Windows Phone 7 flops, Ballmer prepares his exit
Dave U. Random
shift-windows-phone-handsets
Only a couple thousand handsets were sold, whilst Android (=Linux you
Wintroll faggots) is selling hundreds of thousands every day!!! I've
predicted that Windows Phone 7 would crash-and-burn, and here's the
proof. Oh sure, it will take a couple of months for the trend to become
visible, but WP7 is a dud.
Meanwhile Ballmer is cashing his stock options to prepare a soft
nestegg for retirement, he knows his days are now numbered. Good
riddance!
Homer
> http://www.theinquirer.net/inquirer/news/1895417/microsoft-failing-shift-windows-phone-handsets
Check out the swarm of Microsoft apologists in the comments.
Here's the thing though: if the proportion of mindlessly committed
Microsoft acolytes actually corresponded to sales, then that article
wouldn't even exist. Either these Microsoft apologists are hypocrites,
or they're not really who they pretend to be. It's probably just a
couple of Microsoft employees, or paid2post shills, posting multiple
comments under different pseudonyms. If the level of support for
Microsoft in that article is actually to be believed, then why aren't
they out pissing away all their money on Microsoft crap, rather than
whining about someone exposing poor sales figures?
--
K. | [ubuntu]
http://slated.org |
Fedora 8 (Werewolf) on sky | 1. Ancient African word meaning
kernel 2.6.31.5, up 29 days | 'I can't configure Debian'
Terry Porter
> Verily I say unto thee, that Dave U Random spake thusly:
>> http://www.theinquirer.net/inquirer/news/1895417/microsoft-failing-shift-
windows-phone-handsets
>
> Check out the swarm of Microsoft apologists in the comments.
>
> Here's the thing though: if the proportion of mindlessly committed
> Microsoft acolytes actually corresponded to sales, then that article
> wouldn't even exist. Either these Microsoft apologists are hypocrites,
> or they're not really who they pretend to be. It's probably just a
> couple of Microsoft employees, or paid2post shills, posting multiple
> comments under different pseudonyms. If the level of support for
> Microsoft in that article is actually to be believed, then why aren't
> they out pissing away all their money on Microsoft crap, rather than
> whining about someone exposing poor sales figures?
>
It's so obvious... a comment critical of microsoft, immediately followed by
two lame astroturfers with the usual ' I have a life, and I don't waste time
criticizing microsoft' etc.
I on the other hand think that such posters have no life as they waste it
running around apologizing for microsoft at every opportunity.
There are also a lot of really funny comments critical of ms, like this one
below.
Trashing Windows Phone 7:-
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=S_HGOvO_KpE
--
This quadcore running Gnu/Linux Gentoo:
http://www.gentoo.org/main/en/about.xml
Chris Ahlstrom
> Verily I say unto thee, that Dave U Random spake thusly:
>
>> http://www.theinquirer.net/inquirer/news/1895417/microsoft-failing-shift-windows-phone-handsets
>
> Check out the swarm of Microsoft apologists in the comments.
"Let the market decide. I'm in favor of competition, and I hope RIM, Palm
(HP), and Microsoft all thrive. If Microsoft fails, it's everybody's
loss."
Nah to that last sentence.
> Here's the thing though: if the proportion of mindlessly committed
> Microsoft acolytes actually corresponded to sales, then that article
> wouldn't even exist. Either these Microsoft apologists are hypocrites,
> or they're not really who they pretend to be. It's probably just a
> couple of Microsoft employees, or paid2post shills, posting multiple
> comments under different pseudonyms. If the level of support for
> Microsoft in that article is actually to be believed, then why aren't
> they out pissing away all their money on Microsoft crap, rather than
> whining about someone exposing poor sales figures?
Check out the poster nymmed "Hieronymus P. Organthruster".
And the one called, er, "Slated" ;-)
The one called "Deadfred" claims Droid sales of 100k its first weekend,
but this article doubles that:
Look at the URLs in this post:
>> microsoft-failing-shift-windows-phone-handsets
>> droid-had-an-amazing-first-day-sales-part-2-of-the-droid-review
Spin it or not, the Droid seemed to have exceeded expectations, while the
Win 7 phone seems to have failed to meet them.
--
If you don't strike oil in twenty minutes, stop boring.
-- Andrew Carnegie, on public speaking
Homer
> And the one called, er, "Slated" ;-)
Yeah, that guy is obviously a shill working on behalf of the Lunix
Crocporation. ;)
> Spin it or not, the Droid seemed to have exceeded expectations, while
> the Win 7 phone seems to have failed to meet them.
It's WinCE all over again.
Gerda van der Pik-Swanejong
news:019bd28db88323eb...@anonymitaet-im-inter.net...
You can rant Ballmer all you want, but he's far more succesfull in life than
you are, you linturd asshole POS loser.
(dave u random, momma's boy, 45 year old obese man, who thinks luke
skywalker is his father.)
Chris Ahlstrom
> You can rant Ballmer all you want, but he's far more succesfull in life than
> you are...
So was Al Capone.
--
"If you want to eat hippopotamus, you've got to pay the freight."
-- attributed to an IBM guy, about why IBM software uses so much memory
ZnU
Dave U. Random <anon...@anonymitaet-im-inter.net> wrote:
> http://www.theinquirer.net/inquirer/news/1895417/microsoft-failing-
> shift-windows-phone-handsets
>
> Only a couple thousand handsets were sold, whilst Android (=Linux you
> Wintroll faggots) is selling hundreds of thousands every day!!! I've
> predicted that Windows Phone 7 would crash-and-burn, and here's the
> proof. Oh sure, it will take a couple of months for the trend to become
> visible, but WP7 is a dud.
As much fun as it is to watch Microsoft suffer, the truth is Windows
Phone 7 is actually a fairly credible effort, and these are still very
early days in the smartphone market. The two hottest platforms in the
mobile market, iOS and Android, have both come out of nowhere in just
the last three years -- it's silly to think anyone has any idea how
things will settle out in the long run.
