Funny. And those sorts of problems were a bit later then 1986. As an aside, that's more like 1990. 1986 the issue was things like BIOS incompatibility.
IMHO Microsoft is going to be going after the BlackBerry market, enterprise users. That's a natural market for Microsoft. Android might end up going after the JavaVM market, the phone OS that handset makers can start with for free but with a wider range of apps. This becomes the majority phone. Apple gets the premium market.
Blackberry moves down to feature phones where awesome texting, IMing... plus so/so smart phone features in an inexpensive phone is good.
Maybe... but it could be quite a while. Android has attracted the feature rich community. Without must have features that community is going to become price sensitive again very quickly.
Google doesn't make enough money to manage the platform. It just isn't possible for them to provide that level of service. The question is whether the carriers (who make better margins are Android phones) will cut off their nose to spite their face or realize they need to spend trivial amounts in aftercare to keep this product line viable.
As far as I know the issue with 4G is battery life. Apple can't get the battery life and antena quality where they want it to be. Yes Apple making those sorts of tradeoffs in customer's best interests, not what they perceive as their best interests is why people buy Apple.
No I think he is trying to say it is not locked down by a carrier. Apple's incentives and the carrier's incentives are quite often different. Apple wants to maintain handset brand loyalty while the carrier wants handsets to be a commodity and maintain carrier loyalty.
I do disagree with GP's comment about carriers wanting you to buy new phones for financial reasons. New phones cut deeply into their margins.
Good point. Google does have a lot of credibility after quite a few failed promises. On the other hand they have also delivered some amazing technology for free for a very long time.
Would you blame MS if HP didn't release Win7 drivers for old printers for example?
Microsoft thinks so. That is why they spend billions a year every year for over 20 years now getting old hardware to work with their OSes. And that means frequently writing drivers because hardware vendors are too lazy.
If you want a good binary driver model you don't pick a Linux kernel. Frankly QNX (bought by Blackberry for the new version of BBOS) is ideal for what you are looking for.
You are kidding but my guess is almost all the profits in the ethernet market are represented by retail brand name cables while the vast percentage of cabling is low end rolled cat 5 and cat 6. It is likely a comparable situation.
The G1 was a nice phone I seriously considered that for myself. There was no Android phones when the iPhone1 came out. The competitors was Palm's high end phones. By the time the G1 existed the iPhone would have been about $200-300 range, but you had to be on AT&T and they were having terrible data problems. You got to be on T-mobile and have a much more reasonable total experience.
Anyway, you are comparing price after subsidy which isn't the same thing as what was going on in the days of PCs since they were no monthly charge. You pay your phones in cash up front but mainly you pay for them with your monthly dataplan. The cash up front is generally a very small percentage.
Take for example a current iPhone. Verizon charges $200 for the 4S and pays about $18/mo in subsidy (68% subsidy) $100 for the 4 and pay about $16/mo in subsidy (80% subsidy) $0 for the 3GS and pay about $15/mo in subsidy (100% subsidy)
They are wiling to pay more for 4S customers since they are less price sensitive. If I'm willing to throw in an extra $100 up front, Verizon is willing to throw in an extra $50 because they are likely to make it back. Even for the most expensive phone Apple makes, the 4S 64GB at $400 and it is the same $18/mo subsidy (still at 52% subsidy). So you really need to consider actual cost for the phones in terms of this comparison, not what carriers charge you as a promotional cost. We don't live in Asia where people paid full cost for their phones and full cost for their plans; more like enterprise plans work today.
I like the physical keyboard too. No question I'd buy an iPhone with a physical keyboard if I could. Android is hands down the better product in terms of choice.
Oh absolutely. Media is a rapidly growing part of the business, and growing more rapidly than most of their hardware (except for iPad). Further it is likely to keep growing as paid e-media has really come into its own. It is just so far not having any meaningful impact on the profits. 20-30 years out Apple might allow its hardware profits to collapse to make money on media, like Amazon and BN today.
Apple identifies FreeBSD as their "reference platform" and sinced as much as they could in the 10.3 / FreeBSD cycle. I don't think they were ever identical. You can't just take a FreeBSD port tree and compile it on Darwin for example.
I agree with that distribution names are really OSes while "Linux" is used for a related family of OSes. I should mention I can think of several examples where "Linux" was used for OSes without the Linux kernel. The best example is a Caldera product which was a Linux userland with a SCO kernel (and some basic SCO libraries) meant to offer software developers an intermediate step into Linux. Some of the "Linux on Mainframe" implementations which are considered Linux aren't actually using a Linux kernel but rather using the Linux kernel sources to provide services to one level of userland for applications at another layer.
