Re: France Wants to Sue Apple for Planned Obsolescence

[Otto J. Makela]

Alan Browne <bitb...@blackhole.com> wrote:

> As to "the consumer has rejected it", phones with integrated computers
> of some sort existed before the iPhone and were largely rejected by
> consumers are large.

Being from Finland, I'd like to point out that this view is a bit
US-centric. Nokia had their Symbian smartphones (first models came out
in 2001), they just didn't in the end succeed against Apple and Google.

Followups limited a bit.
--
/* * * Otto J. Makela <o...@iki.fi> * * * * * * * * * */
/* Phone: +358 40 765 5772, ICBM: N 60 10' E 24 55' */
/* Mail: Mechelininkatu 26 B 27, FI-00100 Helsinki */
/* * * Computers Rule 01001111 01001011 * * * * * * */

[nospam]

In article <87leetc...@tigger.extechop.net>, Otto J. Makela

<o...@iki.fi> wrote:

>
> > As to "the consumer has rejected it", phones with integrated computers
> > of some sort existed before the iPhone and were largely rejected by
> > consumers are large.
>
> Being from Finland, I'd like to point out that this view is a bit
> US-centric.

it is not.

> Nokia had their Symbian smartphones (first models came out
> in 2001), they just didn't in the end succeed against Apple and Google.

that's because they weren't very good. in other words, consumers
rejected it.

[The Real Bev]

The flip-phones were fine. We sent mine (with a charger, of course) to
an elderly aunt to keep in her pocket in case she ever had to dial 911.
So far, so good.

--
Cheers, Bev
"Dammit I'm Mad" is "Dammit I'm Mad" spelled backwards.

[Alan Browne]

On 2023-08-02 10:51, Otto J. Makela wrote:
> Alan Browne <bitb...@blackhole.com> wrote:
>
>> As to "the consumer has rejected it", phones with integrated computers
>> of some sort existed before the iPhone and were largely rejected by
>> consumers are large.
>
> Being from Finland, I'd like to point out that this view is a bit
> US-centric. Nokia had their Symbian smartphones (first models came out
> in 2001), they just didn't in the end succeed against Apple and Google.

And that is the point, really. There were other computers integrated
with phones even earlier. An employee of mine had a Windows computer
with a phone integrated into it some time in the early 00's too.

Point is none did it well. Apple were the ones who got the secret sauce
right (even though Blackberry had pretty damned good sauce - esp. in the
business use case).

In the end of course - once Apple established what the current
smartphone "is", everyone else followed. Some didn't survive in the
market at all.

--
“If you torture the data long enough, it will confess to anything."
-Ronald Coase

[nospam]

In article <uaefet$9fps$1...@dont-email.me>, The Real Bev

<bashl...@gmail.com> wrote:

> >> Nokia had their Symbian smartphones (first models came out
> >> in 2001), they just didn't in the end succeed against Apple and Google.
> >
> > that's because they weren't very good. in other words, consumers
> > rejected it.
>
> The flip-phones were fine. We sent mine (with a charger, of course) to
> an elderly aunt to keep in her pocket in case she ever had to dial 911.
> So far, so good.

he's specifically talking about symbian phones.

[Hergen Lehmann]

Am 02.08.23 um 21:11 schrieb nospam:

> In article <87leetc...@tigger.extechop.net>, Otto J. Makela
> <o...@iki.fi> wrote:
>>> As to "the consumer has rejected it", phones with integrated computers
>>> of some sort existed before the iPhone and were largely rejected by
>>> consumers are large.
>>
>> Being from Finland, I'd like to point out that this view is a bit
>> US-centric.
>
> it is not.

It is.

>> Nokia had their Symbian smartphones (first models came out
>> in 2001), they just didn't in the end succeed against Apple and Google.
>
> that's because they weren't very good. in other words, consumers
> rejected it.

They were actually quite reasonable for was possible around the turn of
the millennium. And no, consumers did NOT reject them. Some early Nokia
computer/phone combos were actually quite popular here in Europe, for
example, all technology-affine management guys used to have a Nokia
Communicator at some point.

In the end, it was three factors which killed Nokia:

1. They were too early. The technology was still too expensive for the
average customer and the mobile networks not ready for large-scale data
usage. Syncing appointments and receiving/sending text-only eMail were
basically the only reasonable over-the-air functionality. Not because
the devices didn't provide a browser and installable Apps (they did,
starting with Symbian), but because data transmission was just WAY too
slow and expensive.