> Meanwhile Ballmer is cashing his stock options to prepare a soft
> nestegg for retirement, he knows his days are now numbered. Good
> riddance!
Baller's retirement would be the best thing to happen to Microsoft in a
decade.
--
"The game of professional investment is intolerably boring and over-exacting to
anyone who is entirely exempt from the gambling instinct; whilst he who has it
must pay to this propensity the appropriate toll." -- John Maynard Keynes
Hadron
> In article <019bd28db88323eb...@anonymitaet-im-inter.net>,
> Dave U. Random <anon...@anonymitaet-im-inter.net> wrote:
>
>> http://www.theinquirer.net/inquirer/news/1895417/microsoft-failing-
>> shift-windows-phone-handsets
>>
>> Only a couple thousand handsets were sold, whilst Android (=Linux you
>> Wintroll faggots) is selling hundreds of thousands every day!!! I've
>> predicted that Windows Phone 7 would crash-and-burn, and here's the
>> proof. Oh sure, it will take a couple of months for the trend to become
>> visible, but WP7 is a dud.
>
> As much fun as it is to watch Microsoft suffer, the truth is Windows
> Phone 7 is actually a fairly credible effort, and these are still very
> early days in the smartphone market. The two hottest platforms in the
> mobile market, iOS and Android, have both come out of nowhere in just
> the last three years -- it's silly to think anyone has any idea how
> things will settle out in the long run.
>
>> Meanwhile Ballmer is cashing his stock options to prepare a soft
>> nestegg for retirement, he knows his days are now numbered. Good
>> riddance!
>
> Baller's retirement would be the best thing to happen to Microsoft in a
> decade.
Why do you say that?
They are making record profits in an increasingly open and mixed market.
ZnU
Hadron<hadro...@gmail.com> wrote:
They've done so largely by finding ways to make more money in their core
(monopolized) markets, namely office software, personal computer
operating systems, and related products. In general, their ability to
anticipate the market, and the quality of their execution, has been
lacking, and as a consequence they've seen little profitable expansion
into new markets. They're still primarily a desktop software company, in
a world where virtually all of the growth is web and mobile.
Windows Phone 7 is a hopeful sign, but there aren't all that many
others. Note, for instance, that not only did Microsoft entirely fail to
see the potential of tablets running lightweight touch-optimized
operating systems (as opposed to desktop operating systems), but they
still seem to be in denial about this, to the extent that Microsoft's
largest OEM partner decided they needed to own their own tablet platform.
Microsoft is going to face huge challenges over the coming decade.
People have been talking about a market shift deemphasizing the
traditional personal computer for a good 15 years, but the shape of that
future is now finally starting to crystalize. Microsoft must adapt, or
it will become at best a second-tier player in the future of computing.
The Microsoft we've seen under Ballmer's leadership is not a company
likely to cope well with fundamental changes impacting its core product
lines.
Lawrence D'Oliveiro
> As much fun as it is to watch Microsoft suffer, the truth is Windows
> Phone 7 is actually a fairly credible effort, and these are still very
> early days in the smartphone market.
I will readily concede that Windows Phone 7 looks better than Android did
when it first came out.
The trouble is, Android is an open platform, which allows, even encourages,
handset makers to compete with each other to provide special features,
enhance the usability etc. This created a situation of feverish competition,
which in two years has allowed Android to come out from nowhere to not just
match the Iphone, but to surpass it.
Whereas Microsoft is consciously imitating the Apple model of centralized
control, which means all innovations must come from the top down—all the
handset makers must depend on Microsoft for new features.
And Microsoft just isn’t a fast-moving company any more. So it’s unlikely,
I’m afraid, that it can keep up as Android continues to streak ahead.
Chris Ahlstrom
>> Meanwhile Ballmer is cashing his stock options to prepare a soft
>> nestegg for retirement, he knows his days are now numbered. Good
>> riddance!
>
> Baller's retirement would be the best thing to happen to Microsoft in a
======== Heh, Freudian slip, or deliberate?
> decade.
--
The trouble with opportunity is that it always comes disguised as hard work.
-- Herbert V. Prochnow
ZnU
Lawrence D'Oliveiro <l...@geek-central.gen.new_zealand> wrote:
> In message <znu-4BE926.2...@Port80.Individual.NET>, ZnU wrote:
>
> > As much fun as it is to watch Microsoft suffer, the truth is Windows
> > Phone 7 is actually a fairly credible effort, and these are still very
> > early days in the smartphone market.
>
> I will readily concede that Windows Phone 7 looks better than Android did
> when it first came out.
>
> The trouble is, Android is an open platform, which allows, even encourages,
> handset makers to compete with each other to provide special features,
> enhance the usability etc. This created a situation of feverish competition,
> which in two years has allowed Android to come out from nowhere to not just
> match the Iphone, but to surpass it.
>
> Whereas Microsoft is consciously imitating the Apple model of centralized
> control, which means all innovations must come from the top down—all the
> handset makers must depend on Microsoft for new features.
What has allowed Android to ramp up unit volume so fast is that it was
adopted by several large existing handset vendors that already
controlled a substantial fraction of the market, but lacked any internal
capability to mount a plausible response to iOS.
Android's "openness" (i.e. the fact that that Google does not attempt to
exercise any control over carriers or OEMs) has certainly encouraged
this adoption, but it's not actually clear that it has provided any
material benefit to consumers in terms of platform quality, and in fact
one could make a strong case that the opposite is true.
Which, though this violates COLA doctrine, should hardly be surprising.
Take a bunch of handset vendors that are _defined_ by their inability to
do serious platform development (remember, they're precisely the vendors
that had to look outside for an OS) and have them start screwing around
with your OS. Now, add in meddling by cellular carriers, some of the
most consumer-hostile companies in the world. Why would you expect this
to improve the product?
> And Microsoft just isn’t a fast-moving company any more. So it’s unlikely,
> I’m afraid, that it can keep up as Android continues to streak ahead.
