sure Siri won’t be able to understand, and it gets it.

No. Maybe in smartphones, but they are a minority of the market. There is a whole world beyond the 1st world and nobody there can afford a smartphone yet. It is a volume business but there is a lot of profit there in churning out cheap phones by the container.

Not smartphones, all phones....

http://www.asymco.com/2011/07/29/apple-captured-two-thirds-of-available-mobile-phone-profits-in-q2/

There is not much profit in $30 phones -- ask Nokia

And who the fsck cares about profits unless you are an Apple shareholder,

The claim was that Apple was "losing". How is a profit seeking entity losing when it makes 2 out of every $3 in the industry?

  units moved are what counts for everyone else. Developers don't give a crap how much Apple is making, they want to know how many potential customers they have to justify developing for the platform to judge how much THEY stand to make.

Developers care about the people who are willing to buy stuff. The Apple app store generates over 17x the revenue of the Android app market.

http://techcrunch.com/2011/02/21/861-5-percent-growth-android-puny/

Most users don't really care how much Apple is making in profit except if they learn Apple makes 50 juicy points it might piss some off while some fanboys like yourself seem to get off on how hard Apple is screwing you.

Well it doesn't matter what "most users care about". A statement was made, I refuted it with facts.

I paid $200 for a $700 iPhone 4 under contract. A high-end Android user paid the same $200 for a $450 phone. We are both paying the same monthly bill. Why do I care that the carrier paid a higher subsidy to Apple than the Android manufacturer?

And in volume of Smartphones Apple is at 18% and falling fast into their 5-10% market niche they have stayed within on the desktop since the 1980s.

If by falling fast, you mean holding steady....

Google just announce 190 Million Android devices sold during their quarterly report today. Apple just announced 220 million iOS devices sold during the iPhone 4S launch.

Give it another year and they will probably be falling fast in tablets until they hit boutique luxury good territory. Because that is what Apple is, a premium brand experience. The only reason developers still care about iOS is they (rightly it appears) assume anyone who can afford an iProduct has enough disposable income to afford to pay for lots of apps so while in absolute percentage of potential customers they may be shrinking, they rakeoff per customer is high enough to justify porting.

Didn't you just say that developers care about units sold? So which is it? Do developers care about units sold are the number of people who actually have money to buy stuff?

Spent 5 seconds to find one that isn't blocked by proxy servers:

Father of C and UNIX Dennis Ritchie passes away at age 70

Facebook offers a good deal of your data for export/download http://techcrunch.com/2010/10/06/facebook-now-allows-you-to-download-your-information/

Interesting. I hadn't heard about that. Not hard to figure out where they got the motivation.

Facebook offers a good deal of your data for export/download http://techcrunch.com/2010/10/06/facebook-now-allows-you-to-download-your-information/

Since Android has more free and ad-supported apps and fewer commercial developers, inevitably the total revenue for the entire market is going to be lower. To look at which platform is more profitable for developers, you need to look at actual profit figures for individual developers. Some developers now make more money on Android than on iOS.

So don't you think there would be more commercial developers if Android users actually paid for stuff?

As far as the free versus paid....

http://techcrunch.com/2010/07/05/distimo-june-2010/

28% of iOS apps are free versus 58% of Android apps -- which doesn't count for the 1750% difference in revenue.

I mean, it's like saying that the Windows software market is 100x bigger than the Mac software market, therefore Windows developers must make 100x more profit than Mac developers. It just doesn't follow.

Do you have statistics showing Windows users buy 1750% more software than Mac users?

He suggested that Apple's walled garden with consistently anticompetitivever practices was bad for the overall market and becomes increasingly bad as it's popularity grows.

Bad for who? The developers who make over 17x more money on the Apple app store than the Google app market (which has also pulled apps such as emulators etc.)

http://techcrunch.com/2011/02/21/861-5-percent-growth-android-puny/

Just maybe, people prefer Apple's approach to Google's....

Well I found this article on it: tech crunch netflix-facebook app
Though honestly I really hope this is just an app you can use in facebook rather than having the facebook login go to netflix.

They make plenty off of the google marketplace and google ads in free aps

Hardware manufacturers don't make any money off of Google ads or the Google marketplace.

As far as how much money the Google market place makes....

http://techcrunch.com/2011/02/21/861-5-percent-growth-android-puny/

The Apple app store made 17.5x more money on apps than the Google marketplace. That doesn't include music, videos, books, tv shows, etc.

Not quite. It's the same sensor as in the EVO 4G, but the "camera" functionality includes lenses, filters, packaging, and software. The lens is a 5-element F/2.4 lens. The filters include an "adaptive IR filter", which supposedly reduces noise significantly. The software includes tight integration with the new CPU allowing very fast picture taking (a little over a second to first pic, 0.5s per pic after that).

