Yes I did use a BlackBerry pearl. I agree with you while I had web it was something I used when I couldn't use a desktop. The applications were really quite good, though pricey. And remember the iPhone didn't have apps.
pinch to zoom web hits all 3 of my areas. The motion itself is an example of animation based interfaces and capitative interfaces. Those existed on other phones but not combined with a web page.
BlackBerry and Symbian existed at the time and was far more of a smartphone. the iPhone 1 didn't have apps at all. What was new about it was combining those features. I'm not sure what to say other than there weren't any new concepts, vs. what else was out there. They were just put together really well.
As for the iPhone 5 I'm talking about the product I was talking about the manufacturing process. That was innovative. Customers just got something a little thinner and lighter. I agree that's no biggee. Manufacturers all over the planet stood up and took notice. That was a new arket.
It is. The next step would be for the Senate oversight committee to vote to refer the matter for prosecution. The question is whether they want to go down this road or not. Generally congress has been reluctant to have recorded votes because of the pr hit.
Getting a Linux to run on a bunch of different architectures was done many years ago. That's not remotely the same or even a similar thing as designing a new strategy for low power CPUs. It isn't ARM that is different. It is the instruction execution strategy and the tremendous internal parallelism that's different. The A7 is amazingly efficient using all sorts of small limited functionality subsystems to execute in parallel.
There are designs like this in the Intel Sandy Bridge but nothing like it at these power levels. For example the ROB is the same size as you see in the Haswell to allow for this much out of order execution!
I'm pretty sure that Apple will not permit a 30-day free trial,
Well they sort of allow that. For exampleif there is a backend service then that service can handle the 30-day free trial. But... generally Apple is going to want the purchase to happen via. App Store or via. a computer.
nor do they permit you to have functionality which is "disabled in this demo version."
They most certainly do allow functionality that is disabled until you pay for the upgrade. I've bought tons of functionality that way.
At worst, GP is right and it could compromise your ability to effectively market your app.
. And it sold like hotcakes in the few countries that released it, even with no future.
No it didn't. It sold pretty well around the kinds of numbers one saw with Lumia. Go back and take a look at the figures.
Because Elop had killed any chances of it once the N9 hit the ground, yes?
No. This was all pre-Elop. The Symbian migration components and the modern interface components didn't work together. There were essentially two operating systems that they were trying to merge and were floundering. The N9 just used one of them. It was cool, but the MeeGo OS as it existed on the N9 would have had the same problems as any other new OS in attracting developers. Or arguably even worse ones because it had broken Symbian connection stuff making it harder to learn and use.
. Or are you saying Windows Phone in reality does not have an installed base of around 3% of the market, today?
Well first off I think the way Tomi does marketshare is ridiculous. It would be like counting airplanes, cars, bicycles and sneakers as transportation facilitation devices and then looking at Boeing's share compared to Nike's. This is more of a problem with his analysis of Apple who is exclusively at the high end. Even if you were going to measure marketshare you would use revenue not units sold. But even if you were going to do that, 2013 was a bang up year with Windows phone growth of 156%.
Second are we talking sales or installed base? Windows phone has been growing installed base is going to lag by around 15 months a growth in sales. In Europe for example sales figures are: Android 70.7% Apple 19.2%. Windows 8.1%
And those Windows numbers have been steady. Windows phone gained in most markets and lost a lot in the UK.
I can't see any chance of WinPhone recovering. Not going to happen.
Recovering? Recovering from what? Lumia is already selling more than Windows mobile did in its hayday. Obviously there was a huge dropoff caused by Android and iPhone but Windows mobile was not a global product then.
It will be stuck below the 10% threshold (of global unit marketshare) for atleast a decade.
OK quite possibly true. Depends on what price point Microsoft aims Windows phone at more than anything else. The growth in the market, in terms of units is at the bottom and Android right now has the best play at the bottom. Microsoft if they choose to change that tomorrow could for very little money. Just sell $50 phones at $5 below cost and bang they have 30% marketshare. But those customers are worthless for the ecosystem.
Windows phone in the ranges that Microsoft likely cares about ($100+) has far more to do with where Android and or Apple becomes vulnerable. Lumia right now is doing well because low end Android is a terrible experience. They are sinking at the high end because Apple is cleaning out all the competitors at the high end including Android.
