But their offerings are dated. So it does make sense.
Dated? Again you only look with your perspective, you arent the world market. nokia sells a lot more phones then apple in basicly the same format.
In 2006, when Schmidt joined the board, Android, or their projected models (which were publicized in 2007), looked like Blackberries, only worse. By 2008, they looked like iphones.
Again that makes little sense .
I would say you show me the 2006 google android phones.
If it worked fine without the stylus, then why the adjective "finger-friendly" for *subsequent* versions of the SPB mobile shell, which came out in 2009? That wouldn't make any sense if the 2005 versions were finger-friendly.
"Whiter then white" ? Why did apple anounce the iphone was the pinacle of mobile browing and was just like browing on the PC and then when introducing the ipad said it was better then browing on the iphone wich wasnt all that great suddenly ?
Its called PR.
Lets look at the facts and not words made up by advertisement agencys. The spb mobile shell 1.0 is VERY simular in design then the iphone that was released almost 6 months afterwards . Yes it oriented towards being easy to use and stepped away from the small icons, just like HTC did just like nokia did just like plenty of others did included apple.
You're quibbling now. Even going by this list, which is more than a year old (Q4 of 2009), 6 of the top 10, and 3 of the top 4 are iphone-like. But this list is before the iphone 4, which in Q4 of 2010 sold more units than all RIMs phones combined, and before mid 2010, when Android passed RIM.
So? You claimed "2007" & "now" Either you seem to think 2009 changed back towards button basher or you are making it up as you go.
And if you want current figures (worldwide lets not twist numbers by selecting a specefic market):
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Smartphone_share_current.png
Q3 2010 15% rim 37% symbian, both have mostly "button basher" . Wich means almost half the market .
As for the dominant phone before the iphone, you and I both know that if you could have found a list to contradict that, you would have. Here's a list of the top 5 from 2006 from
http://www.npd.com/press/releases/press_061218.html.
"... breakdown of the top sellers from August through October:
Motorola Q
Palm Treo 650
Verizon Wireless XV6700
Palm Treo 700p
BlackBerry 8700
"
All have hardware keyboards, and 4 of 5 are strictly button-based, the fifth being stylus-based. None iphone-like.
Funny how you keep going on about the stylus so you can ignore all the little facts you dont like.
Verizon Wireless XV6700 clearly shows even in 2006 there was already a shift. It accelerated in 2007 and the iphone was one of them.
Sure there is. It's made up of the people who buy multi-touch smartphones. It's a segment that is making up more and more of the smartphone market.
There is no multi touch segment, its smartphone period. Again show me sources wich talk about multi touch mobile phone market .
"Finger-friendly compared to WM is faint praise. It looks finger-hostile compared to iphone. That's why that system is nowhere to be seen now. It was ditched in favor of Android and the Palm Pre Web OS.
If the spb was finger friendly in 2007, how come they only started claiming finger-friendly features in 2009?
Marketing, something you seem to know little about.
And spb is a software company not a OS builder it wasnt ditched, it was actually from the beginning quit popular, and still before iphone was released.
The HTC touch had capacitive touch, and was designed to be finger-based. But the execution on the software was their downfall. They didn't use multi-touch or momentum scrolling, and the software was soon abandoned.
Included momentum scolling and touch interface is still around.
The market for capacitive touch tablets was non-existing. Apple created it.
Ah yet another market, so wich is it multi touch or capacitive?
The market for tablets was sufficiently small as to be ignored, so it's a close enough approximation to say Apple created the tablet market.
Ignored because you dont like it excistance doesnt work like that, there was a market period. Apple revolutionaized it yes but not created.
LOL yeah its 0.25" thicker that means it must be completly different . LOL
I just said the same thing: Jobs didn't do the hardware or the software. He ran the company that put it together into a successful product.
Euh you do realise Jobs was never CEO in the 70's or 80's?
It's not true that Jobs gets all the credit. Everyone knows what Woz did, and he gets credit for it. Everyone knows Jobs didn't write VisiCalc. Jobs gets credit for what he did: assemble a crack team, find the crack software, and market the hell out of it.
And even that is stretching the truth. You still credit jobs for everything its as if nobody else mattered they were just employees jobs choose who had little or no say.
You're speculating. I'm giving facts.
Sure you were there in 1980's .
If Woz could have created Apple without Jobs, then one might expect he could have done something similar since without Jobs, but he hasn't. Jobs has done similar things without Woz: NeXT, Pixar, iTunes/ipod, iphone, ipad. That suggests (and now I'm speculating too) that Jobs could have found another hardware guy to build a PC, but Woz could not have found another inspirational PR guy like Jobs.
Next was close to bancrupty, pixar wasnt directed by jobs . And yes by the 00's josb had improved and apple did some great things.
And again you credit jobs for everything wether he was there or not, wheter he did it or not.
I am not able to parse this sentence, and have no idea what you are referring to.
Xerox already HAD a PC with gui, mouse,... basicly a mac before jobs was out of highschool.
