How?
Removed Multitasking
Removed Choice of Programs
Forced you to use App Store
Forced you to one vendor
Added some bells
I would say that is a reduction in 'functionality'.
Discussion on:
View:
Show:
let us not forget that they(apple) brought about a huge difference in the thinking of the concept of smart phones.
sad thing being that the arrogance factor stepped in and well... that was the end of progress from that point.
ps i never did want an iphone... but i so want the nexus one.
sad thing being that the arrogance factor stepped in and well... that was the end of progress from that point.
ps i never did want an iphone... but i so want the nexus one.
It is not what alot of people thought it would be...You cannot demo one since T-Mobile does not carry one in their stores. I learned my lesson by buying one without trying it out. Believe this coming from a MS and Google fan (unusual), but this is no iPhone killer.
I am a long time Windows Mobile user (so long back that I remember when it was WinCE... yeah, their OS was originally called "wince". My first PDA was a Casio Cassiopeia 115).
After years of loyally sticking with Windows Mobile because of several purchased apps that traveled faithfully with me from device to device, I recently abandoned WinMo after my 6.1 XV6800 Verizon device's contract expired. A lot of this was driven by iPhone envy. Seeing the app store flourish with such a wide range of quality, and maybe more importantly, FUN apps certainly made it apparent how little Microsoft had done with app development on Windows Mobile platforms. having to pull out a stylus to answer the phone and navigate menus started to feel awkward and conspicuous. The fact that most of these apps were free or priced very, very reasonably compared to Windows Mobile apps was just salt in my wounds. At some point, abandoning 3 or 4 apps that cost me a total of around $90 just seemed logical for the benefits that moving to a competitive smart-phone platform offered. But iPhone, in large part because of AT&T, and in small part because of concerns about the closed-in nature of the Apple developer and hardware model, never appealed to me.
When Droid landed on Verizon, it answered all of my concerns. Mobile apps should generally be very affordable. This seems like something that content publishers have struggled with for years. Consumers feel that digital content is less "tangible" - and it *is*. Publishers feel that they should be able to get as much, if not more, for digital content, maximizing profits because they remove many of the costs associated with manufacturing and distributing physical media. We need look no further than how uninspiring album cover art has become since the move to digital media, and the emphasis that Apple is trying to place on enhancing digital "extras" that "add value".
Apple, Amazon and Google seem to understand this - that digital content should be less expensive than physical counterparts. Nintendo seems to get that scaled down, mobile gaming should be less expensive than full fledged console gaming.
Windows Mobile developers never seemed to connect these dots. They offered mobile digital content, mostly apps, at prices comparable to what similar apps would cost on a desktop PC. For a dedicated user, some apps, like Resco File Explorer Suite, were so necessary that you simply paid up. But generally, I didn't buy Windows Mobile apps. I wasn't going to pay $30 or more for an app for my mobile phone.
So, while the iPhone certainly had and has some puzzling limitations that were a step backward from what even the earliest smart-phones were capable of, they made up for it, G-Man, with a compelling interface that made far more sense than using a Stylus, and with quality apps priced reasonably.
I wish Microsoft had come to market with a phone with those features quickly enough, that would have continued to support the legacy WinMo apps that I've invested in. But they didn't.
And Droid arrived and delivered the best of both worlds (with a few small sacrifices).
After years of loyally sticking with Windows Mobile because of several purchased apps that traveled faithfully with me from device to device, I recently abandoned WinMo after my 6.1 XV6800 Verizon device's contract expired. A lot of this was driven by iPhone envy. Seeing the app store flourish with such a wide range of quality, and maybe more importantly, FUN apps certainly made it apparent how little Microsoft had done with app development on Windows Mobile platforms. having to pull out a stylus to answer the phone and navigate menus started to feel awkward and conspicuous. The fact that most of these apps were free or priced very, very reasonably compared to Windows Mobile apps was just salt in my wounds. At some point, abandoning 3 or 4 apps that cost me a total of around $90 just seemed logical for the benefits that moving to a competitive smart-phone platform offered. But iPhone, in large part because of AT&T, and in small part because of concerns about the closed-in nature of the Apple developer and hardware model, never appealed to me.
