Maybe, but then again, maybe not. Look at Nokia. They absolutely dominate the global smartphone market. Much, much larger marketshare than Apple. And still, nobody is developing for them.
A large number of phones doesn't necessarily translate into more profits unless the attach rate (to borrow a term from the game console market) is there. I can't find the source right now, but I recently read that the average iPhone owner is much more likely to pay for apps than the average Android owner. Apple and Apple developers might find that a smaller group of affluent customers is plenty profitable.
It's hard for me to look at Apple as a loser in this battle. They may not win the marketshare battle, but they are very profitable and influential. People generally love their products.
No, I wondered what the OP thought was pathetic about XP? Is it the OS itself? Is it pathetic that it is still in use? I really don't get it.
At this point, aren't all operating systems more or less equivalent? There are compelling applications out there that might lead one to need a particular OS, but the operating system by itself isn't very interesting.
BTW, I think the XP number is a bit low. There are millions of XP machines out there that never browse the internet. They are quietly running kiosks, embedded in industrial machinery, or executing tasks on corporate LANs. There isn't much reason to move these systems off of XP (that is until some genius plugs an ethernet cable into them).
Your example is actually correct. Microsoft as a monopoly is restricted in what they are allowed to do much more so than a smaller company like Apple. It might not always make sense, but abuse of monopoly power is a very serious offence.
These days it might sound funny to talk about Microsoft as a 900-pound gorilla, but at one time they definitely were.
This is not your typical Microsoft version 1 product
Does everybody have amnesia? Microsoft has been making smartphones for a long time now. Calling this a version one product would be like calling Vista a version 1 product. It's significantly different from it's ancestors, but it has ancestors. I would hope they learned something along the way.
This is easy - all of their best developers left for Google, Apple, and Facebook (Google is seeing an exodus of talent now too). For recruiting, they simply aren't as attractive as their competitors either. Their stock is flatlining, their product range is mature and boring, and they are a huge bureaucratic company. Like lots of meetings? Well then send your resume to Microsoft. They belong to the group of companies that includes Oracle, Cisco, IBM, and SAP. Highly profitable blue chips that are dull.
You can't innovate and beat the competition with the mediocre developers. Those that can't innovate, litigate.
You're right. I wasn't thinking globally when I wrote that.
In the US, you can't even get the N8 from a carrier. They need to get a carrier to subsidize their device if they want to compete here. They do a really awful job selling their top end devices in the US. Maybe they are just going to concede this market?
If you search for "nokia smartphone", you certainly don't get a positive impression of their efforts. Mostly you read stories of their declining relevance and their search for a new CEO who understands smartphones. Buried among those stories are a few that point out that globally, they aren't doing too bad. Still, if they don't do something to combat the negative impressions, they are going to get the stink of death on them and not be able to get it off.
In North America, the biggest impediment to expanding the smartphone market to lower price segments is the carriers. An iPhone 3GS is only $99 now. When Verizon starts selling the iPhone, I expect that will drop to $0. You can already get very cheap pay-as-you-go Android phones (that suck). So I think anybody who wants a smartphone, could get one. The problem lies with the plans. It's very hard to get a decent dataplan in the US for less than about $70 / month. I don't think there is much Nokia can do about that.
This might not be the case in other parts of the world though.
I was talking about the smartphone market. If you look at a snapshot of market statistics, you would think I'm nuts. Instead look at the trends. If you were running the smartphone division at Nokia, would you be happy with their performance since the iPhone debuted?
I think that depends on what factors you are judging. From a technical perspective, the death of Symbian might be as much of an atrocity as the deaths of OS/2 and Amiga.
From a business perspective, it might be an atrocity if Nokia continues to let their (perceived) relevance in the smartphone market slip away. They may be sealing their fate by continuing to invest scarce resources in something that has such a slim chance of succeeding. Even if they can make a better software environment, I don't think they can market it. Compare it to media players: lots of people make better MP3 players than Apple, yet iPod is the only one that matters.
having the entire world minus north america develop app for them
That's going to be hard. The iPhone is now dominating the Japanese market and is ramping up in China. Nokia's momentum is in the wrong direction almost everywhere (which is partially because it was so dominant).
For a smartphone, the app market is very important. How can Nokia compete with Apple, Google, RIM, and Microsoft for developers? I'm afraid that they will win the battle of the spec-sheet, but nobody is going to care.
If I were Nokia, I would start selling devices that can be loaded with Symbian or with Android, much like Palm did with Treo a few years ago.
My best prediction is that Symbian will do well in some vertical markets, but will never get very far in the consumer market.
They will only be a problem for Apple if they start to siphon significant developers away from Apple, Android, and Blackberry. They might be a problem for Windows Phone 7 though. That could be a battle.
They sell more phones than anybody, but not when you look at individual segments. For the smartphone market, they aren't doing very well and I really don't see what they can do to turn that around. Fantastic hardware isn't enough. In fact, I would say fantastic marketing is more important than engineering.
The big ISP's don't pay anything for bandwidth because they sign peering agreements with all the other big players.
Still, they don't want you using your bandwidth for streaming NetFlix, they want you to use it to stream their VOD titles which often cost a few dollars per movie.
I would be careful about requesting a name change. If we aren't careful, we might get GIMP Office. The "orifice" jokes alone would kill any corporate penetration.
Slashdot Mirror
Maybe, but then again, maybe not. Look at Nokia. They absolutely dominate the global smartphone market. Much, much larger marketshare than Apple. And still, nobody is developing for them.
A large number of phones doesn't necessarily translate into more profits unless the attach rate (to borrow a term from the game console market) is there. I can't find the source right now, but I recently read that the average iPhone owner is much more likely to pay for apps than the average Android owner. Apple and Apple developers might find that a smaller group of affluent customers is plenty profitable.
