I don't see how this follows. First off I don't think they are pushing people away from landlines. But even if they were, the carriers don't want you to give up home internet in a meaningful sense, because they are pushing away from landlines.
And if your network can't handle it, then you're doing it wrong. Plain and simple.
No not simple or plain. Bandwidth costs. Over the air bandwidth costs a fortune. They are selling limited amounts of data to recover the costs of a network. Their is no magic bandwidth bucket that with small changes the carriers could tap and allow everyone terabytes per month of over the air access for pennies.
Unlimited is a very bad idea. You end up with a small percentage of users hogging bandwidth. And even regular users are much less careful when the data is unlimited. Delivering data is expensive. Cheaper phones OTOH is not. Throwing an extra $4/mo over the life of the contract into an Android is an extra $100 subsidy. You could have amazing "free" or under $100 phones on 4G.
Excellent post. Let me just add RIM up until about 2 years ago did the same thing. They had an exclusive high end market. They gave the carriers a nice chunk of extra revenue in fees but they absolutely would not implement protections for things like ring tones the carriers wanted.
That's one of the reasons carriers are willing to pay a higher subsidy for iPhone users. Apple customers buy more stuff across the board. They buy more services, they buy more accessories, they add more people to their accounts.... Apple focuses like a laser not on market share, but market share among profitable customers. That's why they generally pull 80+% out of markets they often have 10% or less share of.
So what I foresee happening is that Apple will bundle a critical security fix with something else which the users don't want and they will refuse to update their machines.
They have already bundled security fixes with feature removals and the users update. You don't buy Apple if you aren't willing to understand that ultimately Tim is in charge.
We'll see if it is over now. Sorry if I'm not too concerned. I've been hearing how the virus apocalypse would happen any day now for a dozen years. Meanwhile Apple has been slowly turning up the security and laying the ground work for a rapid shift if they ever need to.
Mac fanboys aren't finding out much of anything the hard way. Most of them have spent years in a relatively virus and spyware free world without having to worry too much. Not perfect but rather good, while Windows users live in a constant state of war.
And it may or may not get worse. Apple has a lot of potential security in place that can be implemented almost instantly if security becomes a top priority; Microsoft was introducing new security features as the virus and spyware wars started. Apple's other substantial advantage is that unlike Microsoft Apple has a user base that supports them in rapid breaking changes i.e. a weak culture of binary compatibility. Which means that Apple can force security measures in place quickly and expect application developers to roll out updates in weeks.
What Apple users may find out is what they've been finding out. That there are advantages to government over anarchy and Apple does a great job managing its platform.
You are going the other way around. On a RTOS you can go ahead and let them hit play. Because you can definitely guarantee that certain processes will finish within a certain amount of time (i.e. time it is going to take a human to react) you don't have to have the resources in place. You can't do that on iOS or Android because you can't guarantee things will finish in time.
If my application calls for the OS to load a library on those systems it finishes when it finishes. The issue isn't threads, I'm sure they all have threads. The issue is fine grained control of when a thread will finish.
If you buy from the app then Apple considers it their business. If you buy from the website then they don't get their cut. That's rather standard in sales, last sales guy, the one who closed the deal, gets the commission.
If every app maker that had to face ridiculous draconian Apple policies would stand up to Apple, they would change their stupid policies
I doubt it. Microsoft and Adobe which are two of the most powerful both tried standing up to Apple and lost. Many of the hardware vendors have thrown tizzies and lost, for example IBM their former CPU vendor. Apple is not Microsoft they put platform unity ahead of application availability.
Re:I'm a fan but they are STILL missing the boat.
on
BlackBerry 10 Unveiled
·
· Score: 1
Those features generally weren't implemented and RIM charged a ton for them. Most of their customers who left or still have BlackBerry don't know how powerful the platform really is, because their company's IT team never implemented the enterprise features. With those features, yes I think they could keep a huge chunk of large enterprise.
