Slashdot is powered by your submissions, so send in your scoop


Forgot your password?
Check out the new SourceForge HTML5 internet speed test! No Flash necessary and runs on all devices. ×

Comment Re:iPhone 1 (Score 2) 171

If you want to argue Apple did the marketing better, and correctly judged that being seen as the innovator by rushing a crappier product to market to beat the competition by a few months was worth the tradeoffs from a business point of view, you'll get little argument from me.

OK now we have established they were first with that crucial triple. I think you are still wrong on both months and "crappier". But I wanted to argue the dates first.

1) Everyone uses glass. Presumably if plastic were better and easy to manufacture (in 2007) we'd be seeing phones with it now.

2) As far as high speed web rendering. Remember the iphone supported wifi. It also was sold exclusively with AT&T's unlimited data 3G plan. The whole point of the device was to drive up the demand for data usage.

3) Finally on high speed animations I think you would be hard pressed to find a phone remotely less laggy. This has remained true more or less to this day using a comparable interface. Vertical integration has particularly paid off here as Apple has often been able to use objectively slower hardware combined with customized OS and applications to achieve much less lag. Nokia who you have pointed to many times had horrific lag problems.

As for Nokia being the competition. In the United States Nokia wasn't the competition. Nokia USA was dismal. Nokia did not focus on the USA market. Even when the USA became interesting Nokia wasn't able to integrate Nokia USA (the sales division) into their corporate decision making many years later. As for Maemo, Maemo used a resistive touch screen and required a stylus. It did not involve the critical triple and couldn't. Nokia internally had engineers who saw the advantage of the triple but couldn't get the changes into Gnome fast enough. A failure that both the Gnome community and Nokia reacted strongly too by restructuring. Could an alternative universe Nokia have won, absolutely. But in this one they dithered didn't make critical choices when there still were two sides lost their lead, then fell behind then died. I was working with Nokia USA during those last years when they couldn't either execute or not on exploiting the gap that Apple created in enterprise phones. In the end the hardware guys ignored Elop advice on ecosystems and they focused instead on a few hardware features.

Nokia is a perfect example of how good Apple is in developing a total package that is often unappreciated by technical people. Hardwarewise even when Nokia was hemorrhaging share to Apple they were quite often from a hardware perspective better phones. They were however vastly inferior phones from a software (OS in particular) and then from ecosystem perspective. The company was directionless.

Nokia also disproves your marketing theory. Nokia lost enterprise to Apple at a time when Apple was doing anti-marketing in enterprise phones. Apple wanted RIM or Nokia/Microsoft to take the enterprise market, they refused to make the concessions that enterprise customers wanted, and still the iphone's total experience was so much superior that even when anti-marketing Apple ended up winning with the move to BYOD.

As an aside on dates, the N900 came out 2 1/2 years after the iPhone 1 and still had a keyboard and resistive touchscreen. As an aside one of the things on ecosystems that caught Nokia off guard was the power of a closed ecosystem. They had never seriously considered what a closed ecosystem done well would look like when they focused so heavily on an open ecosystem

Finally on the claim that Apple's choices were obvious let me just point you to another of your comments, "And a quality hard keyboard is still the only sane input method for people who are serious about things. A lack of a keyboard was a money saving measure, that's all." You yourself a decade after Apple's approach still don't appreciate how important lack of a keyboard is. RIM was the primary vendor who was devastated by failing to appreciate that. Android dithered but was flexible enough to catch up in time. A lack of keyboard was not a money saving feature, a good keyboard is like a $20 part and easy enough to repair (remember Apple offers repairs). What a keyboard does do is a lot of physical room, either increase the width or use up screen real estate. It also tends to allow lazy developers to not think carefully, very carefully about customizing an input method for their application at all times. What was important about the lack of the keyboard is it first allowed and then forced application designers to fully embrace the creation of mobile interfaces. Its no accident that Apple came almost immediately to dominate the war for ecosystems they understood ecosystems.

