I agree that the web browser was the "killer app". I'm sorry that my use of the word "toy" stirred up so many negative emotions - I simply wanted to show a distinction from the popular business "tools" of the day: Blackberry and CE. I'm happy to use a different word.
I used the term toy not as a derogatory term, but simply as a word that is clearly distinct from tool. Smartphones are mostly about entertainment and social communication - not about business. Blackberry and CE had business nailed for years.
Why not go with the same answer as evolution, "It works. Case closed"?
That isn't the answer with evolution. The answer with evolution is to trace back why each mutation earned each ancestor an advantage, so that one could explain the result.
Tell me, which is the optimal animal, or what should it be?
Do you want a scientific answer or a religious answer? The scientific answer will be something like: an animal that will take fullest advantage of available resources in order to ensure that its genes will persist through time. The religious answer is: man.
And people here declaring what the design objective should have been according to them, means precisely nothing.
You just - very eloquently - said, "No one can know God's plan." It's a tried-and-true line of reasoning, but does nothing to satisfy my curiosity about the natural world. I see something discordant - man is clearly not optimally designed for his environment in many ways. I want to know why? Try Occam's Razor on these two possible explanations: 1. The designer has a larger plan that you do not know. Your frame of reference is wrong and the designer had a very good reason to make your hips a funny shape - you just can't know what that is because you can't ask the designer. 2. We weren't designed.
Which explanation seems simpler? To a curious person, which avenue is going to lead to further discovery?
No ability for third parties to write software for them.
All of the smartphones - and even most feature phones - available when the iPhone was released had 3rd party apps. ARM even used to have a built-in Java accelerator (which I think is now deprecated).
In fact, the iPhone was odd in that it only supported web apps when it was launched, and yet it was still a success. Even when it added native app support, it severely restricted what they could do compared to other platforms.
No, I think it is fun and that is why people want it. Flip phones were good at calls and texting and (some) took good pictures. Blackberries did email. But what really blew open the smartphone market was the ability to pull in entertainment: usable web browsing, watching YouTube, and decent games. The people who needed pocket tools already had them. The fact that the iPhone can ALSO make a good tool is simply a result of the underlying tech that makes the toy possible. It's probably not fair to call the productivity stuff an afterthought, but productivity phones were already common when the iPhone was launched.
True, but they are highly correlated. This guy practically screams mental illness. His roommates all moved out? He used to be in IT? No friends or family to stay with? Hmm... Let me ask you: if you had a friend who you knew was sleeping in a carport, wouldn't you offer them a bed - or at least whatever space you do have? If your answer is "it depends on", then many of the things you are about to say tend to be traits common in someone with mental illness.
I think what they need to do is pick a niche or a few niches and specialize like crazy to those niches. Be the best in class and get a reputation for being the best in class. Slowly grow from that position.
Nokia had the right idea with the good cameras in their smart phones, but they got drawn in to the low end, selling the crappy version at Walmart. I suspect both the Nokia and MS cultures are very hung up on growing market-share when what they need to be doing is brand-building and trying to find under-served markets.
Still, that's a long term strategy that will burn a lot of cash.
I disagree that was the problem. The problem was that he made the same mistake that most of us geeks on here make - projection. He thought that people wanted smart phones to be little computers. Most of the commenters on here want the same thing - a little unix box that they can ssh with and such. He led MS down a path of making little pocket computers, complete with Start menus and everything. And you know what? They were more successful than just about any other smart phone. Things looked good... good enough to dismiss the iPhone as a toy when it came out.
And he was right, it was a toy. But apparently the toy market is a lot bigger than the pocket computer market. It turns out that people wanted a pocket toy, and not a pocket computer. That the toy happens to use a computer to make it so much fun is a technical issue.
Where Balmer gets blame is how badly MS executed on their toy once it became clear that the market liked the iPhone. Google figured it out IMMEDIATELY, so it's not as if it was too much to expect. Sure, initial Android sets kind of sucked, but they were toys and they were cheap - so people could overlook a lot. And since then, it has gotten quite slick. Microsoft, meanwhile, assumed that kids were the driver and brought out that ridiculous Kin based on CE. Then they tried coming out with a refreshed CE in 6.5, which fooled no one. Finally, after losing out the low-end to Android and the high-end to Apple, they come out with a proper Windows Phone. Even then, while it certainly has it's merits, it is essentially another iPhone/Android and really brings nothing to the table that would make people choose it over the competition. And on top of this, it was still trying to pursue the "charge for software" model, when the chief competition is free!
Now they finally made the right move in buying a hardware vendor. If they go toe-to-toe with Samsung, I'm not sure they will ever recoup their investment. After all, Samsung is vertically integrated and is a monster in their capacity to turn a small profit on low-end phones. They are going to have to chase Apple (and Samsung) at the high end. I wish them luck!
Fair enough, but I use Silk preferentially on my Kindle because it is faster. I'm not worried that Amazon knows what I say on Facebook. Facebook and my ISP already know anyway, and a faceless corporation is a faceless corporation.
Also think about if God thought ahead to various evolutionary hurdles.