Re:Shouldn't shareholders demand an asset auction.
on
BlackBerry 10 Unveiled
·
· Score: 1
This, though, seems like a too-late, too-fast, too-big move into app-phones - and I think they're going to bungle it like the bungled the Playbook, and the fail will taint their other products.
I agree they are likely to bungle it. RIM still thinks of themselves as a premium brand not a discount brand. 3 years ago RIM could dictate terms to carriers today they probably get take it or leave it style contracts. 3 years ago RIM was annoying to their customers and developers, today they have to hustle to save business. That's a big culture change and one that can be difficult.
In terms of their next generation I think BB10, being the only RTOS kernel could be really unique. For example given the much worse CPU, storage and RAM on phones vs. desktops they could own the multi-tasking phone experience for a long time. But... that's a niche. They would have to accept they make a niche phone to fill certain niches.
It doesn't require lots of apps. It could be used by one app during load time. Plants vs. Zombies takes a long time to load, if they rewrote the initialization routine for BB10 it could be instantly available and responsive.
You certainly would run into this a lot with even 3 apps all demanding resources including things like the shell or call features as one. Remember that phones have terrible processors compared to desktops, and much slower storage, so resource contention is easy to get. That's why most phones just task switch not multi-task. So for example GPS features could be running while you are browsing the internet.
Lets take multi-tasking. My iPhone uses task switching rather effectively. I'd like multi-tasking for the browser for example, does that actually happen?
In terms of the browser. I used to use a BB and used Opera Mini as my browser. What has happened since then?
I imagine most, say 80% of the 3000 largest enterprises if they actually integrated these specialized services. You have to have quite a bit of infastructure to use most of these specialized services so below that... I think RIM's major failure though is that they don't provide an end to end solution including integration specialists so this becomes an out of the box solution.
It would be easy to provide these services for iPhone but Apple doesn't want to get this far in bed with enterprise. Android is trickier because the carriers customize it too much and it changes too fast.
The problem is that RIM is too expensive for what it offers. At this point it should be selling a 200m dataplan with texting and email for $10 mo over the dumb phone cost (i.e. $20 / mo less than smart phones) and cleaning up at this price point.
Re:I'm a fan but they are STILL missing the boat.
on
BlackBerry 10 Unveiled
·
· Score: 1
Blackberry still has lots of complex enterprise features that no one else has. They still have time for large corporate if they provided installations so that large corporate customers used those features.
1) Complex application distribution. Distribute application X. For users in category A give them dataset a, for users in category B give them dataset b.
2) MVS directly configure the phone's low level interface (like how it handles calls) through the company PBX. So that if end user A calls end user B the call gets recorded even if A and B are remote.
Wovel is right. Just back your phone up including data.
Re:Shouldn't shareholders demand an asset auction.
on
BlackBerry 10 Unveiled
·
· Score: 1
There's no good reason for the vast majority of iOS and Android apps to not just be written in cross-platform HTML5/JS/CSS except that neither Apple nor Google wants to support that as a first-class application platform because that would make competition too easy
There is very good reason. The same reason Apple was hostile to flash. Apple wants the dominant iOS apps to follow iOS HIG standards, and to follow the culture coming from WWDC. They want Apple developers plugged into Apple culture designing iOS apps so they can provide a unified experience and move the entire platform as they need to.
Re:Shouldn't shareholders demand an asset auction.
on
BlackBerry 10 Unveiled
·
· Score: 1
Don't play in the smart phone market. Play at the high end of the dumb phone market. They have the best email, IM, texting phone. Go down market.
Re:Shouldn't shareholders demand an asset auction.
on
BlackBerry 10 Unveiled
·
· Score: 1
I don't see that. RIM (even using their old design) right now has the best texting / email phone. If they were willing to move down market, get carriers in countries other than England and focus on something like a 200m data plan with unlimited text and email push cheap they could have a very nice niche phone with a substantial 2 year price advantage.