Comment Re:iPhone 1 (Score 1) 171

Your claim was that they didn't do anything innovative. The question is not how well they implemented the triple (though I dispute with you that at the time they didn't have a very good implementation of all 3) but rather that they presented this triple. They saw the potential of using these things together to build a new UI. Nokia has slipped with Maemo and was focusing on the MeeGo project which would still take years. MeeGo potentially could have been like that but too many factions wanted Symbian compatibility and thus at the time no evidence they were moving towards what would become the standard for smartphones.

As for Android at the time it was working on a blackberry clone with small screens and a keyboard. So no at the time it also was not ahead and wouldn't be even similar for almost 2 years.

Comment Re:150% Sure (Score 1) 171

Sort of you have a math error it should be -50% and that number actually makes sense.

In your scenario: industry profits = $1b - $3b = $-2b.
Apple profit $1b = -50% of $-2b.

or flipping the negative
industry losses = $2b.
Apple's loss = $-1b = -50% of $2b.

A negative profit is a loss and visa versa.

Comment iPhone 1 (Score 1) 171

In 2007 Apple released the first phone with:
a) capacitive touchscreen as the primary or sole means of input
b) animation based interaction
c) high speed web rendering

There was no other product with that triple. That triple is now the standard. Obviously since they were the only one that was unique and since it has become more or less the standard it was quite innovative.

I think you should watch the introductory video to get an idea of how much Job's ideas contrasted with the competition at the time:

Comment Re: Nothing of significance (Score 1) 232

Big features that are missing:
* Text size adjustment that consistently works (a lot of the population has trouble reading on their phone).
* Better integration with cars for safety (cell phones still kill and injure a tremendous number of people when mixed with automobiles).
* Voice commands that work
* Ability to switch to gloved mode for colder climates
* Better ability to track battery and data usage on an app or task basis

Comment Re:Apple is the Trump Towers of computing. (Score 1) 232

Being beaten on a single feature and being beaten across the board are two very different things. Apple was much closer to having an overall inferior problem about 5 years ago when high end Android was way ahead from a hardware perspective and Apple was competing on usability and richness of applications. With Android having moved down market now the major feature on which Apple lags is lower cost models. Used are the only lower cost Apple models and these lag in many respects.

Comment Re:Where's my new MacPro Tower? (Score 1) 114

Buy a few million of them a year. The old pros didn't sell very well, they were often seen as too big and too noisy. They didn't mesh with Apple's brand image. The trash can sold well for many months.

Apple seems to be killing the desktop pros off the killed their server line. Apple liked a narrow product line. To get diversification you need volume sales. The numbers aren't there. The numbers certainly aren't there for a physically large machine.

Comment Re:Peak time on satellite vs. cellular (Score 1) 222

Cell phone used to use peak and off peak for minutes. Things like $10 / mo for 20 peak minutes and 500 off peak minutes. Clearly designed to encourage off peak usage. The ratios started to change as cell phones began to be used socially and they couldn't do anything that extreme. Data is similar. Sure there are peaks but it is gently rolling hills not the sort of sharp drop offs that make a variable pricing scheme make sense.

Comment Re:Makes more sense (Score 1) 222

These are public companies their spend for the networks are public documents. The cost of spending to create 3G and then LTE was many billions for each of them every year. They have huge debts from it and your job is to indirectly pay down the bond holders. It is not pennies on the dollar to provide when you count the capital cost. That's why most of the cell phone providers went broke.

Comment Re:"Allow apps" from only "sanctioned" sources now (Score 0) 202

Because Apple runs the ecosystem. They are trying to gradually shift towards a situation where software distributed in the ecosystem to non-power users is regulated by Apple. That way Apple doesn't get slammed with viruses. If you as a developer are going to be distributing applications to end users not capable of making good choices about their software then you need to register with Apple.

Slashdot Top Deals

You will be successful in your work.