I don't include web developers in platform statistics because their platform is the web, which is mostly OS non specific, unless they are creating OS specific code. I guess if you were to think them based on the webserver then that would create more Open Source developers, but I think that confuses things since there are so many more web developers than desktop software developers. So no I'm talking tools meant to run directly against an OS not against a webserver / browser which abstracts the OS.
And yes the vast majority of VB is in house code. But you were talking about number of people and there is where the overwhelming majority of desktop development happens, in-house corporate desktop applications.
Harvard Business Review. They regularly discuss the issue that Apple's strategy has been to target the self selected "elite" users and not the general group of "skinflint" PC users. And that this "elite" is where almost all the profit is, in the market. They have been developing this in articles for 6 years. I think John Gruber might be the original author of the theory.
In any case at this point the SEC, this comes right off the 10Qs.
I'm saying the model works for Apple as long as applications are cheap. Your concern about upgrades...
As far as your iPhone/iPad concern apps have to mark themselves as iPhone, iPad, both and they have to mark what versions they work with. My daughter's 1st generation iPod has a different software list than I get with my 4S iPhone. I think you might want to try just using the store from iTunes on your computer where you have a bigger screen and see "more stuff".
a) You get a license for your software from the app store with each app b) When you upgrade you download new versions of your software c) If there is no appropriate version you pay to replace.
For a phone that's not a problem since there aren't going to be many expensive apps. If the app quality / price goes up your concern becomes more valid.
Slashdot Mirror
NT did run on Alpha. It was terrific on Alpha. But the sales of the Dec workstation with NT were terrible and...
As for MIPS, MIPS was dying by that point. SGI ported to NT/x86. As for PowerPC... hmmm not sure what happened there.
Funny. And those sorts of problems were a bit later then 1986. As an aside, that's more like 1990. 1986 the issue was things like BIOS incompatibility.
The only feature I want from Verizon 4G is talk plus text, and I do really want that. 3G is plenty fast in terms of data delivery.
Nexus often has so/so hardware. Samsung, Motorolla.... might not be as good at OSes but they are better at the hardware side.
IMHO Microsoft is going to be going after the BlackBerry market, enterprise users. That's a natural market for Microsoft.
Android might end up going after the JavaVM market, the phone OS that handset makers can start with for free but with a wider range of apps. This becomes the majority phone.
Apple gets the premium market.
Blackberry moves down to feature phones where awesome texting, IMing... plus so/so smart phone features in an inexpensive phone is good.
I don't see that as bad for anyone.
It will run Siri. Apple just doesn't offer Siri for the 3GS. It is included in 4S only.
Maybe... but it could be quite a while. Android has attracted the feature rich community. Without must have features that community is going to become price sensitive again very quickly.
Google doesn't make enough money to manage the platform. It just isn't possible for them to provide that level of service. The question is whether the carriers (who make better margins are Android phones) will cut off their nose to spite their face or realize they need to spend trivial amounts in aftercare to keep this product line viable.
As far as I know the issue with 4G is battery life. Apple can't get the battery life and antena quality where they want it to be. Yes Apple making those sorts of tradeoffs in customer's best interests, not what they perceive as their best interests is why people buy Apple.
The start of the smartphone boom was blackberry, and Palm not Apple. And they also wrestled control away...
Manufacturer: "You will make a huge margin and we run the end user experience"
which Apple changed to
Apple: "We will make a huge margin. You will still do pretty well and we run the end user experience".
It got 3 years of updates. The life of a phone is 2 years.
No I think he is trying to say it is not locked down by a carrier. Apple's incentives and the carrier's incentives are quite often different. Apple wants to maintain handset brand loyalty while the carrier wants handsets to be a commodity and maintain carrier loyalty.
I do disagree with GP's comment about carriers wanting you to buy new phones for financial reasons. New phones cut deeply into their margins.
Linux does quite well for embedded. The question is are phones more like embedded systems or more like desktops?
Good point. Google does have a lot of credibility after quite a few failed promises. On the other hand they have also delivered some amazing technology for free for a very long time.
Microsoft thinks so. That is why they spend billions a year every year for over 20 years now getting old hardware to work with their OSes. And that means frequently writing drivers because hardware vendors are too lazy.