During the Elop years Nokia had fantastic marketshare in dumbphones and was the #2 player in unit sales far bigger than Apple. Tomi didn't even count those phones. And for good reason, Nokia couldn't make money at those price points it did them no good at all. Windows phone potentially I would suspect does well in the midrange around 2017 as Android has trouble transitioning to next generation hardware. On the other hand, given Google's strategy of creating a Google Play layer on top of a base Android OS, Microsoft might decide to do the same thing and create a.NET layer on top of Android. Microsoft's goal is to sell Cloud services the mobility unit exists to facilitate that. Or in the other direction Microsoft might include a full featured GooglePlay in Windows phone with features that Google cares about (primarily search) and take essentially all of Android's share at price
They are just incremental, evolutionary developments, not radical ideas that will move or create entire markets and lifestyles the way the original iPhone or iPad did.
The core of the iPhone (2007) was: a) capacitive touchscreen as the primary or sole means of input b) animation based interaction c) high speed web rendering
All 3 existed separately in other phones. The only major innovation was Apple putting them together first and seeing how the package would work. The iPhone was an incremental, evolutionary development from the smartphones of 2006.
If you want a Tim Cook idea that creates new markets the manufacturing process for the iPhone 5. Getting that phone as thin and as light has required manufacturing techniques that have never been used on a mass consumer product. That means entirely new types of factories i.e. entirely new types of machining. Apple's model for that where they produce the machining, let others borrow money for the factory and earn it back creates a new financing model. So there you go.
The iPhone 5S including a shift to an entirely new CPU architecture... is a smart phone that can run some apps.
I said the CPU architecture that's entirely new. The instruction handling on that CPU is unique brand new. The instruction classification system it uses is generally not even seen in desktop CPUs more likely server class. There is no reason that this process might far more complex chips to be designed and kept cool.
but the App Store has... awkward ports of puzzle games with crazy expensive in-app purchases
What? iPhone has by far the best vertical applications so far of any phone no one else is close and with the pairing with Softlayer's component mobile system this is getting more advanced.
____
Apple hasn't done any innovation if you ignore all the innovations they have done. The graphics model that made the animations possible on the iPhone came out in OSX 10.2 (October 3, 2003). There were not magic products during the Jobs era either. It was a slow process of building a foundation and then expanding from there. It takes years. Most certainly looking back from say 2024 things Apple is doing now will have had that kind of impact. But they haven't had the impact in 10 minutes.
the price users are willing to pay for apps is so low.
Prices have been going up. I'm seeing applications all the time with prices around $65 / user / mo for licensing. You didn't see that 3 years ago. Now if you mean generic mass popular crap for which there are hundreds of alternatives there the price may very well be going to 0.
The fundamental problem for app developers is they are still going after mass market rather than verticals or niches.
Want to do a demo? No great way to do it in the app store. A trial? Forbidden.
Huh? There are tons of apps with a free version and a paid version and/or paid upgrade. That's a demo / trial.
or give developers more flexibility in how they can market applications
Apple doesn't control marketing they control the point of sale. I get marketed all the time where various sites I'm on tell me if they an associated mobile application that does XYZ.
For example alternative web browsers that are more than just a skin like Firefox
Apple has most certainly not banned those. They have however held interpreters to very high standards. For example they've been trying to get Microsoft to port a trident based browser to Mac. There are no engines from indy developers so they can't do more than skin one of the few engines.
If someone has an interesting idea you can guarantee that about 15 minutes later Zynga will have cloned it, and then thrown money at marketing it and probably sued the original developer for good measure.
You do realize you are coming out in favor of strong IP protection in the first clause and then coming out against it in the 2nd?
I can't remember any exciting new product since Jobs stood down
The entirely new MacPro? The Macbook retina. The iPhone 5S including a shift to an entirely new CPU architecture? An new iOS operating system. An entire web / mobile based office suite.
but the Nokia N9 was seen as a phone that quality-wise was even better than the iPhone
That's another Tomi myth. The N9 was a terminal product. It was buggy and architecturally flawed. Certain aspects of it got good reviews and it was a cool "what might have been phone". That's it. Moreover there was no viable path to creating an ecosystem. Contrary to Tomi's nonsense the Nokia board, Elop and the Nokia executive team are not stupid. Had the N9 been much better than the iPhone they never would have abandoned MeeGo.
