True in some sense, but how did that happen exactly? It wasn't because there weren't lots of mp3 players around already. The difference was that Apple presented an unchallenged ecosystem that offered a simpler way for most people to access their music. But no competitors really responded to the new paradigm. Apple dominated mostly because nobody had seen the light yet and nobody had the ability to create what Apple did at the time.
This time was only different in the sense that there was a ready response and the model Apple used was widely copied. As it should have been.
But at least to me it isn't surprising that apple would present us with colored less advanced phone to go along with their top of the line phone. I also will expect more models as time goes on perhaps. Once the market becomes saturated completely, it will be time to diversify what they offer just as when the iPod market became saturated. Only so many iPods were sold and then they needed to increase sales by offering colored nanos and armband clippy things.
But I don't expect apple to achieve or maintain anything close to the success of the ipod in market dominance. If there had been a viable alternative to the iPod, Apple likely would not have been so dominant at that time either. They would have been a big player, but not "The" dominant player. Success like that only comes around rarely in our world.
Perhaps you have a good point, but it seems to me that this pathway of Apple's seems familiar to me.
The difference between iPod at the time and every other mp3 player at the time was that no other player really rose in the market which could equal apples ecosystem and simplicity. There wasn't really the vision or an alternative in the first couple of years to match apple.
With the iPhone... we have Android which mimicked the iphones capabilities in short order. They there was the dump of hundreds of millions of cheaply made versions of the android phones to take over the market percentage leading to a dominant position in some ways.
With the iPod... no matter how many Sansa's or other mp3 players were dumped on the market... the iPod ecosystem was superior iand maintained its supremacy because there was really no cogent response from competitors until the competition was over.
I still think the there is something to be played out in the phone market, but I don't see Apple going away anytime soon. They will still maintain giant profits to fund their extensive R&D and purchasing of technologies. I think this will keep them as a major player and will keep their products desirable for a large segment of the population even if it isn't the majority of the population.
Then a new paradigm will come which will make the current smartphone paradigm useless. Who will be the ones coming out with such a new paradigm? It will be interesting to see, but I expect Apple will probably be a player in that new paradigm as well.
For an extra 100 bucks I would rather have the better camera and the fingerprint scanner over a bubblegum phone. I think the bubblegum will be popular among the kiddies though.
I think when PC sales worldwide drop by large percentages and and Apples dropped by fewer than the overall trend, then that is actually resulting in a larger market share for Apple overall. Just saying... that is what the actual numbers would seem to indicate.
I think the 5S is pretty cool. So is a Nexus 4 or a Galaxy 4S. All pretty nifty when one considers my first computer was an Atari 800. Luckily I can get all 3 phones for less than my Atari cost back in the day. hehehe.
Just like the iPods before. Apple could only sell so many higher end iPods, so they started selling colored nanos and eventually tiny ones that clipped on an arm band. I really see nothing new here.
Seems to me that the iPhone is following the same path as the iPod to some degree. Apple released smaller colored less powerful iPods once the market had largely run its course. Nothing new here really. What surprises me is people acting as if all of this course Apple is following now is somehow completely new.
I'm not a kid, but I sure could use a smaller version of an iPhone. I am getting sick of the fact that everyone thinks people need a platter stuck to the side of their face to talk on the phone. It might be nice to have a bigger iPhone for some, but it would also be nice to have a tiny one for other people.
I used to love my old tiny motorola flip phone. Perhaps there could be something tiny like that for those of us who don't spend a lot of time watching movies and playing games on our phones.
Guaranteed that this will be on most upcoming phones within a year. So prepare to be stricken even more. Or perhaps Samsung will just come up with a DNA decoder so only the person with his own singular DNA will be able to open the phone.
Interesting... when I come back after an hour I just pick up my phone and check it since there are always messages or email to check. The LED would be just an extra battery drainer for me. Your mileage may vary.
I do this all the time. I don't expect them to read them until they get where they are going. But I send info that is pertinent to what is going on or necessary. When they stop, they can get the message I sent and respond if they need to.
I can't see if someone posted on something I wrote on Yahoo! on my main page anymore. Now I have to wait for 1/2 a day for something to pop up in my email telling me I have replies or thumbs ups to something I posted. There is a way to get to the old scheme through Yahoo Alerts!, but that is buried and you have to re-sign in constantly which take considerable time. So Yahoo has rendered the commentary relatively useless for the vast majority of folks.
Before you would be able to see people commenting on your post in a live interactive way. Now it is no longer practical. Makes me wonder if they just want to phase out commenting in general.