If you want a good binary driver model you don't pick a Linux kernel. Frankly QNX (bought by Blackberry for the new version of BBOS) is ideal for what you are looking for.
You are kidding but my guess is almost all the profits in the ethernet market are represented by retail brand name cables while the vast percentage of cabling is low end rolled cat 5 and cat 6. It is likely a comparable situation.
The G1 was a nice phone I seriously considered that for myself. There was no Android phones when the iPhone1 came out. The competitors was Palm's high end phones. By the time the G1 existed the iPhone would have been about $200-300 range, but you had to be on AT&T and they were having terrible data problems. You got to be on T-mobile and have a much more reasonable total experience.
Anyway, you are comparing price after subsidy which isn't the same thing as what was going on in the days of PCs since they were no monthly charge. You pay your phones in cash up front but mainly you pay for them with your monthly dataplan. The cash up front is generally a very small percentage.
Take for example a current iPhone. Verizon charges
$200 for the 4S and pays about $18/mo in subsidy (68% subsidy)
$100 for the 4 and pay about $16/mo in subsidy (80% subsidy)
$0 for the 3GS and pay about $15/mo in subsidy (100% subsidy)
They are wiling to pay more for 4S customers since they are less price sensitive. If I'm willing to throw in an extra $100 up front, Verizon is willing to throw in an extra $50 because they are likely to make it back. Even for the most expensive phone Apple makes, the 4S 64GB at $400 and it is the same $18/mo subsidy (still at 52% subsidy). So you really need to consider actual cost for the phones in terms of this comparison, not what carriers charge you as a promotional cost. We don't live in Asia where people paid full cost for their phones and full cost for their plans; more like enterprise plans work today.
I like the physical keyboard too. No question I'd buy an iPhone with a physical keyboard if I could. Android is hands down the better product in terms of choice.
Oh absolutely. Media is a rapidly growing part of the business, and growing more rapidly than most of their hardware (except for iPad). Further it is likely to keep growing as paid e-media has really come into its own. It is just so far not having any meaningful impact on the profits. 20-30 years out Apple might allow its hardware profits to collapse to make money on media, like Amazon and BN today.
Apple identifies FreeBSD as their "reference platform" and sinced as much as they could in the 10.3 / FreeBSD cycle. I don't think they were ever identical. You can't just take a FreeBSD port tree and compile it on Darwin for example.
I agree with that distribution names are really OSes while "Linux" is used for a related family of OSes. I should mention I can think of several examples where "Linux" was used for OSes without the Linux kernel. The best example is a Caldera product which was a Linux userland with a SCO kernel (and some basic SCO libraries) meant to offer software developers an intermediate step into Linux. Some of the "Linux on Mainframe" implementations which are considered Linux aren't actually using a Linux kernel but rather using the Linux kernel sources to provide services to one level of userland for applications at another layer.
I don't include web developers in platform statistics because their platform is the web, which is mostly OS non specific, unless they are creating OS specific code. I guess if you were to think them based on the webserver then that would create more Open Source developers, but I think that confuses things since there are so many more web developers than desktop software developers. So no I'm talking tools meant to run directly against an OS not against a webserver / browser which abstracts the OS.
And yes the vast majority of VB is in house code. But you were talking about number of people and there is where the overwhelming majority of desktop development happens, in-house corporate desktop applications.
Harvard Business Review. They regularly discuss the issue that Apple's strategy has been to target the self selected "elite" users and not the general group of "skinflint" PC users. And that this "elite" is where almost all the profit is, in the market. They have been developing this in articles for 6 years. I think John Gruber might be the original author of the theory.
In any case at this point the SEC, this comes right off the 10Qs.
I'm saying the model works for Apple as long as applications are cheap. Your concern about upgrades...
As far as your iPhone/iPad concern apps have to mark themselves as iPhone, iPad, both and they have to mark what versions they work with. My daughter's 1st generation iPod has a different software list than I get with my 4S iPhone. I think you might want to try just using the store from iTunes on your computer where you have a bigger screen and see "more stuff".
MacOS might very well have won the debate in '92 if the hardware were remotely close in price. 15% higher is different than 150% higher.
Right now the model is this:
a) You get a license for your software from the app store with each app
b) When you upgrade you download new versions of your software
c) If there is no appropriate version you pay to replace.
For a phone that's not a problem since there aren't going to be many expensive apps. If the app quality / price goes up your concern becomes more valid.