Right, keep on living in denial, don't really care. [regarding sales figures]
I gave you details from Kanter. We're done. You obviously have no respect for simple factual refutation, preferring to live in Tomi's world of paranoid delusion even when confronted with data.
For dictionaries, you get the behavior you would expect:
var ages = ["Peter": 23, "Wei": 35, "Anish": 65]
var copiedAges = ages
println(ages["Peter"])// prints "23"
copiedAges["Peter"] = 24
println(ages["Peter"])// still prints "23"
println(CopiedAges["Peter"])// prints "24"
However, for arrays, you get high-speed behavior where the copy is by reference:
var a = [1, 2, 3]
var b = a
println(a[0])// 1
println(b[0])// 1
a[0] = 42
println(a[0])// 42
println(b[0])// also 42 i.e. the b=a was by reference
But this reference only holds until you break it, which, for example, happens if you change the length of an array.
a.append(4)
a[0] = 777
println(a[0])// 777
println(b[0])// 42
Would anyone have designed a language like this if not tweaking it to work well with the underlying Objective-C / Cocoa?
Take a look at these three pictures:.. Sales do not lie.
No but Tomi does lie. By February 2011 Nokia's market share was down to 23.1% from the summer high of 33%. The graph is simple false. As for the picture about 1 for 1 replacement no one from Nokia has ever said that was the intent. They knew it was impossible.
They might've lost a bit of market share, but it would have paid off quite handsomely, especially with Meego.
MeeGo was a failed product. There was no viable path forward with MeeGo as Nokia had promised conflicting things. We've had multiple people who attended the meetings with Elop concur with his choice to abandon MeeGo because the problems in the design were unfixable. If you want an example of a company that followed the MeeGo strategy: RIM. They worked through their OS issues losing another year and thus constantly playing catch up while they burned cash.
Why they choose WinPhone I do not know.
Well I do know because both Elop and the Chairman of the board and others from Google, Microsoft etc... have said so publicly. 1) Since around 2002 Nokia had been allowing their margins to slip. While they were selling large numbers of phones they weren't making money under best case. Once problems hit they were a financial basket case.
2) It became clear in 2010 that Nokia was going to have problems putting out MeeGo phones in reasonable quantities all the way till 2014. At their burn rate they would have gone bankrupt regardless of how successful those 4 phones were.
3) So they needed either: a) drastically restructure the company. Which meant large 1x expenses that Nokia didn't have the cash for b) get their sales back up to previous levels.
4) Elop was hired to deal with the mess that OKP had left behind. 5) Elop approached Google offering them a Nokia exclusive in exchange for competitive advantages. Without advantages Nokia would have been competing with Asian manufacturers to produce phones and with their lower cost of financing, lower cost of parts and lower costs of construction they couldn't win. Google wasn't interested. 6) Elop then approached Microsoft. Microsoft agreed to not only give them competitive advantages but also direct cash subsidies to offset a chunk of the cost of restructuring.
WinPhone will have a hell of a hard time to reach even double-digit market share. Right now it's flatlined.
No it hasn't. Marketshare is up in virtually every market vs. 3 or 6 months ago. And certainly hugely up vs. 2 years ago. http://www.kantarworldpanel.co...
Seriously don't listen to Tomi he is both clueless and dishonest. There is no source I know of you'd get worse information from.
Windows phones are selling for less than ancient feature phones *without a contract*.
What. The 520 goes for about $100. The high end year old phones go for about $250-300. The newer ones are about $475. That's in line with Android smartphones excluding the top and bottom of the range.
Even being practically given away, on the college where I work's wireless network, windows phone (per mac address prefix) is almost non-existant. Its mostly Android with Apple getting about 30%, and you can count the windows devices that connect in any day on one hand (out of 10,000 students).
Phones are highly regional, no geographic location is a random sample.
Tomi has rather damning evidence in his wall of text:
Read the links. Elop never said what Tomi attributes to him. At a time when Lumia phones didn't even have Skype, Elop was asked about the operator / Microsoft relationship... There was no mention of a boycott in his response. He mentioned that among the reason those operators that were hostile to Microsoft were hostile Skype was the reason. That's it as far as facts. In terms of the companies supposedly boycotting is Verizon who spends money enhancing Skype.