Since he is credited with designing even the evolutionary system, it's still "his bad". Why would he implement an evolutionary system that isn't perfect?
I know, I know, "God works in mysterious ways.":) Amazing that phrase ends people's natural curiosity, but combined with eternal damnation it seems to work.
Yes, they can't really believe that - they are just trying to inject their pet cause everywhere... as if Slashdotters aren't aware already. It's like the Bush trolls from a few years back.
Yes, it's called a "company" town, and it happens wherever there is a single major employer. Often the employer is the reason the town exists as more than a little village in the first place, so it's not at all clear how one would expect it to exist unchanged when the employer leaves. It happens to big towns, too... Remove Disney from Orlando and see if anyone wants to hit the center of Florida in the middle of the summer.
See my above response to the AC. I don't really consider them distinct - so naturally I would agree that the corporations help to construct policy. I would argue that we need stronger separation between the two.
btrfs looks very promising. The fact that SUSE is considering making it the default is heartening. When I was setting up my server, it was not a real option. Even now, I might be a little uneasy until someone is using the multi-disk stuff in production. I'll keep playing with it:)
Corporations can get the government to change the rules that they operate under on a whim.
I guess I didn't make my opinion clear. Of course the corporations can influence the government - they are as much a part of it as the State Department. I'd wager that CEOs and other company officials are called to testify in front of congress as often as any other branch of government. Heck, company officials are even elected, albeit by representation based on wealth instead of population.
Corporations ARE the government. Sure they are owned by individual investors, but their charter is granted by the government, and they are endowed with super-human liability powers that would make this arrangement otherwise impossible. The government can change the rules that they operate under on a whim. You want an example of government interference in the "free market"? The corporation (especially the limited liability part) is perhaps the largest, though "intellectual property" is pretty high up there.
While I'm fairly gung-ho on driverless cars, currently my car preferences seem similar to yours. I found a minivan with manual slider doors, cloth seats, and no entertainment options except the CD player. Those are not easy to find! I found a similarly equipped Camry for my wife. Both do have power windows and door locks, but that's not a big reliability problem in my experience. You need to find a dealer that has a lot of former fleet vehicles - they are usually more bare-bones than cars aimed at consumers. The only problem is that your selection is more limited, since there isn't that much variety in fleets.
Slashdot Mirror
I agree that the web browser was the "killer app". I'm sorry that my use of the word "toy" stirred up so many negative emotions - I simply wanted to show a distinction from the popular business "tools" of the day: Blackberry and CE. I'm happy to use a different word.
I used the term toy not as a derogatory term, but simply as a word that is clearly distinct from tool. Smartphones are mostly about entertainment and social communication - not about business. Blackberry and CE had business nailed for years.
Why not go with the same answer as evolution, "It works. Case closed"?
That isn't the answer with evolution. The answer with evolution is to trace back why each mutation earned each ancestor an advantage, so that one could explain the result.
Tell me, which is the optimal animal, or what should it be?
Do you want a scientific answer or a religious answer? The scientific answer will be something like: an animal that will take fullest advantage of available resources in order to ensure that its genes will persist through time. The religious answer is: man.
And people here declaring what the design objective should have been according to them, means precisely nothing.
You just - very eloquently - said, "No one can know God's plan." It's a tried-and-true line of reasoning, but does nothing to satisfy my curiosity about the natural world. I see something discordant - man is clearly not optimally designed for his environment in many ways. I want to know why? Try Occam's Razor on these two possible explanations:
1. The designer has a larger plan that you do not know. Your frame of reference is wrong and the designer had a very good reason to make your hips a funny shape - you just can't know what that is because you can't ask the designer.
2. We weren't designed.
Which explanation seems simpler? To a curious person, which avenue is going to lead to further discovery?
No ability for third parties to write software for them.
All of the smartphones - and even most feature phones - available when the iPhone was released had 3rd party apps. ARM even used to have a built-in Java accelerator (which I think is now deprecated).
In fact, the iPhone was odd in that it only supported web apps when it was launched, and yet it was still a success. Even when it added native app support, it severely restricted what they could do compared to other platforms.
No, I think it is fun and that is why people want it. Flip phones were good at calls and texting and (some) took good pictures. Blackberries did email. But what really blew open the smartphone market was the ability to pull in entertainment: usable web browsing, watching YouTube, and decent games. The people who needed pocket tools already had them. The fact that the iPhone can ALSO make a good tool is simply a result of the underlying tech that makes the toy possible. It's probably not fair to call the productivity stuff an afterthought, but productivity phones were already common when the iPhone was launched.
True, but they are highly correlated. This guy practically screams mental illness. His roommates all moved out? He used to be in IT? No friends or family to stay with? Hmm... Let me ask you: if you had a friend who you knew was sleeping in a carport, wouldn't you offer them a bed - or at least whatever space you do have? If your answer is "it depends on", then many of the things you are about to say tend to be traits common in someone with mental illness.
Good luck with that.
I think what they need to do is pick a niche or a few niches and specialize like crazy to those niches. Be the best in class and get a reputation for being the best in class. Slowly grow from that position.