Since I refuse to use facebook for anything, I guess I can no longer make a simple comment. Big bummer. I have been commenting of ESPN for some 10 years and formed a lot of relationships with various posters. It is a shame to have this taken away for I'm not sure what reason.
Seems like tons of sites are now forcing people to use facebook to make any commentary.
The government is trying to push $70k cars on people.... hahahahaha I think I would love to get on the list to be able to get a Tesla simply because they don't suck. Unfortunately, pricey fast luxury cars are not on my list of important things to try to buy with my life-force.
But if like you say the state is trying to get one to everyone, I am all for that... hahahahaa
Yep. And companies and individuals with large amounts of money can claim they are doing everything legally when they offshore their investments because the laws are written that way after all. Only congress would be able to remedy the problem, but they are paid not to.
But at least in this case, I don't think Apple had any hand in writing the legislation that seeded the money to pay consultants for Ireland to setup this offshoring stuff. They are merely one of the higher profile companies taking advantage of the situation our congress setup back in 90's or something.
Back then Apple was a struggling computer maker who was continuing to whither away as their market share dipped to 2%. Now they are a fat big punching bag for the hypocritical congress who enabled all of this in the first place.
All setup by our do nothing congress. Weren't they the ones who fronted the money to make this all possible? Yippie for the stooges on Capital Hill. I haven't heard any real new laws being passed on how to set things to rights from the grand-standers who made this all possible.
As for any company making use of the laws congress passes... they should... they owe it to their shareholders to make as much money as they can. To do any less would be negligent. I don't fault any company from making use of a loophole unless they wrote the actual law to create the loophole they are using.
Sounds like another good reason for Cable. Fortunately for me I only need cable for Sept-mid January. Then I get to turn it off for the rest of the year.
Slashdot Mirror
True in some sense, but how did that happen exactly?
It wasn't because there weren't lots of mp3 players around already.
The difference was that Apple presented an unchallenged ecosystem that offered a simpler way for most people to access their music.
But no competitors really responded to the new paradigm.
Apple dominated mostly because nobody had seen the light yet and nobody had the ability to create what Apple did at the time.
This time was only different in the sense that there was a ready response and the model Apple used was widely copied. As it should have been.
But at least to me it isn't surprising that apple would present us with colored less advanced phone to go along with their top of the line phone. I also will expect more models as time goes on perhaps. Once the market becomes saturated completely, it will be time to diversify what they offer just as when the iPod market became saturated. Only so many iPods were sold and then they needed to increase sales by offering colored nanos and armband clippy things.
But I don't expect apple to achieve or maintain anything close to the success of the ipod in market dominance. If there had been a viable alternative to the iPod, Apple likely would not have been so dominant at that time either. They would have been a big player, but not "The" dominant player. Success like that only comes around rarely in our world.
Perhaps you have a good point, but it seems to me that this pathway of Apple's seems familiar to me.
The difference between iPod at the time and every other mp3 player at the time was that no other player really rose in the market which could equal apples ecosystem and simplicity. There wasn't really the vision or an alternative in the first couple of years to match apple.
With the iPhone... we have Android which mimicked the iphones capabilities in short order. They there was the dump of hundreds of millions of cheaply made versions of the android phones to take over the market percentage leading to a dominant position in some ways.
With the iPod... no matter how many Sansa's or other mp3 players were dumped on the market... the iPod ecosystem was superior iand maintained its supremacy because there was really no cogent response from competitors until the competition was over.
I still think the there is something to be played out in the phone market, but I don't see Apple going away anytime soon. They will still maintain giant profits to fund their extensive R&D and purchasing of technologies. I think this will keep them as a major player and will keep their products desirable for a large segment of the population even if it isn't the majority of the population.
Then a new paradigm will come which will make the current smartphone paradigm useless.
Who will be the ones coming out with such a new paradigm? It will be interesting to see, but I expect Apple will probably be a player in that new paradigm as well.
You should have a higher score my friend. Keep up the logically astute work of making sense out of the nonsense flying around the web.
For an extra 100 bucks I would rather have the better camera and the fingerprint scanner over a bubblegum phone.
I think the bubblegum will be popular among the kiddies though.
I think when PC sales worldwide drop by large percentages and and Apples dropped by fewer than the overall trend, then that is actually resulting in a larger market share for Apple overall. Just saying ... that is what the actual numbers would seem to indicate.