Why do you think Nokia fell from being twice as large as it's biggest competitor to completely fall out the top ten in mobile in a mere three years?
For the same reason RIM experienced a similar decline. Better products emerged from the USA: Android and iPhone.
It's called Windows Phone
There was a huge drop in Symbian marketshare 6 months before Elop came on as CEO. Causes cannot happen temporally before effects.
. The problem is that carriers - e.g. Verizon, AT&T, Sprint etc - Will not subsidize windows phones... Oh sure they will sell those phones, but only at full price.
Last year at many of those carriers the subsidies on Windows phone were higher than on iPhone. No one until that point had beat Apple ever. Take a look at the prices today they aren't at full price as we speak. Symbian had problems being subsidized because of the terrible Nokia relationship with USA carriers, Windows phone does not and never has had that problem because Ballmer and co. assisted.
Carriers have built their business on exclusive services in their own networks.
Lync (commercial Skype, same protocol) is for most of those carriers something they are spending tons of money to support better. You are simply wrong.
I suspect that GNUstep will do the usual lag Apple by about a decade. So older Swift applications will probably be portable to GNUste while newer ones will not be.
The whole point of Swift is its ability to abstract Cocoa. Lots of Swift's specifics make no sense without Cocoa. Given that Swift in practice is going to be loaded with calls to Cocoa, it is going to be as portable as Visual Basic or Bash.
Scala is interesting and clearly will be somewhere. Swift has the backing of a major platform vendor with a long history of being able to move their platform.
Are they "growing rapidly" in any developed market like the USA, Canada, EU, Japan, Australia, New Zealand?
Yes. France 10.5% latest figures up from 1.9% two years ago Japan 0% to 1.4% 2 year UK 4.1% to 9.1% 2 year etc...
They don't even advertise Windows Phone on TV any more in the USA and at least a few years ago they were doing that.
Nokia has reduced their push in the USA market. The USA market is too different than their model, for structural reasons. Obviously the USA is important to Microsoft so I'd expect that to change post acquisition.
Well I know it because the easiest solution would have been for Netflix to have bought Verizon originally as their provider.
Let T denote average traffic per second over the course of a day from Netflix to customers in Mbps Let M denote maximum traffic per day from Netflix to customers in Mbps
Clearly T is much smaller than M, definitely an 1/8th or less, I'd assume closer to 4% and might be as low as 1%. To balance the traffic Netflix has to create return traffic equal to their current traffic.
Case 1: Netflix buys enough additional bandwidth to handle M. Essentially what they have had to buy already from Level3. Case 2: Netflix pays a fee for inexpensive bandwidth for T but fro Verizon via. the peering arrangement.
In addition the peering costs are designed around: pickup at a good location, drop off at customer site
Level3 might be a bit cheaper than Verizon could be as low as 1/2 (though generally it isn't anywhere near that much lower). The location matters. But no way is that enough to compensate for the difference between T and M in terms of volume.
Slashdot Mirror
Yes I did use a BlackBerry pearl. I agree with you while I had web it was something I used when I couldn't use a desktop. The applications were really quite good, though pricey. And remember the iPhone didn't have apps.
pinch to zoom web hits all 3 of my areas. The motion itself is an example of animation based interfaces and capitative interfaces. Those existed on other phones but not combined with a web page.
BlackBerry and Symbian existed at the time and was far more of a smartphone. the iPhone 1 didn't have apps at all. What was new about it was combining those features. I'm not sure what to say other than there weren't any new concepts, vs. what else was out there. They were just put together really well.
As for the iPhone 5 I'm talking about the product I was talking about the manufacturing process. That was innovative. Customers just got something a little thinner and lighter. I agree that's no biggee. Manufacturers all over the planet stood up and took notice. That was a new arket.
It is. The next step would be for the Senate oversight committee to vote to refer the matter for prosecution. The question is whether they want to go down this road or not. Generally congress has been reluctant to have recorded votes because of the pr hit.
OK good even better. I hadn't run into that on any I use. So they specifically allow for a countdown.