It is definitely new. I'd say Siri is the magical part of the 4S, not the camera, but the camera is no slouch.

Well, there were some problems with that review...

So the fact that Groupon counted the total amount of its daily-deal sales as revenue, including fees paid to merchants and didn't think anyone would notice had anything to do with it?

Or how about Zynga's founder Mark Pincus' own admission that he scammed the players to make money.

Does B&N have an app store? I thought the nook (out of the box) was a reader only.

Yes they do (for their device anyway). And no it isn't.

http://www.barnesandnoble.com/u/nookcolor-apps/379002750/

Was i really that hard to take 2 seconds to look before jumping to a conclusion?

based on this brief hands on, it sounds like it's squarely pointed at apple.
I like MG Siegler, yet despise techcrunch
http://techcrunch.com/2011/09/02/amazon-kindle-tablet/

Your own link says:

Yes, Amazon has been able to trim the cost of the device to half of the entry-level iPad. And it will be the same price as Barnes & Noble’s Nook Color, which this will very obviously compete with directly. Both have 7-inch color touch screens. Both run Android.

Apple is in a completely different area?

from the summary
"Amazon has brand recognition, a bevy of existing loyal Kindle e-reader owners, and a Web-based e-commerce platform that includes one-click access to buying e-books, movies, digital music downloads, its own Android app store, and streaming media catalog. That adds up to Amazon being uniquely suited to go head-to-head with Apple in the tablet market and become a formidable competitor across the industry."

completley different how? Does B&N have an app store? I thought the nook (out of the box) was a reader only.

based on this brief hands on, it sounds like it's squarely pointed at apple.

I like MG Siegler, yet despise techcrunch
http://techcrunch.com/2011/09/02/amazon-kindle-tablet/

The TechCrunch article about the new Kindle.

It was a claim made by Google's David Drummond, Senior Vice President and Chief Legal Officer. Basically, Apple and Microsoft banded together with some others to acquire the Nortel patent warchest to use against Android. See TechCrunch: "How Apple Led The High-Stakes Patent Poker Win Against Google, Sealing Ballmer's Promise". Apple and MS also banded together to acquire the CPTN patent pool. Why? Over half a million Android devices are activated every day. Half a million! How many winPhones and iPhones have been sold in total their entire history? Android is a huge threat to both Apple and MS, some would say the biggest threat, so it makes sense for them to work together.

And this has no merit ?:

"James Gosling, the father of Java who left Sun soon after it was acquired by Oracle, writes on his blog that Oracle was eying the Java patents as part of the Sun acquisition:

Oracle finally filed a patent lawsuit against Google. Not a big surprise. During the integration meetings between Sun and Oracle where we were being grilled about the patent situation between Sun and Google, we could see the Oracle lawyer’s eyes sparkle. Filing patent suits was never in Sun’s genetic code. Alas.

I hope to avoid getting dragged into the fray: they only picked one of my patents (RE38,104) to sue over."

http://techcrunch.com/2010/08/13/android-oracle-java-lawsuit/
http://nighthacks.com/roller/jag/entry/the_shit_finally_hits_the

Actually, Oracle might not have bought Sun if they could not sue Android:

" Miguel De Icaza has provided a very interesting insight into the case. His report has been confirmed by James Gosling, known as the father of Java who left Sun right after the merger. Icaza speculates that the potential to monetise on Java by suing Google was pitched by Jonathan Schwartz during Sun's sales talks with Oracle. Oh boy."

http://techcrunch.com/2010/08/13/android-oracle-java-lawsuit/
http://tirania.org/blog/archive/2010/Aug-13.html
http://www.osnews.com/story/23684/De_Icaza_Sun_s_Schwartz_Pitched_Google_Lawsuit_to_Oracle

Google isn't cooking anything.

It's not just on Linux, I'm noticing weird behavior on Windows, too. Is it possible you don't use Firefox as much at work?

I don't like the rapid new versions; they break add-ons. Add-ons are the reason I use Firefox.

Version 6.02 of Firefox is very unstable, far more unstable than version 3.6.20. Firefox 6.02 crashes often when there are 100 tabs open, a situation that is common when doing research. Firefox 6.02 often crashes with no crash report.

Questions:

1) Why did the Mozilla team decide to play games with version numbers?

2) Google has been paying Mozilla Foundation more than $80 million each year. Can anyone say they have seen 80 million dollars of yearly development? Where does the money go?

3) Will Mozilla foundation lose its deal with Google? See this article, for example: Mozilla Extends Lucrative Deal With Google For 3 Years.

See this article also: How browsers make money, or why Google needs Firefox.

Quote: "Almost the entirety of Mozilla's income -- 97% of $104 million -- arrives in the form of royalties from the Firefox search box, and the lion's share (86%, $85 million) of those royalties are paid by the default search engine: Google.