Nokia had the right idea with the good cameras in their smart phones, but they got drawn in to the low end, selling the crappy version at Walmart. I suspect both the Nokia and MS cultures are very hung up on growing market-share when what they need to be doing is brand-building and trying to find under-served markets.
Still, that's a long term strategy that will burn a lot of cash.
But that isn't why it is popular.
I disagree that was the problem. The problem was that he made the same mistake that most of us geeks on here make - projection. He thought that people wanted smart phones to be little computers. Most of the commenters on here want the same thing - a little unix box that they can ssh with and such. He led MS down a path of making little pocket computers, complete with Start menus and everything. And you know what? They were more successful than just about any other smart phone. Things looked good... good enough to dismiss the iPhone as a toy when it came out.
And he was right, it was a toy. But apparently the toy market is a lot bigger than the pocket computer market. It turns out that people wanted a pocket toy, and not a pocket computer. That the toy happens to use a computer to make it so much fun is a technical issue.
Where Balmer gets blame is how badly MS executed on their toy once it became clear that the market liked the iPhone. Google figured it out IMMEDIATELY, so it's not as if it was too much to expect. Sure, initial Android sets kind of sucked, but they were toys and they were cheap - so people could overlook a lot. And since then, it has gotten quite slick. Microsoft, meanwhile, assumed that kids were the driver and brought out that ridiculous Kin based on CE. Then they tried coming out with a refreshed CE in 6.5, which fooled no one. Finally, after losing out the low-end to Android and the high-end to Apple, they come out with a proper Windows Phone. Even then, while it certainly has it's merits, it is essentially another iPhone/Android and really brings nothing to the table that would make people choose it over the competition. And on top of this, it was still trying to pursue the "charge for software" model, when the chief competition is free!
Now they finally made the right move in buying a hardware vendor. If they go toe-to-toe with Samsung, I'm not sure they will ever recoup their investment. After all, Samsung is vertically integrated and is a monster in their capacity to turn a small profit on low-end phones. They are going to have to chase Apple (and Samsung) at the high end. I wish them luck!
Probably more of a failure in our mental health system. Also, young men are last on the list when shelters are overcrowded.
Fair enough, but I use Silk preferentially on my Kindle because it is faster. I'm not worried that Amazon knows what I say on Facebook. Facebook and my ISP already know anyway, and a faceless corporation is a faceless corporation.
Why does an omnipotent being need to compromise?
Also think about if God thought ahead to various evolutionary hurdles.
Since he is credited with designing even the evolutionary system, it's still "his bad". Why would he implement an evolutionary system that isn't perfect?
I know, I know, "God works in mysterious ways." :) Amazing that phrase ends people's natural curiosity, but combined with eternal damnation it seems to work.
Yes, they can't really believe that - they are just trying to inject their pet cause everywhere... as if Slashdotters aren't aware already. It's like the Bush trolls from a few years back.
And that they are secret agents.
But a guy with a good enough story to get a solid following only happens every 50 years or so.
That's just liberal propaganda from Michael Moore. Flint was killed by the union.
(Would I make a good troll?) :)
classicla
You conjugated wrong.
It is annoying. This overreach is even one of my pet causes, but this spam makes people who think it is dangerous look bad.
Yes, it's called a "company" town, and it happens wherever there is a single major employer. Often the employer is the reason the town exists as more than a little village in the first place, so it's not at all clear how one would expect it to exist unchanged when the employer leaves. It happens to big towns, too... Remove Disney from Orlando and see if anyone wants to hit the center of Florida in the middle of the summer.
See my above response to the AC. I don't really consider them distinct - so naturally I would agree that the corporations help to construct policy. I would argue that we need stronger separation between the two.
btrfs looks very promising. The fact that SUSE is considering making it the default is heartening. When I was setting up my server, it was not a real option. Even now, I might be a little uneasy until someone is using the multi-disk stuff in production. I'll keep playing with it :)
Corporations can get the government to change the rules that they operate under on a whim.
I guess I didn't make my opinion clear. Of course the corporations can influence the government - they are as much a part of it as the State Department. I'd wager that CEOs and other company officials are called to testify in front of congress as often as any other branch of government. Heck, company officials are even elected, albeit by representation based on wealth instead of population.
Corporations ARE the government. Sure they are owned by individual investors, but their charter is granted by the government, and they are endowed with super-human liability powers that would make this arrangement otherwise impossible. The government can change the rules that they operate under on a whim. You want an example of government interference in the "free market"? The corporation (especially the limited liability part) is perhaps the largest, though "intellectual property" is pretty high up there.
While I'm fairly gung-ho on driverless cars, currently my car preferences seem similar to yours. I found a minivan with manual slider doors, cloth seats, and no entertainment options except the CD player. Those are not easy to find! I found a similarly equipped Camry for my wife. Both do have power windows and door locks, but that's not a big reliability problem in my experience. You need to find a dealer that has a lot of former fleet vehicles - they are usually more bare-bones than cars aimed at consumers. The only problem is that your selection is more limited, since there isn't that much variety in fleets.