I like how your response to anything Apple is "It's all marketing!" as if they don't have to put out quality products to begin with. It makes it much easier to spot you as an anti-fanboy, and dismiss pretty much anything you have to say.
Everyone knows that if the report showed apple with bigger sales numbers that your fanboy-attitude toward the discussion would be touting the sales majority as being some totem of greatness. Two faced, a fanboy is.
And everyone knows that if the report showed phones SHIPPED (not sold), that your Android fanboy-attitude would be touting the idea that somehow actual number of phones sold doesn't matter, especially when using data from a quarter where Samsung had new products and Apple didn't.
Not really. You may have choice of screen size, but that also dictates the internals you get. If I want the internals of a Galaxy SII, or a Galaxy Nexus, I don't have choice of screen size. I have to take what those models offer. Picking a different screen size can get me vastly different components, which may or may not be what I want.
You know, it's assholes like you that give Android, and geeks in general a bad name. Just because you might not like someone's choice of phone/OS, doesn't mean that choice isn't valid. Dismissing every competitor to Android as "marketing" means you fail to realize what makes those ecosystems good, which makes it harder for Android to improve.
Yeah, because marketing is the only reason he'd want an iPhone over something else. Doesn't have anything to do with the idea that maybe he likes the iOS way of doing things more.
Yes there is. There's a huge difference between shipping a bunch of phones, and actually selling them. What good does it do Android if half those phones are still sitting in a warehouse somewhere?
And while people in Slashdot screams that iPhones are cheap (which are not)
A comparable model Samsung phone costs about as much as an iPhone.
So Samsung won't make as much money? who cares if they're putting many devices on the market at similar rates than the iPhone.
I'm sorry, but I don't think anything you've said has anything to do with reality. I honestly don't think that Microsoft is going to be able to come close to the explosive growth that Android has had, and they can't come anywhere near the steady push that the iPhone has had. They're going to be another also-ran, with RIM and WebOS.
More to the point, that's "why Windows", is that it seems fairly clear that Nokia felt that Microsoft was willing to give them a special access while Google wasn't.
The point is, they don't need "special access". Samsung, HTC, and Motorola have been able to come up with unique phones with their own features despite not having "special access". Again, there's nothing stopping Nokia from doing whatever they want to Android.
Nope. You can cry "Marketing!" all you want, but nothing you said explains why they were able to get those fans in the first place. They got them by having solid, well engineered products that did what their customers wanted. And they continued to keep them by having solid, well engineered products that did what their customers wanted. They might not do everything everybody wants right away, but that means they aren't wasting resources half-assedly implementing features that only a handful of people want.
Ugh, what's even worse is when the sales/marketing people are treated as the only ones that actually make money, and everyone else is a cost center. You cannot treat the people that actually make your product, and make your company successful, as a cost center.
Build the entire computer. Microsoft licensed their product and achieved a place at the heart of the emergent ecosystem. Apple lost. Build the entire phone. Android licensed their product and is achieving a place at the heart of the emergent ecosystem. Apple is losing.
They may not be "winning" on marketshare, but you cannot argue that they are not "winning" on profits. Which is where it counts.
Jobs solved the innovation dilemma by having a lot of engineers circled around him.
You're forgetting the other part: Actually empowering them and listening to them.
There are many, many companies that are filled with competent, some even great, engineers. It's just whether the business will actually listen to them, and give them the tools needed to make successful products.
meaning Nokia's corps of 11,600 engineers would have next to no ability to add their own innovations to Google's software.
That line is complete horseshit. Not having "special access" hasn't stopped Samsung or HTC or Motorola from coming out with unique phones with their own innovations.
Well, speculation was that Microsoft got Nokia on board due to their strength in the European markets, where WP7 was doing particularly bad. It might be an effort on their part to try and shore up those markets first, before trying again in the US.
Not necessarily. Just because ownership is social doesn't mean that there won't be people tasked with repairing the robots, or that all won't share in some aspect of it. When a group of people rent a house, generally there's a division of chores where everyone shares in some aspect of the upkeep and maintenance of the place.
Back then it was expected that in the future the normal work day would shrink from 8 hours to something more like 3 hours as workers got more done in less time.
It also failed to account for the fact that business won't let you take off early. If it takes 3 hours to do what it used to take 8 hours, they're not going to be happy with that same level of productivity; they're going to insist you stay for the other 8 hours, getting even more done.
Increased efficiency doesn't help out workers; it just causes business to expect them to do more in less time.
First, if you want to play the who's smarter game, I'm not playing.
I'm not. But I see all of you people spouting the "Remove loans and college will be more affordable!" bullshit like it's fact. It isn't.
Second, read in my comment: "You can't take what I'm about to say literally, but close to it:"
Which is basically you saying you don't know at all what you're talking about.
Finally, the rich coming to the schools aren't going to play fair. They're going to play "this is too expensive, and we'll stop coming here if these prices stay up."
No they won't. They'll keep paying those prices because they can, and because it helps to reinforce the idea that a degree from Harvard or Yale is "prestigious".
Competition. Price. Do the math; social status renders the best results in certain ways based on certain mindsets, not simply monetary ones.
This statement doesn't answer anything at all relating to the question at hand.
Slashdot Mirror
Along with the fact that Apple didn't release a new phone during that time.
I like how your response to anything Apple is "It's all marketing!" as if they don't have to put out quality products to begin with. It makes it much easier to spot you as an anti-fanboy, and dismiss pretty much anything you have to say.
Everyone knows that if the report showed apple with bigger sales numbers that your fanboy-attitude toward the discussion would be touting the sales majority as being some totem of greatness. Two faced, a fanboy is.