2. Nokia had far less marketing power than Apple and Google (especially
outside of europe) and used it poorly. When Apple started aggressively
marketing the iPhone, Nokia just reclined on their leading position in
the European market.

3. The phone branch of Nokia was ultimately bought by Microsoft, which
immediate stopped all improvement on Symbian in favor of the Mega-Flop
called Windows Mobile.

[sms]

On 8/2/2023 7:51 AM, Otto J. Makela wrote:
> Alan Browne <bitb...@blackhole.com> wrote:
>
>> As to "the consumer has rejected it", phones with integrated computers
>> of some sort existed before the iPhone and were largely rejected by
>> consumers are large.
>
> Being from Finland, I'd like to point out that this view is a bit
> US-centric. Nokia had their Symbian smartphones (first models came out
> in 2001), they just didn't in the end succeed against Apple and Google.

With the first iPhone Apple quickly dropped to price from $599 to $399
after initial sales volume of the iPhone was less than desired because
consumers rejected it based on the high price. See:
<https://www.cultofmac.com/500422/tiah-200-iphone-reduction/>.
"Suddenly, a smartphone that many people criticized as unfeasibly
expensive became far more affordable."

Those Nokia devices were not the first smart phones either, the first
smart phone was the 1994 IBM Simon, which was around $2200 in 2023 dollars.

Part of Steve Jobs genius was seeing the potential in product categories
where other companies had failed to produce a compelling product at an
acceptable price point. Apple didn't have the first personal computers,
the first tablets, the first laptops, or the first smart phones, but
they avoided the mistakes of the other companies.

--
“If you are not an expert on a subject, then your opinions about it
really do matter less than the opinions of experts. It's not
indoctrination nor elitism. It's just that you don't know as much as
they do about the subject.”—Tin Foil Awards

[nospam]

In article <uah9d1$ujnp$1...@dont-email.me>, sms

<scharf...@geemail.com> wrote:

> With the first iPhone Apple quickly dropped to price from $599 to $399
> after initial sales volume of the iPhone was less than desired because
> consumers rejected it based on the high price.

more of your easily debunked revisionist history.

customers did *not* reject the original iphone. sales were strong, with
long lines for quite some time after release. apple met their sales
goal *well* before they said they would.

> Those Nokia devices were not the first smart phones either,

nobody said they were the first. the point is that symbian phones did
not sell well because they were not particularly compelling devices.

iphones were, and changed the entire industry as a result.

[Wally J]

nospam <nos...@nospam.invalid> wrote

>> Those Nokia devices were not the first smart phones either,
>
> nobody said they were the first. the point is that symbian phones did
> not sell well because they were not particularly compelling devices.
>
> iphones were, and changed the entire industry as a result.

Only the iPhone (marketed to morons) does NOT get better, faster & cheaper.

While you can get Android phones with 1/10th the exploits and 10x the
hardware functionality for a few hundred bucks - the iPhone is expensive.

The reason is Apple has groomed an especially lucrative religious
following, which is fine - except that Samsung & Google try to copy Apple.

Luckily, Android phones _do_ get better faster & cheaper over time, so as
long as you stay away from the Samsung/Google iPhone copies you're fine.

Can you name a single other common consumer electronic device other than
the iPhone (which even Apple says in their ads they market to morons)
that does NOT get better, faster & cheaper over time?

The unfortunate thing about iPhones is that they are pretty much the _only_
common consumer electronics which does NOT get better faster & cheaper.

[nospam]

In article <8v6tpj-6...@hergen.spdns.de>, Hergen Lehmann

<hlehmann.ex...@snafu.de> wrote:

> >>> As to "the consumer has rejected it", phones with integrated computers
> >>> of some sort existed before the iPhone and were largely rejected by
> >>> consumers are large.
> >>
> >> Being from Finland, I'd like to point out that this view is a bit
> >> US-centric.
> >
> > it is not.
>
> It is.

it is not. symbian phones were available worldwide, and they did not
sell in appreciable numbers..

> >> Nokia had their Symbian smartphones (first models came out
> >> in 2001), they just didn't in the end succeed against Apple and Google.
> >
> > that's because they weren't very good. in other words, consumers
> > rejected it.
>
> They were actually quite reasonable for was possible around the turn of
> the millennium.

perhaps so, but that doesn't mean they were any good. they weren't.

> And no, consumers did NOT reject them.

they did not sell well, so yes consumers did reject them.