--
Chris Ahlstrom
> Android's "openness" (i.e. the fact that that Google does not attempt to
> exercise any control over carriers or OEMs) has certainly encouraged
> this adoption, but it's not actually clear that it has provided any
> material benefit to consumers in terms of platform quality, and in fact
> one could make a strong case that the opposite is true.
>
> Which, though this violates COLA doctrine, should hardly be surprising.
=============
No such thing.
> Take a bunch of handset vendors that are _defined_ by their inability to
> do serious platform development (remember, they're precisely the vendors
> that had to look outside for an OS) and have them start screwing around
> with your OS. Now, add in meddling by cellular carriers, some of the
> most consumer-hostile companies in the world. Why would you expect this
> to improve the product?
And yet, it is improving.
--
I am myself plus my circumstance, and if I do not save it, I cannot
save myself.
-- Jos' e Ortega Y Gasset
ZnU
Chris Ahlstrom <ahls...@xzoozy.com> wrote:
> ZnU pulled this Usenet face plant:
>
> > Android's "openness" (i.e. the fact that that Google does not attempt to
> > exercise any control over carriers or OEMs) has certainly encouraged
> > this adoption, but it's not actually clear that it has provided any
> > material benefit to consumers in terms of platform quality, and in fact
> > one could make a strong case that the opposite is true.
> >
> > Which, though this violates COLA doctrine, should hardly be surprising.
> =============
>
> No such thing.
>
> > Take a bunch of handset vendors that are _defined_ by their inability to
> > do serious platform development (remember, they're precisely the vendors
> > that had to look outside for an OS) and have them start screwing around
> > with your OS. Now, add in meddling by cellular carriers, some of the
> > most consumer-hostile companies in the world. Why would you expect this
> > to improve the product?
>
> And yet, it is improving.
Sure. But it's improving primarily through Google's efforts. The efforts
of OEMs and carriers serve mostly to decrease platform quality, decrease
consumer control over devices, and increase fragmentation. There are
obvious examples of each of these.
How many Android handsets will _never_ be upgradable to 2.2 (at least as
far as normal consumers are concerned) because carriers insisted on
performing mostly useless Android customizations that would take work to
port over, and they don't care enough to actually do it? Are any of
those customizations actually worth more to users than being able to
upgrade to 2.2 would be? I seriously doubt it.
And then there's stuff like this:
http://blog.netflix.com/2010/11/netflix-on-android.html
Hadron
I own a 2.1 phone. And I doubt it too. I recently had to stop using
Smart keyboard Pro because it locked my phone at boot up (pops up over
the sim card lock screen) and the author described it as a phone
dependent error he cant address. The same phone wont charge from a
cradle charger. The same phone frequently locks up at 100% cpu for up to
20 seconds or so making it impossible to answer a call. 2.1 sucks
arse. And I cant wait for 2.2 which is so much better it's scary. That
IS a usable phone OS.
Hadron
Creepy rarely follows links that show him to be clueless, so lets
reprint what they say here. And who would have thought it? Hadron's
crystal ball was correct once again. And why? because unlike people like
Creepy who waffle on about things they know nothing about I base my
views on real life usage. I own and use an Android phone. I know about
the crap in the Market and the hassles with proprietary updates. It's a
complete and utter mess.
Anyway, lets see what they had to say:-
,----
| We regard Android as an exciting technology that drives a range of great
| devices that our members could use to instantly watch TV shows and
| movies from Netflix. We are eager to launch on these devices and are
| disappointed that we haven’t been able to do so already. The hurdle has
| been the lack of a generic and complete platform security and content
| protection mechanism available for Android. The same security issues
| that have led to piracy concerns on the Android platform have made it
| difficult for us to secure a common Digital Rights Management (DRM)
| system on these devices. Setting aside the debate around the value of
| content protection and DRM, they are requirements we must fulfill in
| order to obtain content from major studios for our subscribers to enjoy.
`----
Paraphrase "it's not good enough".
Chris Ahlstrom
> In article <iboumr$ckb$2...@news.eternal-september.org>,
> Chris Ahlstrom <ahls...@xzoozy.com> wrote:
>
>> ZnU pulled this Usenet face plant:
>>
>> > Android's "openness" (i.e. the fact that that Google does not attempt to
>> > exercise any control over carriers or OEMs) has certainly encouraged
>> > this adoption, but it's not actually clear that it has provided any
>> > material benefit to consumers in terms of platform quality, and in fact
>> > one could make a strong case that the opposite is true.
>> >
>> > Which, though this violates COLA doctrine, should hardly be surprising.
>> =============
>>
>> No such thing.
>>
>> > Take a bunch of handset vendors that are _defined_ by their inability to
>> > do serious platform development (remember, they're precisely the vendors
>> > that had to look outside for an OS) and have them start screwing around
>> > with your OS. Now, add in meddling by cellular carriers, some of the
>> > most consumer-hostile companies in the world. Why would you expect this
>> > to improve the product?
>>
>> And yet, it is improving.
>
> Sure. But it's improving primarily through Google's efforts.
So what?
> The efforts
> of OEMs and carriers serve mostly to decrease platform quality, decrease
> consumer control over devices, and increase fragmentation. There are
> obvious examples of each of these.
So what? They're obviously selling like hotcakes.
> How many Android handsets will _never_ be upgradable to 2.2 (at least as
> far as normal consumers are concerned) because carriers insisted on
> performing mostly useless Android customizations that would take work to
> port over, and they don't care enough to actually do it? Are any of
> those customizations actually worth more to users than being able to
> upgrade to 2.2 would be? I seriously doubt it.
Who knows? You have a list of those "customizations"?
And how do we know you are not exaggerating the "churn" from version to
version?
> And then there's stuff like this:
> http://blog.netflix.com/2010/11/netflix-on-android.html
Well boo hoo hoo for Netflix's need for "generic and complete" DRM.