And everyone knows that if the report showed phones SHIPPED (not sold), that your Android fanboy-attitude would be touting the idea that somehow actual number of phones sold doesn't matter, especially when using data from a quarter where Samsung had new products and Apple didn't.
Not really. You may have choice of screen size, but that also dictates the internals you get. If I want the internals of a Galaxy SII, or a Galaxy Nexus, I don't have choice of screen size. I have to take what those models offer. Picking a different screen size can get me vastly different components, which may or may not be what I want.
You know, it's assholes like you that give Android, and geeks in general a bad name. Just because you might not like someone's choice of phone/OS, doesn't mean that choice isn't valid. Dismissing every competitor to Android as "marketing" means you fail to realize what makes those ecosystems good, which makes it harder for Android to improve.
Get off your fucking high horse, dipshit.
How's the iOS 5 on the iPhone 1 and 3G again?
A lot better than Android 2 was on the G1.
Yeah, because marketing is the only reason he'd want an iPhone over something else. Doesn't have anything to do with the idea that maybe he likes the iOS way of doing things more.
a device which was undoubtebly above the iPhone 4 in all regards.
You mean a phone that came out a full year AFTER the iPhone 4 was better than it? Stop the presses!
There is no question
Yes there is. There's a huge difference between shipping a bunch of phones, and actually selling them. What good does it do Android if half those phones are still sitting in a warehouse somewhere?
And while people in Slashdot screams that iPhones are cheap (which are not)
A comparable model Samsung phone costs about as much as an iPhone.
So Samsung won't make as much money? who cares if they're putting many devices on the market at similar rates than the iPhone.
I'm gonna go with Samsung and their shareholders?
I'm sorry, but I don't think anything you've said has anything to do with reality. I honestly don't think that Microsoft is going to be able to come close to the explosive growth that Android has had, and they can't come anywhere near the steady push that the iPhone has had. They're going to be another also-ran, with RIM and WebOS.
More to the point, that's "why Windows", is that it seems fairly clear that Nokia felt that Microsoft was willing to give them a special access while Google wasn't.
The point is, they don't need "special access". Samsung, HTC, and Motorola have been able to come up with unique phones with their own features despite not having "special access". Again, there's nothing stopping Nokia from doing whatever they want to Android.
No, you're just plain wrong. If what you said had any lick of truth to it, they wouldn't be in the position they are today.
Nope. You can cry "Marketing!" all you want, but nothing you said explains why they were able to get those fans in the first place. They got them by having solid, well engineered products that did what their customers wanted. And they continued to keep them by having solid, well engineered products that did what their customers wanted. They might not do everything everybody wants right away, but that means they aren't wasting resources half-assedly implementing features that only a handful of people want.
Ugh, what's even worse is when the sales/marketing people are treated as the only ones that actually make money, and everyone else is a cost center. You cannot treat the people that actually make your product, and make your company successful, as a cost center.
Build the entire computer. Microsoft licensed their product and achieved a place at the heart of the emergent ecosystem. Apple lost.
Build the entire phone. Android licensed their product and is achieving a place at the heart of the emergent ecosystem. Apple is losing.
They may not be "winning" on marketshare, but you cannot argue that they are not "winning" on profits. Which is where it counts.
Jobs solved the innovation dilemma by having a lot of engineers circled around him.
You're forgetting the other part: Actually empowering them and listening to them.
There are many, many companies that are filled with competent, some even great, engineers. It's just whether the business will actually listen to them, and give them the tools needed to make successful products.
If every device maker has to may Microsoft to make smartphones anyway, why NOT move to supporting WP7?
Because even with the Microsoft tax, Android phones are selling quite well. WP7 phones are not.
That stuff has already been out for at least a year, if not more, on other WP7 handsets. They aren't selling.
meaning Nokia's corps of 11,600 engineers would have next to no ability to add their own innovations to Google's software.
That line is complete horseshit. Not having "special access" hasn't stopped Samsung or HTC or Motorola from coming out with unique phones with their own innovations.
Well, speculation was that Microsoft got Nokia on board due to their strength in the European markets, where WP7 was doing particularly bad. It might be an effort on their part to try and shore up those markets first, before trying again in the US.
Not necessarily. Just because ownership is social doesn't mean that there won't be people tasked with repairing the robots, or that all won't share in some aspect of it. When a group of people rent a house, generally there's a division of chores where everyone shares in some aspect of the upkeep and maintenance of the place.
Back then it was expected that in the future the normal work day would shrink from 8 hours to something more like 3 hours as workers got more done in less time.
It also failed to account for the fact that business won't let you take off early. If it takes 3 hours to do what it used to take 8 hours, they're not going to be happy with that same level of productivity; they're going to insist you stay for the other 8 hours, getting even more done.
Increased efficiency doesn't help out workers; it just causes business to expect them to do more in less time.
Which is why most people will pursue other interests, rather than slaving away at a menial job or a desk pounding out crap for someone else.
when they are financially viable, people will make the switch on their own.
No, the rich will make the switch, while the poor are paying even more for energy costs because they can't afford clean tech.
First, if you want to play the who's smarter game, I'm not playing.
I'm not. But I see all of you people spouting the "Remove loans and college will be more affordable!" bullshit like it's fact. It isn't.
Second, read in my comment: "You can't take what I'm about to say literally, but close to it:"
Which is basically you saying you don't know at all what you're talking about.
Finally, the rich coming to the schools aren't going to play fair. They're going to play "this is too expensive, and we'll stop coming here if these prices stay up."
No they won't. They'll keep paying those prices because they can, and because it helps to reinforce the idea that a degree from Harvard or Yale is "prestigious".
Competition. Price. Do the math; social status renders the best results in certain ways based on certain mindsets, not simply monetary ones.
This statement doesn't answer anything at all relating to the question at hand.