It's hard for me to look at Apple as a loser in this battle. They may not win the marketshare battle, but they are very profitable and influential. People generally love their products.
Not bad for coming in second place.
You've been watching too much Battlestar Galactica.
Ah, music. I was only looking for monopolies in markets where they actually make the product. Never thought of their music channel. Good example.
In what do they have a monopoly? About the only think I can think of is in stand-alone MP3 players and even that is debatable.
The bandwidth could be awesome. The latency would suck though.
Fanboi? That's funny.
No, I wondered what the OP thought was pathetic about XP? Is it the OS itself? Is it pathetic that it is still in use? I really don't get it.
At this point, aren't all operating systems more or less equivalent? There are compelling applications out there that might lead one to need a particular OS, but the operating system by itself isn't very interesting.
What do you mean XP looks pathetic?
BTW, I think the XP number is a bit low. There are millions of XP machines out there that never browse the internet. They are quietly running kiosks, embedded in industrial machinery, or executing tasks on corporate LANs. There isn't much reason to move these systems off of XP (that is until some genius plugs an ethernet cable into them).
Your example is actually correct. Microsoft as a monopoly is restricted in what they are allowed to do much more so than a smaller company like Apple. It might not always make sense, but abuse of monopoly power is a very serious offence.
These days it might sound funny to talk about Microsoft as a 900-pound gorilla, but at one time they definitely were.
There were 9 or 10 different handsets available on launch day, according to gizmodo.
Does everybody have amnesia? Microsoft has been making smartphones for a long time now. Calling this a version one product would be like calling Vista a version 1 product. It's significantly different from it's ancestors, but it has ancestors. I would hope they learned something along the way.
This is easy - all of their best developers left for Google, Apple, and Facebook (Google is seeing an exodus of talent now too). For recruiting, they simply aren't as attractive as their competitors either. Their stock is flatlining, their product range is mature and boring, and they are a huge bureaucratic company. Like lots of meetings? Well then send your resume to Microsoft. They belong to the group of companies that includes Oracle, Cisco, IBM, and SAP. Highly profitable blue chips that are dull.
You can't innovate and beat the competition with the mediocre developers. Those that can't innovate, litigate.
There are component shortages. They wanted more phones, but that's all they could get.
40,000 is a crappy number when you consider the $100,000,000 pre-launch ad campaign. Spending more than $2,000 per phone in advertising is awful.
You're right. I wasn't thinking globally when I wrote that.
In the US, you can't even get the N8 from a carrier. They need to get a carrier to subsidize their device if they want to compete here. They do a really awful job selling their top end devices in the US. Maybe they are just going to concede this market?
If you search for "nokia smartphone", you certainly don't get a positive impression of their efforts. Mostly you read stories of their declining relevance and their search for a new CEO who understands smartphones. Buried among those stories are a few that point out that globally, they aren't doing too bad. Still, if they don't do something to combat the negative impressions, they are going to get the stink of death on them and not be able to get it off.
In North America, the biggest impediment to expanding the smartphone market to lower price segments is the carriers. An iPhone 3GS is only $99 now. When Verizon starts selling the iPhone, I expect that will drop to $0. You can already get very cheap pay-as-you-go Android phones (that suck). So I think anybody who wants a smartphone, could get one. The problem lies with the plans. It's very hard to get a decent dataplan in the US for less than about $70 / month. I don't think there is much Nokia can do about that.
This might not be the case in other parts of the world though.
I was talking about the smartphone market. If you look at a snapshot of market statistics, you would think I'm nuts. Instead look at the trends. If you were running the smartphone division at Nokia, would you be happy with their performance since the iPhone debuted?
I think that depends on what factors you are judging. From a technical perspective, the death of Symbian might be as much of an atrocity as the deaths of OS/2 and Amiga.
From a business perspective, it might be an atrocity if Nokia continues to let their (perceived) relevance in the smartphone market slip away. They may be sealing their fate by continuing to invest scarce resources in something that has such a slim chance of succeeding. Even if they can make a better software environment, I don't think they can market it. Compare it to media players: lots of people make better MP3 players than Apple, yet iPod is the only one that matters.
That's going to be hard. The iPhone is now dominating the Japanese market and is ramping up in China. Nokia's momentum is in the wrong direction almost everywhere (which is partially because it was so dominant).
For a smartphone, the app market is very important. How can Nokia compete with Apple, Google, RIM, and Microsoft for developers? I'm afraid that they will win the battle of the spec-sheet, but nobody is going to care.
If I were Nokia, I would start selling devices that can be loaded with Symbian or with Android, much like Palm did with Treo a few years ago.
My best prediction is that Symbian will do well in some vertical markets, but will never get very far in the consumer market.
They will only be a problem for Apple if they start to siphon significant developers away from Apple, Android, and Blackberry. They might be a problem for Windows Phone 7 though. That could be a battle.
They sell more phones than anybody, but not when you look at individual segments. For the smartphone market, they aren't doing very well and I really don't see what they can do to turn that around. Fantastic hardware isn't enough. In fact, I would say fantastic marketing is more important than engineering.
If you bought IBM's technical manual for the PC, you got full schematics and source code for the BIOS. It might not be free, but it was very open.
Air gap.
The big ISP's don't pay anything for bandwidth because they sign peering agreements with all the other big players.
Still, they don't want you using your bandwidth for streaming NetFlix, they want you to use it to stream their VOD titles which often cost a few dollars per movie.
I would be careful about requesting a name change. If we aren't careful, we might get GIMP Office. The "orifice" jokes alone would kill any corporate penetration.
If junk food were more expensive (as described above), would people buy less of it?
Yes they would buy less. If the producers of the sugary food could make more money by raising their prices, they would.