--
I mean, well, if it were not for Linux I might be roaming the streets looking
for drugs or prostitutes or something. Hannu and Linus have my highest
admiration (apple polishing mode off).
-- Phil Lewis, ple...@nyx.nyx.net
ZnU
Chris Ahlstrom <ahls...@xzoozy.com> wrote:
> ZnU pulled this Usenet face plant:
>
> > In article <iboumr$ckb$2...@news.eternal-september.org>,
> > Chris Ahlstrom <ahls...@xzoozy.com> wrote:
> >
> >> ZnU pulled this Usenet face plant:
> >>
> >> > Android's "openness" (i.e. the fact that that Google does not attempt to
> >> > exercise any control over carriers or OEMs) has certainly encouraged
> >> > this adoption, but it's not actually clear that it has provided any
> >> > material benefit to consumers in terms of platform quality, and in fact
> >> > one could make a strong case that the opposite is true.
> >> >
> >> > Which, though this violates COLA doctrine, should hardly be surprising.
> >> =============
> >>
> >> No such thing.
> >>
> >> > Take a bunch of handset vendors that are _defined_ by their inability to
> >> > do serious platform development (remember, they're precisely the vendors
> >> > that had to look outside for an OS) and have them start screwing around
> >> > with your OS. Now, add in meddling by cellular carriers, some of the
> >> > most consumer-hostile companies in the world. Why would you expect this
> >> > to improve the product?
> >>
> >> And yet, it is improving.
> >
> > Sure. But it's improving primarily through Google's efforts.
>
> So what?
So, this subthread began with Lawrence D'Oliveiro claiming that
Android's success was a consequence of handset makers competing with
each other to enhance the platform.
It's not.
Android is so widely used largely _despite_ the damage done to it by
carriers and handset makers, not because carriers and handset markers
are all engaged with Google in some utopian open source collaboration to
make the platform better.
> > The efforts of OEMs and carriers serve mostly to decrease platform
> > quality, decrease consumer control over devices, and increase
> > fragmentation. There are obvious examples of each of these.
>
> So what? They're obviously selling like hotcakes.
See above.
> > How many Android handsets will _never_ be upgradable to 2.2 (at least as
> > far as normal consumers are concerned) because carriers insisted on
> > performing mostly useless Android customizations that would take work to
> > port over, and they don't care enough to actually do it? Are any of
> > those customizations actually worth more to users than being able to
> > upgrade to 2.2 would be? I seriously doubt it.
>
> Who knows? You have a list of those "customizations"?
>
> And how do we know you are not exaggerating the "churn" from version to
> version?
If you have some specific relevant information to post here, please do
so.
> > And then there's stuff like this:
> > http://blog.netflix.com/2010/11/netflix-on-android.html
>
> Well boo hoo hoo for Netflix's need for "generic and complete" DRM.
First, you really shouldn't be so cavalier to dismiss a service as
hugely popular with consumers as Netflix merely because of your distaste
for DRM. Secondly, this issue is a symptom of a larger problem with
Android fragmentation. A problem that seems to actually be getting
_worse_ over time, as OEM Android variants have more time to diverge
from Google's reference implementation. (See, for instance, HTC's recent
comments about how they want to start replacing "bones", rather than
just skinning Android differently.)
Homer
>> How many Android handsets will _never_ be upgradable to 2.2 (at least
>> as far as normal consumers are concerned) because carriers insisted
>> on performing mostly useless Android customizations that would take
>> work to port over, and they don't care enough to actually do it? Are
>> any of those customizations actually worth more to users than being
>> able to upgrade to 2.2 would be? I seriously doubt it.
>
> Who knows? You have a list of those "customizations"?
They're UI alternatives like HTC Sense and Samsung Touchwiz, and have
precisely zero to do with the operating system or applications. They
certainly don't preclude the possibility of upgrading, either to newer
versions of those custom UIs, or to the stock Android launcher. I've
done /both/ on my Samsung Galaxy S, without any difficulty whatsoever,
and without causing even the slightest compatibility issues with apps I
already had installed. If those apps support /Android/ 2.2, then they
work on /Android/ 2.2. Period.
ZnU is just blowing hot air.
>> And then there's stuff like this:
>> http://blog.netflix.com/2010/11/netflix-on-android.html
>
> Well boo hoo hoo for Netflix's need for "generic and complete" DRM.
Android does in fact have DRM capabilities, using the DRM Protected
Content Storage service that's present on /every/ Android handset.
Apparently, companies like Amazon have no difficulties securing their
content on Android (Kindle), whereas Netflix claims they do. It seems
the issue is purely that PEBKAC. IOW Netflix are a bunch of idiots.
http://android.git.kernel.org/?p=platform/packages/providers/DrmProvider.git
There is in fact no technical reason for Netflix to not provide DRM
content for Android. There may be good /ethical/ reasons for not
supporting DRM in general, but there certainly aren't any technical
limitations on Android.
--
K. | [ubuntu]
http://slated.org |
Fedora 8 (Werewolf) on sky | 1. Ancient African word meaning
kernel 2.6.31.5, up 31 days | 'I can't configure Debian'
ZnU
wrote:
> Verily I say unto thee, that Chris Ahlstrom spake thusly:
> > ZnU pulled this Usenet face plant:
>
> >> How many Android handsets will _never_ be upgradable to 2.2 (at least
> >> as far as normal consumers are concerned) because carriers insisted
> >> on performing mostly useless Android customizations that would take
> >> work to port over, and they don't care enough to actually do it? Are
> >> any of those customizations actually worth more to users than being
> >> able to upgrade to 2.2 would be? I seriously doubt it.
> >
> > Who knows? You have a list of those "customizations"?
>
> They're UI alternatives like HTC Sense and Samsung Touchwiz, and have
> precisely zero to do with the operating system or applications. They
> certainly don't preclude the possibility of upgrading, either to
> newer versions of those custom UIs, or to the stock Android launcher.