With BBOS they have the only RTOS phone with an actual functioning microkernel. In theory that should allow for some rather unique advantages like much longer battery life as whole hardware subsystems shutdown and boot as needed.
Slashdot Mirror
I don't see how this follows. First off I don't think they are pushing people away from landlines. But even if they were, the carriers don't want you to give up home internet in a meaningful sense, because they are pushing away from landlines.
And if your network can't handle it, then you're doing it wrong. Plain and simple.
No not simple or plain. Bandwidth costs. Over the air bandwidth costs a fortune. They are selling limited amounts of data to recover the costs of a network. Their is no magic bandwidth bucket that with small changes the carriers could tap and allow everyone terabytes per month of over the air access for pennies.
iPhone is very aggressive about jumping onto wireless access. I know some Android phones are not.
Unlimited is a very bad idea. You end up with a small percentage of users hogging bandwidth. And even regular users are much less careful when the data is unlimited. Delivering data is expensive. Cheaper phones OTOH is not. Throwing an extra $4/mo over the life of the contract into an Android is an extra $100 subsidy. You could have amazing "free" or under $100 phones on 4G.
Excellent post. Let me just add RIM up until about 2 years ago did the same thing. They had an exclusive high end market. They gave the carriers a nice chunk of extra revenue in fees but they absolutely would not implement protections for things like ring tones the carriers wanted.
That's one of the reasons carriers are willing to pay a higher subsidy for iPhone users. Apple customers buy more stuff across the board. They buy more services, they buy more accessories, they add more people to their accounts.... Apple focuses like a laser not on market share, but market share among profitable customers. That's why they generally pull 80+% out of markets they often have 10% or less share of.
So what I foresee happening is that Apple will bundle a critical security fix with something else which the users don't want and they will refuse to update their machines.
They have already bundled security fixes with feature removals and the users update. You don't buy Apple if you aren't willing to understand that ultimately Tim is in charge.
Well, that's over now
We'll see if it is over now. Sorry if I'm not too concerned. I've been hearing how the virus apocalypse would happen any day now for a dozen years. Meanwhile Apple has been slowly turning up the security and laying the ground work for a rapid shift if they ever need to.
I've been on /. and using a Mac for about a dozen years with no anti-virus and no adware protection. No hint of problems.
There is nothing foolish about it. There just isn't much incidence of infection. Once there is a high incidence then I'll start running security junk.
We've just seen multi billion dollar virus written for the embedded systems in nuclear reactors and power regulators. It ain't just market share.
Mac fanboys aren't finding out much of anything the hard way. Most of them have spent years in a relatively virus and spyware free world without having to worry too much. Not perfect but rather good, while Windows users live in a constant state of war.
And it may or may not get worse. Apple has a lot of potential security in place that can be implemented almost instantly if security becomes a top priority; Microsoft was introducing new security features as the virus and spyware wars started. Apple's other substantial advantage is that unlike Microsoft Apple has a user base that supports them in rapid breaking changes i.e. a weak culture of binary compatibility. Which means that Apple can force security measures in place quickly and expect application developers to roll out updates in weeks.
What Apple users may find out is what they've been finding out. That there are advantages to government over anarchy and Apple does a great job managing its platform.
You are going the other way around. On a RTOS you can go ahead and let them hit play. Because you can definitely guarantee that certain processes will finish within a certain amount of time (i.e. time it is going to take a human to react) you don't have to have the resources in place. You can't do that on iOS or Android because you can't guarantee things will finish in time.
If my application calls for the OS to load a library on those systems it finishes when it finishes. The issue isn't threads, I'm sure they all have threads. The issue is fine grained control of when a thread will finish.
If you buy from the app then Apple considers it their business. If you buy from the website then they don't get their cut. That's rather standard in sales, last sales guy, the one who closed the deal, gets the commission.
If every app maker that had to face ridiculous draconian Apple policies would stand up to Apple, they would change their stupid policies
I doubt it. Microsoft and Adobe which are two of the most powerful both tried standing up to Apple and lost. Many of the hardware vendors have thrown tizzies and lost, for example IBM their former CPU vendor. Apple is not Microsoft they put platform unity ahead of application availability.
