AT&T Tech Support 360Behind Google's FUD campaign against Apple
Forgive my flippancy, but I'm trying hard not to bust into giggles after reading about Rich Miner's prediction that sales of Android-based devices will outstrip sales of the iPhone.
Know where this guy can score an iPhone?
(Credit: Dan Farber/CNET News.com)"Once you have devices out there from Motorola, HTC, Samsung, and so on, there's a much larger potential market on Android than for the iPhone," he said during a conference held at the Computer History Museum in Mountain View, Calif. He later added, "There are things I saw people doing with the first version of the Android SDK that it seems like you can't do with the iPhone at least at the moment."
All of which may be true and yet totally beside the point.
Let's call Google on what this really is: Considering how there are currently ZERO Android devices in the market, Miner is engaging in (pardon the pun) major trash talking. Maybe Microsoft became such an easy target that Eric Schmidt decided it was the right time to pump up the volume at Apple's expense. I don't think Steve Jobs is sweating any. Down the corridor from me, my colleague Dan Farber recalled correctly that Apple's following the same playbook that's served it quite well in its other markets.
It's the same dilemma Apple has faced over the years. Should the Mac OS be licensed to any reasonably qualified manufacturer? Clearly, (Jobs) has proven that he can create a great PC business with 5 percent market share.
The first crop of phones resulting from Google's Open Handset Alliance aren't expected until the second half of the year. And yes, Android will not be tied to a specific device and thus the potential for monster sales exists--at least on paper.
But I understand why Google's drawing invidious comparisons with the iPhone. Apple may yet screw this up but there's powerful momentum behind the device. One week after announcing an iPhone software development kit, Apple's registered more than 100,000 downloads.
Android may offer the more open architecture, but Apple's decision to allow third-party developers to build applications is just the fillip the iPhone needs to win converts in the business world. So if you're Google, I suppose it comes down to a matter of "why not?" A little bit of FUD at this juncture doesn't come at a cost. But words alone won't turn Android into the success its creators envision.
Charles is an executive editor with CNET News. He has covered technology and business for more than 25 years. A graduate of Queens College and Columbia University, Cooper began his career in journalism at the Associated Press before moving to technology coverage. Before joining CNET News, he worked at Computer & Software News, Computer Shopper, PC Week, and ZDNet. He received the Excellence in Journalism award from the Northern California branch of the Society for Professional Journalists for column writing. In addition to his blogging and podcast appearances, he is a co-host of the CNET News Daily Debrief. E-mail Charlie.
- Topics:
-
Technology,
-
Business currents
- Bookmark:
- Digg
- Del.icio.us
Thanks for the best laugh of the day!
Windows source code used code from Apple's quicktime. To settle this lawsuit, (which was basically another time microsoft broke the rules and it did not matter because by the time the courts deal with the issue the item stolen is obsolete) paid apple $150 million dollars, and agreed to put Office on the mac, which apple used to survive. So Mac OS code is in every copy of windows, as is unix code.
for a reference.. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Notable_litigation_of_Apple#Apple_v._Microsoft.2C_Intel.2C_and_San_Francisco_Canyon_Company
I'd also propose that the 5% market share of apple users represents a disproportionate share of microsofts income, since they don't pirate as much... http://www.microsoft-watch.com/content/business_applications/microsofts_big_mac_sales.html
"Don't argue with a fool. The spectators can't tell the difference." -- Charles J. Nalin
you think the moon is made out of cheese don't you?
go on, admit it. it's made of cheese right? right?
Apple two years behind Microsoft?!?!
The only time MS was ahead of Apple MAY have been around 1995/96. MS has been copying Apple interface and technology for years. Licensing their shoddy OS to any hardware company (many of whom make lower quality, cheap, styleless boxes) is what garnered their large market share. OS X is way ahead of Vista. That's why many are now switching over to Mac.
Apple for their extreme price gouging?!?!
Compare an equivalent hardware/software combo and you'll find Macs are not
'extremely overpriced'. In fact, in several instances, they're less expensive. Now figure in ROI and hassles with viruses/bugs - you'll find Macs are much cheaper if you value your time and work.