> I've done /both/ on my Samsung Galaxy S, without any difficulty
> whatsoever, and without causing even the slightest compatibility
> issues with apps I already had installed. If those apps support
> /Android/ 2.2, then they work on /Android/ 2.2. Period.
>
> ZnU is just blowing hot air.
There are many Android handsets that have been sold which are not
officially upgradable to Android 2.2 because handset makers don't seem
to care to port their customization (regardless of how easy or difficult
that might be) and make official upgrades available. Geeks may be able
to upgrade some of these phones despite the lack of official support,
but this is irrelevant to 99% of the market. Most users won't even know
an upgrade is available unless something pops up automatically offering
to install it.
> >> And then there's stuff like this:
> >> http://blog.netflix.com/2010/11/netflix-on-android.html
> >
> > Well boo hoo hoo for Netflix's need for "generic and complete" DRM.
>
> Android does in fact have DRM capabilities, using the DRM Protected
> Content Storage service that's present on /every/ Android handset.
> Apparently, companies like Amazon have no difficulties securing their
> content on Android (Kindle), whereas Netflix claims they do. It seems
> the issue is purely that PEBKAC. IOW Netflix are a bunch of idiots.
>
> http://android.git.kernel.org/?p=platform/packages/providers/DrmProvider.git
>
> There is in fact no technical reason for Netflix to not provide DRM
> content for Android. There may be good /ethical/ reasons for not
> supporting DRM in general, but there certainly aren't any technical
> limitations on Android.
Yes, I'm sure it's very likely that you know much more about this than
Netflix developers do.
RonB
> And yet, it is improving.
Android will be on even more phones by Christmas, many of them under $50,
at least one free with a plan. It's an Android world.
--
RonB
Registered Linux User #498581
CentOS 5.5 or VectorLinux Deluxe 6.0
Chris Ahlstrom
So Netflix works with Wii, iPhone, PS3, Xbox, iPad, Symbian, Nokia,
various versions of Windows, Mac OSX, and Apple TV, and yet they're
cavilling about minor differences in the Android phones?
Something doesn't quite ring true here.
--
If a man stay away from his wife for seven years, the law presumes the
separation to have killed him; yet according to our daily experience,
it might well prolong his life.
-- Charles Darling, "Scintillae Juris", 1877
Homer
>> In article <ibp330$4tl$1...@news.eternal-september.org>,
>> Chris Ahlstrom <ahls...@xzoozy.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>> http://blog.netflix.com/2010/11/netflix-on-android.html
>>>
>>> Well boo hoo hoo for Netflix's need for "generic and complete" DRM.
>>
>> First, you really shouldn't be so cavalier to dismiss a service as
>> hugely popular with consumers as Netflix merely because of your
>> distaste for DRM. Secondly, this issue is a symptom of a larger
>> problem with Android fragmentation. A problem that seems to actually
>> be getting _worse_ over time, as OEM Android variants have more time
>> to diverge from Google's reference implementation. (See, for
>> instance, HTC's recent comments about how they want to start
>> replacing "bones", rather than just skinning Android differently.)
>
> So Netflix works with Wii, iPhone, PS3, Xbox, iPad, Symbian, Nokia,
> various versions of Windows, Mac OSX, and Apple TV, and yet they're
> cavilling about minor differences in the Android phones?
>
> Something doesn't quite ring true here.
I bet the real issue is licensing, and Google's reluctance to capitulate
to Netflix's extortion, or more likely the fact that Netflix needs to go
knocking on lot's of different doors to exact their fees, because of the
communal nature of the software. Of course they need to do that now with
the other vendors you mentioned, but unlike them, Android doesn't have a
tax-collector to whom every vendor is liable. That would explain quite a
lot: it's not the lack of standards, it's the lack of a single point for
license negotiation. Bear that in mind as you re-read that blog post, it
suddenly all makes sense.
Lawrence D'Oliveiro
> In article <ibo647$k1a$1...@lust.ihug.co.nz>,
> Lawrence D'Oliveiro <l...@geek-central.gen.new_zealand> wrote:
>
>> In message <znu-4BE926.2...@Port80.Individual.NET>, ZnU wrote:
>>
>> > As much fun as it is to watch Microsoft suffer, the truth is Windows
>> > Phone 7 is actually a fairly credible effort, and these are still very
>> > early days in the smartphone market.
>>
>> I will readily concede that Windows Phone 7 looks better than Android did
>> when it first came out.
>>
>> The trouble is, Android is an open platform, which allows, even
>> encourages, handset makers to compete with each other to provide special
>> features, enhance the usability etc. This created a situation of feverish
>> competition, which in two years has allowed Android to come out from
>> nowhere to not just match the Iphone, but to surpass it.
>>
>> Whereas Microsoft is consciously imitating the Apple model of centralized
>> control, which means all innovations must come from the top down—all the
>> handset makers must depend on Microsoft for new features.
>
> What has allowed Android to ramp up unit volume so fast is that it was
> adopted by several large existing handset vendors that already
> controlled a substantial fraction of the market, but lacked any internal
> capability to mount a plausible response to iOS.
Ah, selective amnesia strikes again...
Who was the biggest smartphone vendor two years ago? RIM, with its
Blackberry. Though Apple looked like it was catching up fast.
What else was there? Just a few Windows Mobile vendors, all with fast-
declining market share. Even HTC, which was known for putting an interface
on its Windows Mobile phones so they didn’t suck so badly, was unable to
stem the receding tide.
Android has completely changed all that. None of the Android vendors is as
yet as big as RIM, but collectively they will comfortably surpass Apple.
Lawrence D'Oliveiro
> Android is so widely used largely _despite_ the damage done to it by
> carriers and handset makers, not because carriers and handset markers
> are all engaged with Google in some utopian open source collaboration to
> make the platform better.
Why? Who is forcing buyers to buy it? It came out of nowhere, purely on the
basis of popularity among buyers. Where is the Android equivalent of the
Microsoftian organization with a lock on all the platform distribution
channels and application distribution channels, giving people no choice but
to go with their platform, and work through their channels? There isn’t one.