When Droid landed on Verizon, it answered all of my concerns. Mobile apps should generally be very affordable. This seems like something that content publishers have struggled with for years. Consumers feel that digital content is less "tangible" - and it *is*. Publishers feel that they should be able to get as much, if not more, for digital content, maximizing profits because they remove many of the costs associated with manufacturing and distributing physical media. We need look no further than how uninspiring album cover art has become since the move to digital media, and the emphasis that Apple is trying to place on enhancing digital "extras" that "add value".
Apple, Amazon and Google seem to understand this - that digital content should be less expensive than physical counterparts. Nintendo seems to get that scaled down, mobile gaming should be less expensive than full fledged console gaming.
Windows Mobile developers never seemed to connect these dots. They offered mobile digital content, mostly apps, at prices comparable to what similar apps would cost on a desktop PC. For a dedicated user, some apps, like Resco File Explorer Suite, were so necessary that you simply paid up. But generally, I didn't buy Windows Mobile apps. I wasn't going to pay $30 or more for an app for my mobile phone.
So, while the iPhone certainly had and has some puzzling limitations that were a step backward from what even the earliest smart-phones were capable of, they made up for it, G-Man, with a compelling interface that made far more sense than using a Stylus, and with quality apps priced reasonably.
I wish Microsoft had come to market with a phone with those features quickly enough, that would have continued to support the legacy WinMo apps that I've invested in. But they didn't.
And Droid arrived and delivered the best of both worlds (with a few small sacrifices).
I'd like to take this a level up.
Apple' arrogance will cost Apple dearly!
one week with our new "apple" product (just a small 27" IMac) we bow down and beg off.
Our huge Thank You goes to ...
1.
Apple' non-appreciative and non-caring "world class customer support"
2.
Apple' comment that ONLY CLIENTS need to remember how they need to communicate (apple staff, apple forum moderators, in contrary, don't even need to read and understand, neither should they be obliged to HELP, but to top this world class support, should be allowed to act insulting and cynic, of course).
3.
Special thanks to MR Peter Breis from Australia - who reminded us of Apple' super power and our Stupidity as a "Windows" user. Peter... we accept your suggestion and will stay with Windows!
Apple -
you certainly don't make an adequate partner for us, no matter how much better your system is, we will never trade quality for "Arrogance and Neglect". Your level is too low!
Apple' arrogance will cost Apple dearly!
one week with our new "apple" product (just a small 27" IMac) we bow down and beg off.
Our huge Thank You goes to ...
1.
Apple' non-appreciative and non-caring "world class customer support"
2.
Apple' comment that ONLY CLIENTS need to remember how they need to communicate (apple staff, apple forum moderators, in contrary, don't even need to read and understand, neither should they be obliged to HELP, but to top this world class support, should be allowed to act insulting and cynic, of course).
3.
Special thanks to MR Peter Breis from Australia - who reminded us of Apple' super power and our Stupidity as a "Windows" user. Peter... we accept your suggestion and will stay with Windows!
Apple -
you certainly don't make an adequate partner for us, no matter how much better your system is, we will never trade quality for "Arrogance and Neglect". Your level is too low!
Google competition will be good for the mobile market. Apple step up and innovate - consumers ultimately benefit from better devices and lower costs. Now only if the Telecomm companies would provide better contracts versus subsidizing the equipment.
Apple arrogance caused them to fall behind the curve in the early 90s, almost leading to the demise of the company.
They did not adopt industry standard bus, i/o interface, and component devices They stuck with SCSI bus, with ADB, with Apple Talk. They were very slow in adopting a decent TCP/IP stack.
I'll give you a great example. At the time you could still get an 8 bit ISA 56k modem for about $15, an external serial modem for about $45... or an Apple serial Global Village modem for about $120.
We forget what it was like back then - but Apple was on the virge of being a memory like Packard Bell.
They did not innovate because they were comitted to their model of an almost completely closed architecture.
Steve Jobs returned and revitalized the company and completely redirected their previous focus. Apple existed as the darling of the print industry for a decade, but by the late 90s, the Windows PC platform offered every advantage of the Mac platform, plus dozens of advantages of the PC platform. Apple was also similarily losing their grip in the Educational sector. Their niches were unravelling. The company that emerged from the ashes of the previous Apple, using Intel chips, an OS with a CLI built on Unix, and an emerging focus not on PCs but on consumer electronic gadgets, redefined what Apple really is. They became an implicitly, but unspokenly "political" company... and worked dilligently to court a youth and academic market - based in large part on marketing appeals to emotion.