Getting a Linux to run on a bunch of different architectures was done many years ago. That's not remotely the same or even a similar thing as designing a new strategy for low power CPUs. It isn't ARM that is different. It is the instruction execution strategy and the tremendous internal parallelism that's different. The A7 is amazingly efficient using all sorts of small limited functionality subsystems to execute in parallel.
http://www.extremetech.com/wp-...
There are designs like this in the Intel Sandy Bridge but nothing like it at these power levels. For example the ROB is the same size as you see in the Haswell to allow for this much out of order execution!
Well they sort of allow that. For exampleif there is a backend service then that service can handle the 30-day free trial. But... generally Apple is going to want the purchase to happen via. App Store or via. a computer.
They most certainly do allow functionality that is disabled until you pay for the upgrade. I've bought tons of functionality that way.
I'm still not seeing what you can't do.
No it didn't. It sold pretty well around the kinds of numbers one saw with Lumia. Go back and take a look at the figures.
No. This was all pre-Elop. The Symbian migration components and the modern interface components didn't work together. There were essentially two operating systems that they were trying to merge and were floundering. The N9 just used one of them. It was cool, but the MeeGo OS as it existed on the N9 would have had the same problems as any other new OS in attracting developers. Or arguably even worse ones because it had broken Symbian connection stuff making it harder to learn and use.
Well first off I think the way Tomi does marketshare is ridiculous. It would be like counting airplanes, cars, bicycles and sneakers as transportation facilitation devices and then looking at Boeing's share compared to Nike's. This is more of a problem with his analysis of Apple who is exclusively at the high end. Even if you were going to measure marketshare you would use revenue not units sold. But even if you were going to do that, 2013 was a bang up year with Windows phone growth of 156%.
Second are we talking sales or installed base? Windows phone has been growing installed base is going to lag by around 15 months a growth in sales. In Europe for example sales figures are:
Android 70.7%
Apple 19.2%.
Windows 8.1%
And those Windows numbers have been steady. Windows phone gained in most markets and lost a lot in the UK.
Recovering? Recovering from what? Lumia is already selling more than Windows mobile did in its hayday. Obviously there was a huge dropoff caused by Android and iPhone but Windows mobile was not a global product then.
OK quite possibly true. Depends on what price point Microsoft aims Windows phone at more than anything else. The growth in the market, in terms of units is at the bottom and Android right now has the best play at the bottom. Microsoft if they choose to change that tomorrow could for very little money. Just sell $50 phones at $5 below cost and bang they have 30% marketshare. But those customers are worthless for the ecosystem.
Windows phone in the ranges that Microsoft likely cares about ($100+) has far more to do with where Android and or Apple becomes vulnerable. Lumia right now is doing well because low end Android is a terrible experience. They are sinking at the high end because Apple is cleaning out all the competitors at the high end including Android.
During the Elop years Nokia had fantastic marketshare in dumbphones and was the #2 player in unit sales far bigger than Apple. Tomi didn't even count those phones. And for good reason, Nokia couldn't make money at those price points it did them no good at all. Windows phone potentially I would suspect does well in the midrange around 2017 as Android has trouble transitioning to next generation hardware. On the other hand, given Google's strategy of creating a Google Play layer on top of a base Android OS, Microsoft might decide to do the same thing and create a .NET layer on top of Android. Microsoft's goal is to sell Cloud services the mobility unit exists to facilitate that. Or in the other direction Microsoft might include a full featured GooglePlay in Windows phone with features that Google cares about (primarily search) and take essentially all of Android's share at price
The core of the iPhone (2007) was:
a) capacitive touchscreen as the primary or sole means of input
b) animation based interaction
c) high speed web rendering
All 3 existed separately in other phones. The only major innovation was Apple putting them together first and seeing how the package would work. The iPhone was an incremental, evolutionary development from the smartphones of 2006.
If you want a Tim Cook idea that creates new markets the manufacturing process for the iPhone 5. Getting that phone as thin and as light has required manufacturing techniques that have never been used on a mass consumer product. That means entirely new types of factories i.e. entirely new types of machining. Apple's model for that where they produce the machining, let others borrow money for the factory and earn it back creates a new financing model. So there you go.