It succeeded purely due to its own merits in a free, competitive market.
ZnU
None of what you just said appears to address my argument in any way.
ZnU
Lawrence D'Oliveiro <l...@geek-central.gen.new_zealand> wrote:
> In message <znu-BDBB18.1...@Port80.Individual.NET>, ZnU
> wrote:
>
> > Android is so widely used largely _despite_ the damage done to it
> > by carriers and handset makers, not because carriers and handset
> > markers are all engaged with Google in some utopian open source
> > collaboration to make the platform better.
>
> Why? Who is forcing buyers to buy it? It came out of nowhere, purely
> on the basis of popularity among buyers.
It didn't come out of nowhere. It did pretty much the exact opposite:
it was adopted by a bunch of well-established incumbents. And not only
that, but its adoption hasn't even shifted the market very much, from a
bottom-line perspective:
http://www.asymco.com/2010/09/21/can-android-change-the-profit-share-of-p
hone-vendors/
> Where is the Android equivalent of the Microsoftian organization with
> a lock on all the platform distribution channels and application
> distribution channels, giving people no choice but to go with their
> platform, and work through their channels? There isn’t one. It
> succeeded purely due to its own merits in a free, competitive market.
It succeeded primarily because it was chosen by established handset
vendors to replace lackluster embedded operating systems, as those
vendors realized they had no internal capacity to build something
competitive with iOS.
Lawrence D'Oliveiro
You talked about “large, existing handset vendors that already controlled a
substantial fraction of the market” adopting Android. There were no such.
Lawrence D'Oliveiro
> In article <ibqa4a$rp7$1...@lust.ihug.co.nz>,
> Lawrence D'Oliveiro <l...@geek-central.gen.new_zealand> wrote:
>
>> In message <znu-BDBB18.1...@Port80.Individual.NET>, ZnU
>> wrote:
>>
>> > Android is so widely used largely _despite_ the damage done to it
>> > by carriers and handset makers, not because carriers and handset
>> > markers are all engaged with Google in some utopian open source
>> > collaboration to make the platform better.
>>
>> Why? Who is forcing buyers to buy it? It came out of nowhere, purely
>> on the basis of popularity among buyers.
>
> It didn't come out of nowhere. It did pretty much the exact opposite:
> it was adopted by a bunch of well-established incumbents.
They were not “well-established incumbents”—not in the smartphone market.
Android has been very much a disruptive force in that market.
ZnU
Chris Ahlstrom <ahls...@xzoozy.com> wrote:
> ZnU pulled this Usenet face plant:
>
> > In article <ibp330$4tl$1...@news.eternal-september.org>,
> > Chris Ahlstrom <ahls...@xzoozy.com> wrote:
> >
> >> > http://blog.netflix.com/2010/11/netflix-on-android.html
> >>
> >> Well boo hoo hoo for Netflix's need for "generic and complete" DRM.
> >
> > First, you really shouldn't be so cavalier to dismiss a service as
> > hugely popular with consumers as Netflix merely because of your distaste
> > for DRM. Secondly, this issue is a symptom of a larger problem with
> > Android fragmentation. A problem that seems to actually be getting
> > _worse_ over time, as OEM Android variants have more time to diverge
> > from Google's reference implementation. (See, for instance, HTC's recent
> > comments about how they want to start replacing "bones", rather than
> > just skinning Android differently.)
>
> So Netflix works with Wii, iPhone, PS3, Xbox, iPad, Symbian, Nokia,
> various versions of Windows, Mac OSX, and Apple TV, and yet they're
> cavilling about minor differences in the Android phones?
>
> Something doesn't quite ring true here.
The Windows and Mac versions are both based on Silverlight, which
provides a standard DRM layer. Wii, PS3, Xbox and iOS are highly
controlled systems, where you'd expect Netflix to be able to implement
pretty good content protection.
The Symbian/Nokia Netflix app doesn't actually support streaming, unless
my info it out of date. And either way, it's only supported on a handful
of handset models.
The very fact that Netflix has enabled streaming on so many platforms,
but is struggling to support Android, is suggests that this is a real
problem. Clearly this isn't just something like, say, Netflix refusing
to support platforms that don't implement Microsoft's DRM or the VC-1
codec (the technologies used for the original implementation of Netflix
streaming), because if that were the case they couldn't support iOS, PS3
or Wii.
ZnU
ZnU
ZnU
Android was adopted by established handset vendors shipping many units,
and for most of them, adopting Android didn't actually increase their
unit sales (or their profits) much, if at all. Looking solely at the
smartphone market, it looks like Android was responsible for massive
growth, but this is _highly_ misleading, given that from the perspective
of vendors, those were simply sales shifting (across a largely arbitrary
boundary) from one market into another.
This is not meaningfully comparable to what Apple did with the iPhone,
which created a substantial new revenue stream and lead to Apple
controlling a large fraction of handset profits where previously they
had controlled none.
Lawrence D'Oliveiro
What smartphones were they selling before?
Lawrence D'Oliveiro
> In article <ibqhvf$hs$2...@lust.ihug.co.nz>,
> Lawrence D'Oliveiro <l...@geek-central.gen.new_zealand> wrote:
>
>> In message <znu-09EACC.0...@Port80.Individual.NET>, ZnU wrote:
>>
>> > In article <ibqa4a$rp7$1...@lust.ihug.co.nz>,
>> > Lawrence D'Oliveiro <l...@geek-central.gen.new_zealand> wrote:
>> >
>> >> In message <znu-BDBB18.1...@Port80.Individual.NET>, ZnU
>> >> wrote:
>> >>
>> >> > Android is so widely used largely _despite_ the damage done to it
>> >> > by carriers and handset makers, not because carriers and handset
>> >> > markers are all engaged with Google in some utopian open source
>> >> > collaboration to make the platform better.
>> >>
>> >> Why? Who is forcing buyers to buy it? It came out of nowhere, purely
>> >> on the basis of popularity among buyers.