The thing is - that under the surface, their business strategy remains the same strategy that failed for them in the early 90s. There are certainly different mitigating circumstances going on now - not the least of which is the leadership of Steve Jobs being arguably better than the leadership at Apple during the period of their darkest days. But the fundamental core business model and corporate philosophy of Apple remains unchanged - and I think that is ultimately what caused them a lot of trouble the first time around, and is likely to cause the same kind of trouble, eventually, this time around as well.
Apple's business model is great for launching innovative products that quickly get significant traction. In the long haul, it becomes easy for more open competitors to offer more compelling products, with better features, less expensively - and Apple is generally unwilling to do what is necessary to compete at this more mature stage.
I suppose you could argue that Apple would rather be a media and advertising company at this point, and that like Google, devices, apps, and platforms are just a means to this end, this time around. Either way - though, the long term prospects for Apple hardware products seem to be unchanged. They're unlikely to release their iron grip, and eventually that will result in diminishing market share... again.
(It is worth noting that you can see similar results in another company with a similar trajectory - Sony. From once dominant in many aspects of consumer and even PC electronics, to kind of regarded as generally a bad choice - primarly because of an iron-fisted, proprietary grip on too many aspects of their consumer electronics).
They did not adopt industry standard bus, i/o interface, and component devices They stuck with SCSI bus, with ADB, with Apple Talk. They were very slow in adopting a decent TCP/IP stack.
I'll give you a great example. At the time you could still get an 8 bit ISA 56k modem for about $15, an external serial modem for about $45... or an Apple serial Global Village modem for about $120.
We forget what it was like back then - but Apple was on the virge of being a memory like Packard Bell.
They did not innovate because they were comitted to their model of an almost completely closed architecture.
Steve Jobs returned and revitalized the company and completely redirected their previous focus. Apple existed as the darling of the print industry for a decade, but by the late 90s, the Windows PC platform offered every advantage of the Mac platform, plus dozens of advantages of the PC platform. Apple was also similarily losing their grip in the Educational sector. Their niches were unravelling. The company that emerged from the ashes of the previous Apple, using Intel chips, an OS with a CLI built on Unix, and an emerging focus not on PCs but on consumer electronic gadgets, redefined what Apple really is. They became an implicitly, but unspokenly "political" company... and worked dilligently to court a youth and academic market - based in large part on marketing appeals to emotion.
The thing is - that under the surface, their business strategy remains the same strategy that failed for them in the early 90s. There are certainly different mitigating circumstances going on now - not the least of which is the leadership of Steve Jobs being arguably better than the leadership at Apple during the period of their darkest days. But the fundamental core business model and corporate philosophy of Apple remains unchanged - and I think that is ultimately what caused them a lot of trouble the first time around, and is likely to cause the same kind of trouble, eventually, this time around as well.
Apple's business model is great for launching innovative products that quickly get significant traction. In the long haul, it becomes easy for more open competitors to offer more compelling products, with better features, less expensively - and Apple is generally unwilling to do what is necessary to compete at this more mature stage.
I suppose you could argue that Apple would rather be a media and advertising company at this point, and that like Google, devices, apps, and platforms are just a means to this end, this time around. Either way - though, the long term prospects for Apple hardware products seem to be unchanged. They're unlikely to release their iron grip, and eventually that will result in diminishing market share... again.
(It is worth noting that you can see similar results in another company with a similar trajectory - Sony. From once dominant in many aspects of consumer and even PC electronics, to kind of regarded as generally a bad choice - primarly because of an iron-fisted, proprietary grip on too many aspects of their consumer electronics).
I never wanted the iPhone, not when I first saw it, and not after the initial excitement about the 3GS passed. Of course, I may have teetered slightly towards iPhones each each successive upgrade, but once I grabbed T-Mobile's G1 (and mind you, IT' THE G1!) I fell in love with Android and never had any desire to look back.
It's even better, dare I say, than Windows Mobile! (No, I'm serious. I used to like WinMo.)
It's even better, dare I say, than Windows Mobile! (No, I'm serious. I used to like WinMo.)
hahaha never heard it worded like that 
what luster? I never even slightly considered an iPhone. I always saw it as a try-hard smartphone, something that was only a 'fad'
what luster? I never even slightly considered an iPhone. I always saw it as a try-hard smartphone, something that was only a 'fad'
- Keyboard Shortcuts:
- Prev
- Next
- Toggle