I said the CPU architecture that's entirely new. The instruction handling on that CPU is unique brand new. The instruction classification system it uses is generally not even seen in desktop CPUs more likely server class. There is no reason that this process might far more complex chips to be designed and kept cool.
What? iPhone has by far the best vertical applications so far of any phone no one else is close and with the pairing with Softlayer's component mobile system this is getting more advanced.
____
Apple hasn't done any innovation if you ignore all the innovations they have done. The graphics model that made the animations possible on the iPhone came out in OSX 10.2 (October 3, 2003). There were not magic products during the Jobs era either. It was a slow process of building a foundation and then expanding from there. It takes years. Most certainly looking back from say 2024 things Apple is doing now will have had that kind of impact. But they haven't had the impact in 10 minutes.
Prices have been going up. I'm seeing applications all the time with prices around $65 / user / mo for licensing. You didn't see that 3 years ago. Now if you mean generic mass popular crap for which there are hundreds of alternatives there the price may very well be going to 0.
The fundamental problem for app developers is they are still going after mass market rather than verticals or niches.
Huh? There are tons of apps with a free version and a paid version and/or paid upgrade. That's a demo / trial.
Apple doesn't control marketing they control the point of sale. I get marketed all the time where various sites I'm on tell me if they an associated mobile application that does XYZ.
Apple has most certainly not banned those. They have however held interpreters to very high standards. For example they've been trying to get Microsoft to port a trident based browser to Mac. There are no engines from indy developers so they can't do more than skin one of the few engines.
You do realize you are coming out in favor of strong IP protection in the first clause and then coming out against it in the 2nd?
The entirely new MacPro? The Macbook retina. The iPhone 5S including a shift to an entirely new CPU architecture? An new iOS operating system. An entire web / mobile based office suite.
Your theory would be plausible except that investors are pouring in not out as they are getting terrific returns on investment.
That's another Tomi myth. The N9 was a terminal product. It was buggy and architecturally flawed. Certain aspects of it got good reviews and it was a cool "what might have been phone". That's it. Moreover there was no viable path to creating an ecosystem. Contrary to Tomi's nonsense the Nokia board, Elop and the Nokia executive team are not stupid. Had the N9 been much better than the iPhone they never would have abandoned MeeGo.
I gave you details from Kanter. We're done. You obviously have no respect for simple factual refutation, preferring to live in Tomi's world of paranoid delusion even when confronted with data.
I doubt you looked too closely. To quote my blog:
For dictionaries, you get the behavior you would expect:
var ages = ["Peter": 23, "Wei": 35, "Anish": 65]
var copiedAges = ages
println(ages["Peter"]) // prints "23" // still prints "23" // prints "24"
copiedAges["Peter"] = 24
println(ages["Peter"])
println(CopiedAges["Peter"])
However, for arrays, you get high-speed behavior where the copy is by reference: // 1 // 1 // 42 // also 42 i.e. the b=a was by reference
var a = [1, 2, 3]
var b = a
println(a[0])
println(b[0])
a[0] = 42
println(a[0])
println(b[0])
But this reference only holds until you break it, which, for example, happens if you change the length of an array. // 777 // 42
a.append(4)
a[0] = 777
println(a[0])
println(b[0])
Would anyone have designed a language like this if not tweaking it to work well with the underlying Objective-C / Cocoa?
No but Tomi does lie. By February 2011 Nokia's market share was down to 23.1% from the summer high of 33%. The graph is simple false. As for the picture about 1 for 1 replacement no one from Nokia has ever said that was the intent. They knew it was impossible.
MeeGo was a failed product. There was no viable path forward with MeeGo as Nokia had promised conflicting things. We've had multiple people who attended the meetings with Elop concur with his choice to abandon MeeGo because the problems in the design were unfixable. If you want an example of a company that followed the MeeGo strategy: RIM. They worked through their OS issues losing another year and thus constantly playing catch up while they burned cash.
Well I do know because both Elop and the Chairman of the board and others from Google, Microsoft etc... have said so publicly.
1) Since around 2002 Nokia had been allowing their margins to slip. While they were selling large numbers of phones they weren't making money under best case. Once problems hit they were a financial basket case.