BTW: MS didn't get into trouble on both sides of the pond just because they had such a large market share. They got in trouble because of their shady business dealings - withhold their OS when vendors wanted to pre-install third party apps, disabling media players in favor of their own, integrating their browser into the OS in a way other could not compete. Etc, etc, etc.
> allowing their Office suite to be ported to the Mac, along
> with their browser.
Office is indeed very important, and you're right that it was in Microsoft's interest to keep Apple afloat. However Microsoft's browser is a different story; the vast majority of Mac users use Apple's browser, Safari.
> Apple is two years behind Microsoft in most respects
Nonsense. The Mac operating system is widely considered equal or superior to Windows in many respects. Even PC Magazine (www.pcmag.com) has said so in recent reviews.
The $150 million Microsoft invested in Apple was a miniscule part of their operations at the time. Apple has sold those non-voting shares. To imply Apple needed that money to survive is ludicrous and only proves you don't know anything about what Apple is about.
Oh, and OS X is years ahead of Vista, and their market share is growing right now at four times the rest of the industry is.
If Apple were in horrible shape, $150 million wouldn't have done much to stop it. What Microsoft was more concerned about was the patent disputes that Apple was suing Microsoft for, and of course Microsoft's very profitable Mac version of Office (although using it to push IE further was a nice cherry on top for MS).
Also your knowledge is a little out of date, Microsoft stopped development for IE for Mac after Apple started developing the Safari web browser and the WebKit browser rendering engine, they ported this same software to Windows fairly recently to try and push adoption of WebKit and web standards, though I think this was unnecessary since Firefox is doing a brilliant job of doing this by itself, it'll make web developers happier when they're doing testing and also gave them a way to test iPhone site compatibility when they built their MobileSafari optimized websites, and really it's just not natural having the menu bar built directly into Safari running on Windows (iTunes did this a little better by adding it to the title bar), nor is it as nice as Safari on Mac OS X.
Sebastian
As another poster noted, MS pirated early Apple core operating system code (1983), and was later called on it. MS had access to this code because Apple was one of Gate's first customers and MS had no experience writing mouse-driven applications.
In 1997, Apple resolved its complaints against Microsoft in a deal involving Office, Internet Explorer, and that $150 million.
You are reading history as you want it to be, not history as it actually was.
These days MS most certainly have nothing to do with keeping Apple alive. Having Office on Mac is no more a lifeline than it is necessary. Oh btw.. Why would anyone in their right mind use IE on a Mac. Actually it hasn't even been ported to Mac for a long time. As I said you're talking of a time long since gone.
After spending untold hours trying to fix Vista problems you will have a hard time convincing that Apple is two years behind. It feels like MS has taken that step...and it continues with confusing developer and customer choices.
That investment was a shrewd move at the time for antitrust reasons and customer support reasons, but Apple hardly needs that now with about $18B in the bank. From what I can see they have among the highest margins in the business, and we have seen a lot of growth in corporate conversions. It started early last year - I wouldn't call it a big trend yet but it is clearly happening.
About price gouging - just open up the case on a Mac Pro and compare it to any traditional PC box - it looks like the difference between a Lexus and a lawnmower. Now I realize that the physical box does not make a better system alone, but it's all part of the build out cost. I'd much rather spend my bucks on an Apple than the HP's and Dell's we just bought. I can only teel you what we see in supporting approximately 1000 PC's and about 300 Mac's - the Apple products require roughly 10% of the support time. Generally we put them in and seldom hear much, but we can count on support routinely on the MS systems(fortunately!).
Opening up the iPhone platform to outside development is bound to create many corporate apps, and I think it exposes those developers to a BSD/Unix environment. That is bound to have some follow on to the rest of the OSX platform.
Yes. Two words: Industrial Espionage. And, of course, getting caught at it.