>> >
>> > It didn't come out of nowhere. It did pretty much the exact opposite:
>> > it was adopted by a bunch of well-established incumbents.
>>
>> They were not “well-established incumbents”—not in the smartphone market.
>> Android has been very much a disruptive force in that market.
>
> Android was adopted by established handset vendors shipping many units ...
chrisv
>> > Sure. But it's improving primarily through Google's efforts.
>>
>> So what?
>
>So, this subthread began with Lawrence D'Oliveiro claiming that
>Android's success was a consequence of handset makers competing with
>each other to enhance the platform.
>
>It's not.
How the fsck do you know, Comrad Znu?
Hint hint: there can be *more than one* reason why a product is
successful.
>Android is so widely used largely _despite_ the damage done to it by
>carriers and handset makers,
What a load of shit. You're wrong. Again.
chrisv
> Comrad Znu wrote:
>> The efforts
>> of OEMs and carriers serve mostly to decrease platform quality, decrease
>> consumer control over devices, and increase fragmentation. There are
>> obvious examples of each of these.
>
>So what? They're obviously selling like hotcakes.
Comrad Znu is a fscking idiot who thinks he knows better than the free
market.
--
"But it's extremely useful, if you're after mainstream adoption, that
there be one *obvious* choice." - Comrad Znu
ZnU
I see you're not actually interested in substantive discussion.
ZnU
chrisv <chr...@nospam.invalid> wrote:
It seems like every discussion I have in COLA goes the same way: you
guys trot out your shallow talking points, I post substantive responses,
and you guys simply refuse to actually engage.
chrisv
> I post substantive responses,
You post "choice isn't an advantage" bullshit. You make bullshit,
utterly unsubstantiated, claims like Android is succeeding in spite
of, not because, the variety of choice
You're plain wrong, shouting "night" in broad daylight.
--
"If you have a couple of good choices, what's the value in also adding
some worse choices?" - Comrad ZnU
ZnU
chrisv <chr...@nospam.invalid> wrote:
> ZnU wrote:
>
> > I post substantive responses,
>
> You post "choice isn't an advantage" bullshit. You make bullshit,
> utterly unsubstantiated, claims like Android is succeeding in spite
> of, not because, the variety of choice
You're hilariously misrepresenting my position.
> You're plain wrong, shouting "night" in broad daylight.
Yet you can't seem to construct coherent replies to my arguments.
chrisv
>Yet you can't seem to
I'm trying not to let you troll me *too* badly...
--
"Having lots of options is actively _detrimental_ if the effect is to
force consumers to have to make lots of complex trade-offs. Anything
a customer ends up with will feel like a compromise." - Comrad ZnU
Snit
11/15/10 9:23 AM:
>>>> They were not ╲well-established incumbents╡╉not in the smartphone
>>>> market.
>>>> Android has been very much a disruptive force in that market.
>>>
>>> Android was adopted by established handset vendors shipping many units ...
>>
>> What smartphones were they selling before?
>
> I see you're not actually interested in substantive discussion.
If you are going to say it simply replaced what they had before then it is a
completely fair question to ask, well, *what they had before*.
--
[INSERT .SIG HERE]
One Shot-One Kill
"chrisv" <chr...@nospam.invalid> wrote in message
news:hgp2e6hlrn63cubhk...@4ax.com...
> ZnU wrote:
>
>>Yet you can't seem to
>
> I'm trying not to let you troll me *too* badly...
quit lying you stupid fscking piece of shit.
One Shot-One Kill
"chrisv" <chr...@nospam.invalid> wrote in message
> Chris Ahlstrom wrote:
>
>> Comrad Znu wrote:
>
>>> The efforts
>>> of OEMs and carriers serve mostly to decrease platform quality, decrease
>>> consumer control over devices, and increase fragmentation. There are
>>> obvious examples of each of these.
>>
>>So what? They're obviously selling like hotcakes.
>
> Comrad Znu is a fscking idiot who thinks he knows better than the free
> market.
quit lying and making up shit you lying fscking asshole.
RonB
> ZnU wrote:
>
>> I post substantive responses,
>
> You post "choice isn't an advantage" bullshit. You make bullshit,
> utterly unsubstantiated, claims like Android is succeeding in spite of,
> not because, the variety of choice
>
> You're plain wrong, shouting "night" in broad daylight.
Znu is going to, eventually, have to come to terms with the *fact* that
Android is kicking his beloved iPhone's ass. The reason Android is doing
this is because there have so many choices in carriers, vendors and price
points.
Choice is good.
ZnU
RonB <ronb02...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Mon, 15 Nov 2010 10:38:18 -0600, chrisv wrote:
>
> > ZnU wrote:
> >
> >> I post substantive responses,
> >
> > You post "choice isn't an advantage" bullshit. You make bullshit,
> > utterly unsubstantiated, claims like Android is succeeding in spite
> > of, not because, the variety of choice
> >
> > You're plain wrong, shouting "night" in broad daylight.
>
> Znu is going to, eventually, have to come to terms with the *fact*
> that Android is kicking his beloved iPhone's ass.
Market share by itself is meaningless; Android isn't winning by any
other metric. For instance, Apple derives more profits from the iPhone
than all Android handset vendors combined (or, obviously, Google) derive
from selling Android handsets.
People are overly obsessed with market share because market share was
the key to Microsoft's success in the PC industry. But Google is not
actually following the Microsoft model (they give Android away for free,
and they've given up a lot of control over it), and in any event the
Microsoft model has failed over the years in several other markets.
> The reason Android is doing this is because there have so many
> choices in carriers, vendors and price points.
>
> Choice is good.
(Cribbing from a post I made last month)
The key thing to understand about Android is that its market share
growth has been driven almost entirely by handset vendors who where
never able to field serious mobile operating systems of their own, who
are now ditching the systems they previously used in favor of Android.
Though it's often framed very differently, this in-place substitution
has very little direct relevance to Apple.