2) It became clear in 2010 that Nokia was going to have problems putting out MeeGo phones in reasonable quantities all the way till 2014. At their burn rate they would have gone bankrupt regardless of how successful those 4 phones were.
3) So they needed either:
a) drastically restructure the company. Which meant large 1x expenses that Nokia didn't have the cash for
b) get their sales back up to previous levels.
4) Elop was hired to deal with the mess that OKP had left behind.
5) Elop approached Google offering them a Nokia exclusive in exchange for competitive advantages. Without advantages Nokia would have been competing with Asian manufacturers to produce phones and with their lower cost of financing, lower cost of parts and lower costs of construction they couldn't win. Google wasn't interested.
6) Elop then approached Microsoft. Microsoft agreed to not only give them competitive advantages but also direct cash subsidies to offset a chunk of the cost of restructuring.
No it hasn't. Marketshare is up in virtually every market vs. 3 or 6 months ago. And certainly hugely up vs. 2 years ago.
http://www.kantarworldpanel.co...
Seriously don't listen to Tomi he is both clueless and dishonest. There is no source I know of you'd get worse information from.
What. The 520 goes for about $100. The high end year old phones go for about $250-300. The newer ones are about $475. That's in line with Android smartphones excluding the top and bottom of the range.
Phones are highly regional, no geographic location is a random sample.
Read the links. Elop never said what Tomi attributes to him. At a time when Lumia phones didn't even have Skype, Elop was asked about the operator / Microsoft relationship... There was no mention of a boycott in his response. He mentioned that among the reason those operators that were hostile to Microsoft were hostile Skype was the reason. That's it as far as facts. In terms of the companies supposedly boycotting is Verizon who spends money enhancing Skype.
For the same reason RIM experienced a similar decline. Better products emerged from the USA: Android and iPhone.
There was a huge drop in Symbian marketshare 6 months before Elop came on as CEO. Causes cannot happen temporally before effects.
Last year at many of those carriers the subsidies on Windows phone were higher than on iPhone. No one until that point had beat Apple ever. Take a look at the prices today they aren't at full price as we speak. Symbian had problems being subsidized because of the terrible Nokia relationship with USA carriers, Windows phone does not and never has had that problem because Ballmer and co. assisted.
Lync (commercial Skype, same protocol) is for most of those carriers something they are spending tons of money to support better. You are simply wrong.
I suspect that GNUstep will do the usual lag Apple by about a decade. So older Swift applications will probably be portable to GNUste while newer ones will not be.
The whole point of Swift is its ability to abstract Cocoa. Lots of Swift's specifics make no sense without Cocoa. Given that Swift in practice is going to be loaded with calls to Cocoa, it is going to be as portable as Visual Basic or Bash.
If you knew 20 languages you would know there are real differences between where they excel.
Scala is interesting and clearly will be somewhere. Swift has the backing of a major platform vendor with a long history of being able to move their platform.
Yes.
France 10.5% latest figures up from 1.9% two years ago
Japan 0% to 1.4% 2 year
UK 4.1% to 9.1% 2 year
etc...
Nokia has reduced their push in the USA market. The USA market is too different than their model, for structural reasons. Obviously the USA is important to Microsoft so I'd expect that to change post acquisition.
Well I know it because the easiest solution would have been for Netflix to have bought Verizon originally as their provider.
Let T denote average traffic per second over the course of a day from Netflix to customers in Mbps
Let M denote maximum traffic per day from Netflix to customers in Mbps
Clearly T is much smaller than M, definitely an 1/8th or less, I'd assume closer to 4% and might be as low as 1%. To balance the traffic Netflix has to create return traffic equal to their current traffic.
Case 1: Netflix buys enough additional bandwidth to handle M. Essentially what they have had to buy already from Level3.
Case 2: Netflix pays a fee for inexpensive bandwidth for T but fro Verizon via. the peering arrangement.
In addition the peering costs are designed around: pickup at a good location, drop off at customer site
Level3 might be a bit cheaper than Verizon could be as low as 1/2 (though generally it isn't anywhere near that much lower). The location matters. But no way is that enough to compensate for the difference between T and M in terms of volume.
Except it is total fiction. Tomi made it up. Nothing like that every happened.
http://dominiescommunicate.wor...
http://dominiescommunicate.wor...
http://dominiescommunicate.wor...