I haven't looked at the 5C specs vs the 5, but your assumption would make sense if the specs are equivalent.
I think the 5S is pretty cool.
So is a Nexus 4 or a Galaxy 4S.
All pretty nifty when one considers my first computer was an Atari 800.
Luckily I can get all 3 phones for less than my Atari cost back in the day. hehehe.
Just like the iPods before.
Apple could only sell so many higher end iPods, so they started selling colored nanos and eventually tiny ones that clipped on an arm band.
I really see nothing new here.
Seems to me that the iPhone is following the same path as the iPod to some degree.
Apple released smaller colored less powerful iPods once the market had largely run its course.
Nothing new here really. What surprises me is people acting as if all of this course Apple is following now is somehow completely new.
My problem with the iPhone is that is is too big.
I would prefer a much smaller footprint, more in line with my old trusty motorola flip phone.
Only problem is you can't use it everywhere in the world. Good if you are on T-mobile in the US.
I'm not a kid, but I sure could use a smaller version of an iPhone. I am getting sick of the fact that everyone thinks people need a platter stuck to the side of their face to talk on the phone. It might be nice to have a bigger iPhone for some, but it would also be nice to have a tiny one for other people.
I used to love my old tiny motorola flip phone. Perhaps there could be something tiny like that for those of us who don't spend a lot of time watching movies and playing games on our phones.
Guaranteed that this will be on most upcoming phones within a year. So prepare to be stricken even more.
Or perhaps Samsung will just come up with a DNA decoder so only the person with his own singular DNA will be able to open the phone.
Interesting... when I come back after an hour I just pick up my phone and check it since there are always messages or email to check. The LED would be just an extra battery drainer for me. Your mileage may vary.
Well put Z
Going from 32 bit to 64 bit is incremental?
I think your definition of incremental is lacking a certain....I don't know what.
I do this all the time.
I don't expect them to read them until they get where they are going.
But I send info that is pertinent to what is going on or necessary.
When they stop, they can get the message I sent and respond if they need to.
I can't see if someone posted on something I wrote on Yahoo! on my main page anymore.
Now I have to wait for 1/2 a day for something to pop up in my email telling me I have replies or thumbs ups to something I posted. There is a way to get to the old scheme through Yahoo Alerts!, but that is buried and you have to re-sign in constantly which take considerable time. So Yahoo has rendered the commentary relatively useless for the vast majority of folks.
Before you would be able to see people commenting on your post in a live interactive way.
Now it is no longer practical. Makes me wonder if they just want to phase out commenting in general.
Since I refuse to use facebook for anything, I guess I can no longer make a simple comment.
Big bummer. I have been commenting of ESPN for some 10 years and formed a lot of relationships with various posters.
It is a shame to have this taken away for I'm not sure what reason.
Seems like tons of sites are now forcing people to use facebook to make any commentary.
The government is trying to push $70k cars on people .... hahahahaha
I think I would love to get on the list to be able to get a Tesla simply because they don't suck.
Unfortunately, pricey fast luxury cars are not on my list of important things to try to buy with my life-force.
But if like you say the state is trying to get one to everyone, I am all for that... hahahahaa
Yep.
And companies and individuals with large amounts of money can claim they are doing everything legally when they offshore their investments because the laws are written that way after all. Only congress would be able to remedy the problem, but they are paid not to.
But at least in this case, I don't think Apple had any hand in writing the legislation that seeded the money to pay consultants for Ireland to setup this offshoring stuff.
They are merely one of the higher profile companies taking advantage of the situation our congress setup back in 90's or something.
Back then Apple was a struggling computer maker who was continuing to whither away as their market share dipped to 2%. Now they are a fat big punching bag for the hypocritical congress who enabled all of this in the first place.
Sounds too idyllic. It would be nice to silence the lawsuits and countersuits for a while all the same.
All setup by our do nothing congress. Weren't they the ones who fronted the money to make this all possible?
Yippie for the stooges on Capital Hill.
I haven't heard any real new laws being passed on how to set things to rights from the grand-standers who made this all possible.
As for any company making use of the laws congress passes... they should ... they owe it to their shareholders to make as much money as they can. To do any less would be negligent. I don't fault any company from making use of a loophole unless they wrote the actual law to create the loophole they are using.
Seems a rather broad brushstroke, but I guess everyone can have a comment and an opinion. Even someone commenting on a comment about a news tidbit.
Sounds like another good reason for Cable.
Fortunately for me I only need cable for Sept-mid January. Then I get to turn it off for the rest of the year.