"In November 2011, however, Mozilla's contract with Google will expire. It will then be renewed... or it will be allowed to lapse." [My emphasis]

4) Why is Firefox version 6.02 extremely unstable with many tabs and windows open? What happened? Firefox 3.6.20 was far more stable. What was done that caused the instability?

5) Why don't the Firefox programmers fix the memory and CPU hogging? It has been there for at least 8 years.

Apparently this years most disruptive technology of the year is a virtual bar/avatar layer called Shaker slapped on top of facebook.
http://techcrunch.com/2011/09/14/and-the-winner-of-techcrunch-disrupt-is-shaker/

Because everyone knows that the real people around you are all losers and the best people are all elsewhere.

Sad, really sad.

Erm. Have you seen Android's market share lately?

But that hasn't equated with success in their respective app stores. The Apple app market made over 17X the revenue of the Android app store last year.

http://techcrunch.com/2011/02/21/861-5-percent-growth-android-puny/

Are you sure about that?

http://techcrunch.com/2011/09/18/uh-oh-qwikster-already-has-a-lively-twitter-account-but-its-not-owned-by-netflix/?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+Techcrunch+(TechCrunch)

Fusion Garage worked with Arringon to produce CrunchPad. Then betrayed Arrington:

http://techcrunch.com/2009/11/30/crunchpad-end/

TechCrunch: Google Wallet Likely Launching Tomorrow

"The RDF is strong with this one."
"It's only strong with you, my fellow /.er, if you continue to deny the reality of the situation."

The reality of the situation is that the Ipad looks a lot like its predecessor, the Crunchpad (the "pre-JooJoo"). Here is a page showing a prototype of the Crunchpad six months before the Ipad was first announced: http://techcrunch.com/2009/06/03/crunchpad-the-launch-prototype/

If anybody is ripping-off anything, it's Apple ripping-off the Crunchpad.

Sorry fanboys.

The review doesn't say the grass and trees are bad. It says that the fact that workers will see only Apple's grass and trees is bad. It's the disconnection, not the greenery that's bad. And the review explains why, in brief but meaningful detail.

Well my understanding is that unless Apple wants to move their headquarters to the middle of a state park or something, staying in Cupertino, CA gives them few choices on who's trees and grass they are allowed to see. The proposed site currently contains office buildings with some trees near a freeway in the middle of an urban setting. Would the reviewer prefer Apple to leave mostly concrete there or simply move into the current site with no change? Basically what other companies like Microsoft, Google, etc do.

Can anyone tell me why this isn't prior art?

http://techcrunch.com/2009/07/04/crunchpad-prototype-coming-this-month-be-available-asap/ http://techcrunch.com/2008/07/21/we-want-a-dead-simple-web-tablet-help-us-build-it/

Because Apple's Community Design is from 2004, IOW prior. And that's just one reason. Most of which you have already been told. Over and over again.

Can anyone tell me why this isn't prior art?

http://techcrunch.com/2009/07/04/crunchpad-prototype-coming-this-month-be-available-asap/ http://techcrunch.com/2008/07/21/we-want-a-dead-simple-web-tablet-help-us-build-it/

Because Apple's Community Design is from 2004, IOW prior. And that's just one reason. Most of which you have already been told. Over and over again.

Can anyone tell me why this isn't prior art?

http://techcrunch.com/2009/07/04/crunchpad-prototype-coming-this-month-be-available-asap/ [techcrunch.com]
http://techcrunch.com/2008/07/21/we-want-a-dead-simple-web-tablet-help-us-build-it/ [techcrunch.com]

I know people seem to forget things, but around that time the rumor mill was in full gear speculating that Apple was creating a secret "tablet-like" device. I believe it all started with this patent: Apple Reveals Secret Notebook Tablet. The patent was reveled on July 10th, 2008. The TechCrunch "Help Us Build a Tablet" was posted almost 11 days later. And if you went to any tech site at that time, pretty much everyone was talking about "How they would love a tablet that was just like the iPhone but bigger". Actually, I'm pretty sure that's where Arrington originally got his idea for hisTechCrunch tablet.

Another thing people seem to forget, is that Steve Jobs himself said at the D8 Conference that Apple was working on a "Tablet" long before they were working on the iPhone. Apple started tablet project before iPhone, says Jobs. So with that in mind, the iPhone was announced on January 9, 2007*, that means they were already working on it well before that date. Heck in the same article, Steve basically laid out what the design was going to look like....

"I had this idea about having a glass display, a multi-touch display you could type on. I asked our people about it. And six months later they came back with this amazing display," Jobs said. "And I gave it to one of our really brilliant UI guys. He then got inertial scrolling working and some other things, and I thought, 'my God, we can build a phone with this,' and we put the tablet aside, and we went to work on the phone."