Those features generally weren't implemented and RIM charged a ton for them. Most of their customers who left or still have BlackBerry don't know how powerful the platform really is, because their company's IT team never implemented the enterprise features. With those features, yes I think they could keep a huge chunk of large enterprise.
This, though, seems like a too-late, too-fast, too-big move into app-phones - and I think they're going to bungle it like the bungled the Playbook, and the fail will taint their other products.
I agree they are likely to bungle it. RIM still thinks of themselves as a premium brand not a discount brand. 3 years ago RIM could dictate terms to carriers today they probably get take it or leave it style contracts. 3 years ago RIM was annoying to their customers and developers, today they have to hustle to save business. That's a big culture change and one that can be difficult.
In terms of their next generation I think BB10, being the only RTOS kernel could be really unique. For example given the much worse CPU, storage and RAM on phones vs. desktops they could own the multi-tasking phone experience for a long time. But... that's a niche. They would have to accept they make a niche phone to fill certain niches.
It doesn't require lots of apps. It could be used by one app during load time. Plants vs. Zombies takes a long time to load, if they rewrote the initialization routine for BB10 it could be instantly available and responsive.
You certainly would run into this a lot with even 3 apps all demanding resources including things like the shell or call features as one. Remember that phones have terrible processors compared to desktops, and much slower storage, so resource contention is easy to get. That's why most phones just task switch not multi-task. So for example GPS features could be running while you are browsing the internet.
Good list.
Lets take multi-tasking. My iPhone uses task switching rather effectively. I'd like multi-tasking for the browser for example, does that actually happen?
In terms of the browser. I used to use a BB and used Opera Mini as my browser. What has happened since then?
I imagine most, say 80% of the 3000 largest enterprises if they actually integrated these specialized services. You have to have quite a bit of infastructure to use most of these specialized services so below that... I think RIM's major failure though is that they don't provide an end to end solution including integration specialists so this becomes an out of the box solution.
It would be easy to provide these services for iPhone but Apple doesn't want to get this far in bed with enterprise.
Android is trickier because the carriers customize it too much and it changes too fast.
The problem is that RIM is too expensive for what it offers. At this point it should be selling a 200m dataplan with texting and email for $10 mo over the dumb phone cost (i.e. $20 / mo less than smart phones) and cleaning up at this price point.
Blackberry still has lots of complex enterprise features that no one else has. They still have time for large corporate if they provided installations so that large corporate customers used those features.
1) Complex application distribution. Distribute application X. For users in category A give them dataset a, for users in category B give them dataset b.
2) MVS directly configure the phone's low level interface (like how it handles calls) through the company PBX. So that if end user A calls end user B the call gets recorded even if A and B are remote.
Can you tell me what's better?
Wovel is right. Just back your phone up including data.
There's no good reason for the vast majority of iOS and Android apps to not just be written in cross-platform HTML5/JS/CSS except that neither Apple nor Google wants to support that as a first-class application platform because that would make competition too easy
There is very good reason. The same reason Apple was hostile to flash. Apple wants the dominant iOS apps to follow iOS HIG standards, and to follow the culture coming from WWDC. They want Apple developers plugged into Apple culture designing iOS apps so they can provide a unified experience and move the entire platform as they need to.
Don't play in the smart phone market. Play at the high end of the dumb phone market. They have the best email, IM, texting phone. Go down market.
I don't see that. RIM (even using their old design) right now has the best texting / email phone. If they were willing to move down market, get carriers in countries other than England and focus on something like a 200m data plan with unlimited text and email push cheap they could have a very nice niche phone with a substantial 2 year price advantage.
With BBOS they have the only RTOS phone with an actual functioning microkernel. In theory that should allow for some rather unique advantages like much longer battery life as whole hardware subsystems shutdown and boot as needed.