And this, during the antitrust investigation. Luckily for Microsoft, the fed looked the other way, and Apple got Office for "the forseeable future" (it's been ten years and four versions now), along with that $100 Million non-voting stock "investment" - which was worth ten times as much in public relations as dollars.
Bike45 clearly has many assumptions about the Apple-Microsoft relationship that were formed in the crucible of the mall arcade over bags of Doritos.
The other problem could be apple's control of the device. They're being just like verizon is with phones. Verizon controls which apps go on the phone, and how you'll use it. When you get a verizon phone, you pay for it, but verizon still owns it. Apple intends to do the same. At least you'll be able to get freeware apps for no charge. But still, no emulators, no java, unless apple says so.
The android platform has the potential to be bigger than iphone since you'll see it on CDMA networks; probably sprint and verizon. If it offers uses great software with more freedom, it could give iphone a run for its money. I wouldn't count it out.
But regardless, Apple's maintaining control of the device to maintain quality and reliability, though I do worry about potential conflicts of interest (apps that will compete directly with the apps Apple already has). For example one of the complaints is that 3rd party Apps can't run background processes, the reasoning behind this is you have maybe 76 MB of RAM to work with after you factor in RAM allocated for the system, this is quite a bit compared to other mobile devices but that's still not a lot to work with. If you allow 3rd party apps to overload this with their own background processes it's going to drain the battery and slow the device to a crawl. The workaround for this is to save the state of each application when you quit it (which happens when you hit the home button) and then cut down the start time to as close to nothing as possible, which isn't hard since there's not much to load into to begin with so only essential services will startup in RAM. The reliability of the device is of much more importance than a dozen different background processes from a dozen different apps running at the same time.
Not only that, but these devices aren't even comparable to Verizon's POS BREW. These are desktop class applications running on a device that makes everything else on the market look like last century.
The Android has potential on paper, it might be more popular than the iPhone, it might not be. I only hope that it eliminates what's left of Palm and destroy WinCE as an option. The real competitor Apple might need to look out for is Nokia, but I hear those N95s don't offer much in the way of battery life which means that Nokia is prioritizing features over usability and reliability which as Microsoft has proven (regardless of their market share), is just not a good formula and makes for a crappy product in the end. I still hold out hope that they will be a competent competitor to Apple if they re-prioritize usability/reliability over features or are saved by some miracle in batteries, and leverage Ovi with a cut down product line.
Sebastian
All those other phone manufacturers out there will be keen to equal the iPhone in functions if not in absolute slickness. Apple isn't going to license their software to them, period. Google will. And you can bet that Google's apps and search etc will probably be pretty nicely integrated - along with anything else any developer in the world would like to add to that. I'd say the potential of Android is huge, unless it completely sucks or something.
To get into the business market, they did the simplest way they could: they licensed ActiveSync and built it into their pre-existing apps that correspond with Exchange, and when you go home and don't want to be bothered by work, there's a simple switch to turn it off. They also played off their iPod brand by building the best portable media player software into it. On paper, many other devices can provide some or all of these features, but while features look good on paper, if they're frustrating to use or come at a significant sacrifice of usability (or worse, battery life so the whole thing is unusable until you recharge it), then it's worthless.
Sebastian
Sebastian
Sebastian
The iPhone had the 2nd largest market-share (>20%) of smart-phones in 6 months (US market). They aren't trying to compete with the billions of basic phones out there, so overall market-share means very little.
" Yes. It's an innovative and compelling and cool device. It's got wonderful touch screen nav. All of the JesusPhone accolytes have failed to explain exactly what it does that other devices can't and won't be able to do"
By calling it the JesusPhone we already know where you stand but I'll bite for s&gs. Just like most Apple products, the user interface and product execution allows users to use almost all of it's functions seamlessly, with little to no foreknowledge. This applies to newbies and tech savvy users.
As for the iPhone vs. Android, they are complementary. The Android is for those who won't want iPhones. And both together will divide up the smartphone market very nicely. That's how Schmidt can be on Apple's board and not cause problems.