*For all your LG Prada freaks, it was announced on December 12, 2006... You're telling me Apple conceived and designed the iPhone in 28 days?!!?

Can anyone tell me why this isn't prior art?

http://techcrunch.com/2009/07/04/crunchpad-prototype-coming-this-month-be-available-asap/ [techcrunch.com]
http://techcrunch.com/2008/07/21/we-want-a-dead-simple-web-tablet-help-us-build-it/ [techcrunch.com]

I know people seem to forget things, but around that time the rumor mill was in full gear speculating that Apple was creating a secret "tablet-like" device. I believe it all started with this patent: Apple Reveals Secret Notebook Tablet. The patent was reveled on July 10th, 2008. The TechCrunch "Help Us Build a Tablet" was posted almost 11 days later. And if you went to any tech site at that time, pretty much everyone was talking about "How they would love a tablet that was just like the iPhone but bigger". Actually, I'm pretty sure that's where Arrington originally got his idea for hisTechCrunch tablet.

Another thing people seem to forget, is that Steve Jobs himself said at the D8 Conference that Apple was working on a "Tablet" long before they were working on the iPhone. Apple started tablet project before iPhone, says Jobs. So with that in mind, the iPhone was announced on January 9, 2007*, that means they were already working on it well before that date. Heck in the same article, Steve basically laid out what the design was going to look like....

"I had this idea about having a glass display, a multi-touch display you could type on. I asked our people about it. And six months later they came back with this amazing display," Jobs said. "And I gave it to one of our really brilliant UI guys. He then got inertial scrolling working and some other things, and I thought, 'my God, we can build a phone with this,' and we put the tablet aside, and we went to work on the phone."

*For all your LG Prada freaks, it was announced on December 12, 2006... You're telling me Apple conceived and designed the iPhone in 28 days?!!?

I read about this originally in this Techcrunch article:
http://techcrunch.com/2011/09/09/apple-ftw-german-court-upholds-galaxy-tab-10-1-sales-ban/

In it, they link to the design in question, Community Design 000181607 for the iPad:
http://www.scribd.com/doc/61944044/Community-Design-000181607-0001

Look at it! I mean look at it! It is literally a rounded rectangle with a screen on the front! I'm not even exaggerating. Look at it!

Can anyone tell me why this isn't prior art?

http://techcrunch.com/2009/07/04/crunchpad-prototype-coming-this-month-be-available-asap/
http://techcrunch.com/2008/07/21/we-want-a-dead-simple-web-tablet-help-us-build-it/

Can anyone tell me why this isn't prior art?

http://techcrunch.com/2009/07/04/crunchpad-prototype-coming-this-month-be-available-asap/
http://techcrunch.com/2008/07/21/we-want-a-dead-simple-web-tablet-help-us-build-it/

According to the writeup on techcrunch the service is quite high level: you SMS them a URL(through the app), they grab the webpage, bundle it up, and MMS it back for display. It isn't clear that that would even handle some of the dynamic/login-required stuff, much less do so in a manner that doesn't involve revealing your credentials to them.

It's a pity, I was hoping for a more elegant hack, something along the lines of a VPN-style tunneling of arbitrary TCP/IP traffic encapsulated(in this case) in SMS messages. Could be that the unpredictable and sometimes extremely high latency of SMS dooms that one, though...

http://techcrunch.com/2011/07/01/zynga-financials/
"Zynga finally filed for its IPO today, and we now we get to take a look at its financials. At a high level, the company made nearly $600 million in revenues last year, and $90 million in profits. ...
The good news for investors is that Zynga actually makes a profit."

Yes, you can obviously make a tablet without fear getting sued by Apple - but Samsung decided they'd rather copy the design.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/JooJoo

Is this what you had in mind, when you talk about 'copying design'?

And, obviously, I am not talking about Samsung copying the design...

First of all: until June 2009 the JooJoo/CrunchPad looked notably different: http://techcrunch.com/2009/04/09/crunchtablet-hits-the-net-a-little-early/, even ignoring the color, the non-flat front is quite obvious. Further, as http://peanutbuttereggdirt.com/e/custom/Apple-vs-Samsung-1-Hardware-Design.html shows, there are still a number of differences to Apple's claims: not only is the silver bezel missing that both the iPad and the Galaxy Tab have, the JooJoo's screen is also not centered - and its hard to tell what its icons look like. But let's get to the most important point.

The suit in Germany is based on the European Community-Design 000181607-0001 - filed in May 2004

Any "prior art" prior to 2004 please.

Why can't this same judge see all the devices which were designed prior to the iPad and see that Samsung could just as easily be copying those?

(eg. http://techcrunch.com/2009/06/03/crunchpad-the-launch-prototype/ )

I don't get it ... hence my comment about the outcome of all lawsuits has a random/human element to them and no matter how "obvious" things are the court might still make the wrong decision.