> Some early Nokia
> computer/phone combos were actually quite popular here in Europe, for
> example, all technology-affine management guys used to have a Nokia
> Communicator at some point.
>
> In the end, it was three factors which killed Nokia:

really just one: it wasn't anywhere near as good as iphone and android.

> 1. They were too early.

that's not a flaw.

> The technology was still too expensive for the
> average customer and the mobile networks not ready for large-scale data
> usage.

wifi.

> Syncing appointments and receiving/sending text-only eMail were
> basically the only reasonable over-the-air functionality.

which could be done on a flipper.

> Not because
> the devices didn't provide a browser and installable Apps (they did,
> starting with Symbian), but because data transmission was just WAY too
> slow and expensive.

the browser and third party apps were not particularly good and
comparatively expensive, most apps in the iphone app store were free,
and of the paid apps, they were a buck or two. it was also *much*
easier to write ios apps, especially since code could be shared from
the mac.

> 2. Nokia had far less marketing power than Apple and Google (especially
> outside of europe) and used it poorly. When Apple started aggressively
> marketing the iPhone, Nokia just reclined on their leading position in
> the European market.

that's because they knew they didn't have anything that could come
close to the iphone and android.

people wanted iphones and android phones. the products sold themselves.

> 3. The phone branch of Nokia was ultimately bought by Microsoft, which
> immediate stopped all improvement on Symbian in favor of the Mega-Flop
> called Windows Mobile.

true.

[Hergen Lehmann]

Am 06.08.23 um 20:08 schrieb nospam:

> it is not. symbian phones were available worldwide, and they did not
> sell in appreciable numbers..

Thanks for confirming your *very* US-centric view. ^_-
Nokia was actually No.1 in Europe in the early 2000s...

>> They were actually quite reasonable for was possible around the turn of
>> the millennium.
>
> perhaps so, but that doesn't mean they were any good. they weren't.

A handy little device with expandable software and mobile network
connectivity was absolutely stunning in the late 90s, were phones used
to be phones, PDAs used to be offline devices with limited software and
Laptops used to be heavy and bulky.

But these early smartphones were pretty expensive and of limited use due
to the lack of fast mobile data networks, which limited the target
audience very much (basically, only tech geeks and management guys).

>> In the end, it was three factors which killed Nokia:
>
> really just one: it wasn't anywhere near as good as iphone and android.

Oh, come on. You really want to compare products, which were developed
more than 10 years apart?

And: The first iPhone wasn't really that good either. Tiny screen, no
support for the state-of-the-art network technology of the time (UMTS),
only available in conjunction with an expensive "exclusive" phone
contract, very little software available in the store in the beginning.

The design was fancy and the marketing was superb, that's all.

>> 1. They were too early.
>
> that's not a flaw.

It is, because after many years of a niche presence, the product line
was accursed from the management perspective and they failed to invest
again, when it was necessary to do so.

>> The technology was still too expensive for the
>> average customer and the mobile networks not ready for large-scale data
>> usage.
>
> wifi.

The main selling point for a smartphone is mobility, and public WIFI was
almost non-existent back then.

>> Not because
>> the devices didn't provide a browser and installable Apps (they did,
>> starting with Symbian), but because data transmission was just WAY too
>> slow and expensive.
>
> the browser and third party apps were not particularly good and
> comparatively expensive,

The browser of the first iPhone wasn't particularly good and usable
either. It took a few years for the screen sizes to grow bigger and for
the web sites to adapt to mobile devices.

> most apps in the iphone app store were free, and of the paid apps, they were a buck or two.

The situation in the symbian store wasn't really that different.
Most of it was cheap. There were a few more expensive apps, but these
were either selling premium content (e.g. offline maps) or were targeted
toward big enterprises (mobile office).

> it was also *much*
> easier to write ios apps, especially since code could be shared from
> the mac.

True. Symbian tried to follow up by switching from a proprietary API
towards QT, but this did not gain enough momentum, before MS killed
everything.

>> 2. Nokia had far less marketing power than Apple and Google (especially
>> outside of europe) and used it poorly. When Apple started aggressively
>> marketing the iPhone, Nokia just reclined on their leading position in
>> the European market.
>
> that's because they knew they didn't have anything that could come
> close to the iphone and android.

They actually had some pretty competitive devices back then, but they
failed to push them in time and improve upon them.

I remember having a Nokia 5800 at the time, which isn't really that far
away from the first iPhone Generation feature-wise. There was also the
N95/N96 Series, with a slider design, but again pretty much the same
feature set as the iPhone.