Besides, most folks aren't going to buy a cellphone because it has a better or more open development environment. As long as the phone has what's right for the user and the dev environment is "good enough" for the developer, they'll sell all they can build very profitably.
27% of current smart phone marketshare.... its only matter of time... the iPhone will have over 5% market share with in the year... its almost a sure thing. the Google phone has alot of ground to make up and it hasnt even shipped yet... and who is going to make the hardware for it? I mean the software will be good b/c its google but who will make the hardware worth buying?
iPhone gets mountains of press, but its comparative sales are miniscule.
While typically only shareholders care about these, since you're concerned about market share and handset sales, I assume you must be an investor somewhere in this market. (No I'm not an AAPL shareholder)
Sebastian
This is the relevant blurb from the article:
This is a major storyline to watch for the year ahead; namely, in an industry where the once impenetrable walls between media, mobile, PC and Internet are crashing down, seemingly only two companies ? Apple and Google ? have figured out how to ?Think Different? enough to play the disruptor role across all of these segments.
Given their respective mammoth ambitions, are ?friends? Apple/Google destined to become ?frienemies? ala Apple/Microsoft (circa 1990), and if so, when?
Check out the full article, ?iPod touch: take two? if interested:
http://thenetworkgarden.com/weblog/2008/02/ipod-touch-take.html
Regards,
Mark
iPhone = fad phase. Guess you have NO idea what an iPhone is. Google 120 months = iPhone 8 months, yep pretty good comparison.
What is in there in iPhone? And what is not in Nokia N-series or E-series phones?! I think a bigger screen and a touch screen are the only advantages of iphone. But you can get everything in better way in nokia phones. For example iphone has only GPRS with 48Kbps data transfer where as new nokia phones have HSDPA with 3.5Mbps data transfer.
But the main problem is media support. Apple does a PING and it goes to people as BOOOM! only for the blessings of media! When people will compare the features of the products , they will certainly realize what they are missing.
At least in the other part of the world people are not that biased by media. Think about japan , china and other countries in Asia (I don't know much about what's going on in Middle East or Africa).
Second thing that comes out in comments is the control of the cell phone companies over people. People are bound to the cell phone companies in terms of using connection and features of the cell phone. It is really preposterous!!
1) The iPhone has EDGE, but it can fall back on GPRS/GSM if that's not available which offers approximately Broadband level speeds (220+ kbps or so). But a wireless connection is only as strong as it's weakest link (for example my Airport Express gives me a 54 Mbps connection with actual throughput being around 36 Mbps but my DSL connection is only 3 MBps) and AT&T throttles their HSDPA network (BroadbandConnect) down to 700 kbps or so.
2) The Media overreacts to everything, that's expected because the media is often wrong and often stupid. Regardless it's possible to filter it down to something more reasonable by using your own brain, my advice is to read multiple points of view, find the actually reliable sources and try to get your info directly from the horses mouth.
3) The iPhone is indeed a huge potential platform. It's a canvas, it has the best toolset and APIs of any mobile device in the world. The reason the iPhone is a big deal and worth getting excited about is because sales are strong, the current numbers don't even reflect how they will sell worldwide once Apple has all the biggest markets ready and more importantly: it's users actually LIKE using it. When you have a case of featuritis like Nokia and the N95, you end up with something that has a poor battery life, what's more important in a mobile device? A longer lasting battery with 95% of the features you want or all the features crammed in but a short battery to go with it? Think about it, do you believe design doesn't matter when it comes to the user interface? It's not about it being pretty, it's about usability at the same time, and that's something most phone manufactures don't get. They think cramming a T9 onto a J2ME phone and a faster radio will solve all their problems, but it doesn't, instead it confuses their product lineup and overruns the market with a lot of worthless phones. The cellular "phone" market is going to wither up and die within 20 years, maybe sticking around for the holdouts and the elderly at that time, pocket computers are the next generation.
4) Apple is working with the carriers to get looser restrictions, granted this isn't always as successful as they'd probably like, the end result is a lot better than before (they're making data plans a focus here since the iPhone pushes a lot of it).
Sebastian