To give a more concrete illustration, imagine that the handset market
consists of four companies, A, B, C and D, each with 25% market share,
and each selling a single model of phone (call these Phone-A, Phone-B,
etc.) that runs an OS developed by the company that makes the phone
(call these OS-A, OS-B, etc.). Now, let's say companies C and D decide
"Hey, OS-C and OS-D are actually kind of terrible. Let's both switch to
using OS-E, this new open source mobile OS".
OS-E will immediately have 50% market share, while OS-A and OS-B still
have just 25% each.
What the pundits declaring Android victory right now are doing is
stepping in at this point and declaring that OS-E has "won" over OS-A
and OS-B because it now has twice as much market share as either one.
But you really have to ask the question... has anyone won anything? If
so, who? And exactly what have they won?
chrisv
>Market share by itself is meaningless;
*guffaw*
>Android isn't winning by any
>other metric. For instance, Apple derives more profits
If Apple wants to maintain a small, put profitable niche, then fine
for them.
Most of the buyers in the market will need to turn elsewhere, though.
--
"It's the freetard scum" - trolling fsckwit Ezekiel
RonB
> Comrad ZnU wrote:
>
>>Market share by itself is meaningless;
>
> *guffaw*
>
>>Android isn't winning by any
>>other metric. For instance, Apple derives more profits
>
> If Apple wants to maintain a small, put profitable niche, then fine for
> them.
>
> Most of the buyers in the market will need to turn elsewhere, though.
Funny, market share was important when iPhone was leading in that category.
"Man that goal post gets moved a lot."
Snit
12:22 PM:
> On Mon, 15 Nov 2010 10:38:18 -0600, chrisv wrote:
>
>> ZnU wrote:
>>
>>> I post substantive responses,
>>
>> You post "choice isn't an advantage" bullshit. You make bullshit,
>> utterly unsubstantiated, claims like Android is succeeding in spite of,
>> not because, the variety of choice
>>
>> You're plain wrong, shouting "night" in broad daylight.
>
> Znu is going to, eventually, have to come to terms with the *fact* that
> Android is kicking his beloved iPhone's ass.
Can you pick a date when you think Android will do better for the businesses
than iOS is doing for Apple? And when do you think Android customers will
rate Android as highly as iOS customers rate iOS? Come on, RonB, pick some
dates.
I would love to see how well you understand the market.
> The reason Android is doing this is because there have so many choices in
> carriers, vendors and price points.
>
> Choice is good.
So pick some dates. But you will not... you have no point.
--
[INSERT .SIG HERE]
Snit
PM:
> On Mon, 15 Nov 2010 15:13:38 -0600, chrisv wrote:
>
>> Comrad ZnU wrote:
>>
>>> Market share by itself is meaningless;
>>
>> *guffaw*
>>
>>> Android isn't winning by any
>>> other metric. For instance, Apple derives more profits
>>
>> If Apple wants to maintain a small, put profitable niche, then fine for
>> them.
>>
>> Most of the buyers in the market will need to turn elsewhere, though.
>
> Funny, market share was important when iPhone was leading in that category.
>
> "Man that goal post gets moved a lot."
Who said it was important? And when was iOS leading the market in share?
--
[INSERT .SIG HERE]
ZnU
RonB <ronb02...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Mon, 15 Nov 2010 15:13:38 -0600, chrisv wrote:
>
> > Comrad ZnU wrote:
> >
> >>Market share by itself is meaningless;
> >
> > *guffaw*
> >
> >>Android isn't winning by any
> >>other metric. For instance, Apple derives more profits
> >
> > If Apple wants to maintain a small, put profitable niche, then fine for
> > them.
> >
> > Most of the buyers in the market will need to turn elsewhere, though.
>
> Funny, market share was important when iPhone was leading in that category.
>
> "Man that goal post gets moved a lot."
First off, I didn't actually notice all that many iPhone fans going on
about market share as some sort of end in itself.
Secondly, "iPhone" and "Android" are not directly comparable on a market
share basis, because one is a device sold for lots of money and the
other is an operating system given away for free. It's fairly trivial to
see how large market share for the former translates into real,
meaningful benefits, while this is a lot more hazy with the latter.
Philip
> Gerda van der Pik-Swanejong pulled this Usenet face plant:
>
>> You can rant Ballmer all you want, but he's far more succesfull in life than
>> you are...
>
> So was Al Capone.
>
So was Carly, Tricky Dick, ...
Snit
12:22 PM:
> On Mon, 15 Nov 2010 10:38:18 -0600, chrisv wrote:
>
>> ZnU wrote:
>>
>>> I post substantive responses,
>>
>> You post "choice isn't an advantage" bullshit. You make bullshit,
>> utterly unsubstantiated, claims like Android is succeeding in spite of,
>> not because, the variety of choice
>>
>> You're plain wrong, shouting "night" in broad daylight.
>
> Znu is going to, eventually, have to come to terms with the *fact* that
> Android is kicking his beloved iPhone's ass. The reason Android is doing
> this is because there have so many choices in carriers, vendors and price
> points.
>
> Choice is good.
I am curious why you think Android users are not as happy with having their
"choice" with Android as iPhone users are with their locked down systems?
<http://news.cnet.com/8301-13579_3-20023411-37.html>
-----
Apple's iPhone is one of the most sought-after devices on the
market, and according to a new survey, it also has the highest
customer satisfaction rating among smartphone buyers.
Apple's iPhone topped the list of customers who said the were very
satisfied, with a 77 percent approval rating. Motorola came in
second with 71 percent, followed by HTC (63 percent), Samsung (45
percent), and RIM (44 percent).
All four models of iPhones surveyed received high marks. In fact,
even the lowest-scoring iPhone model had higher customer approval
ratings than the highest-rated phones from competing
manufacturers.
-----
People who have less choice - or pick a platform with less choice - are
happier, at least in this case. Wonder how you explain that.
--
[INSERT .SIG HERE]