Copied it, repackaged it, and marketed it. I think that's a huge accomplishment.
But a far cry from "created it" wich you still claim.
If you think shifting the position of the keyboard and adding an on-board pointing device is a contribution on the same scale as bringing the first successful finger-based multi-touch system to handheld phones, then we clearly disagree.
the multi touch brought little and finger based was already done . With the powerbook it hadnt already been done.
In the case of the laptop, the changes did not affect the way the computer operated in any significant way; the software stayed the same. In the case of the iphone, the new paradigm was accompanied by a completely new sort of GUI, and it transformed what could be done with the devices. Just look at the web usage on phones before and after, and the popularity of 3rd party apps before and after. The iphone opened doors, the powerbook gave a rest to tired wrists. Not really in the same ballpark, if you ask me.
As far as market success is concerned, there is no doubt that the iphone is the more commercially successful innovation.
You keep getting funier, with the position and trackball apple improved the overal use of the software just like multi touch/gestures.
It improved the laptop to being a desktop replacement but even though you still find it insignificant, had jobs been CEO you would be gloryfying it, and its that hypocresie I reacted against.
First, the late 90s is still 7 years before the iphone, so I still say multitouch could have been implemented years before the iphone by the likes of Palm. Second, probably the reason they were large then is because most people did not think it was reasonable or desirable to use multi-touch on a small screen until Apple demonstrated how useful it was.
IF years before it would have been too clunky, no it couldnt. You seem to think at any period in time they could have done this.
In case you seem to think apple had the unique idea: they didnt, I gave you a link thatd escribed plenty of people think and working on it before apple released the iphone.
Apple itself bought fingerworks in 2005, a company building gesture based multi touch pads.
Then what was it about iphone that made you buy it? Multi-touch and the software that supports it are a very big part of the iphone's success. That allows the pinch-to-zoom, which along with the momentum scrolling driven by finger-based touch are what makes browsing tolerable, and photo viewing enjoyable, and many new sorts of games possible.
So, while I think multitouch is a very big part of it, I have repeatedly also mentioned finger-based touch (capacitive screen), the software that makes finger-based touch effective, gesture based momentum scrolling, as well as multitouch as critical components of the iphone. Recall in Jobs' keynote he says when he showed the phone off, his audience said: "You had me at scrolling".
Thats not correct.
First I didnt buy it I got it from my company and it was a mixed experience.
second, momentum scrolling has nothing to do with multi touch. HTC touch ALSO had that BEFORE iphone was released.
Third Pinch to zoom/photo zoom and certain gestures in games were a nice touch, but ultimatly not really important. Some even critized it (engadget as I recall correctly for exammple)
Again: other were doing the same things apple was doing. Was apple the first to deliver a great package? yes certainly
For most consumers it was the best smartphone at the time .
You can't possibly be serious. If that were true, they would not have ditched WM5.
You misunderstood me I think.
Add momentum scolling and multitouch on the standard WM5 gui and not much would be changed to the overal look and feel of WM5.
See above. Finger-based touch with software that made it effective, gesture-based momentum scrolling, multitouch and the software to exploit it in pinch-to-zoom, rotating, and so on. I would not say this is necessarily a complete list, but the most obvious elements. (Others might include orientation-based aspect ratio and the use of proximity sensors.)
Not one of the elements that defined and distinguished the iphone from the rest of pack in 2007 were present in the Newton.
Multi touch wasnt possible; let alone motion based .
You seem to think the entire purpose of the iphone was how the basic gui works? The iphone is popular because of great hardware couple with great apps (sms,youtube, safari,calendar,...) NOT because you can easily start and scroll in settings.
We've already established that Jobs did not invent the core technologies, and we've already hashed through the argument about whether he deserves credit for implementing and marketing them. The argument here was whether the Mac of 1985 was relevant to the Mac of the mid-nineties, and regardless of where the elements came from, it's obvious that it is, and that it is still relevant to the Mac of today, and to Windows for that matter.
Of course its not irrelevant who made the basic concept of the apple II or mac. You still think that everything apple realised pre 1986 was 100% Jobs.
The argument is about what jobs contributed. And in that you have shows very very little in what jobs did. But that doesnt stop you into giving him almost full credit for everything apple did since its beginning.
But again, the distinction between stylus-based and finger-based is both hardware (capacitive instead of resistive touch) and suitable software to exploit finger gestures effectively.
Thats again wrong stylus doesnt change anything, again stylus can be used or not used on any mobile phones. The difference between the 2 is that resistive used contact while (capacitive uses an electrical charge) . capacitive is also harder to implement and thus more expensive.
Stylus & resistive was thus a good method of being accurate and keeping costs down.
You'd be good at writing patents. That's kind of general to be a defining element. It would include netbooks, e.g.
Put an iphone beside a Newton. One is luggable, the other pocketable. Not really in the same category. Which is why the Palm and not Newton ushered in the era of pocket PCs.
Nice how you seem to forget and ipad. How do some describe the ipad "a big ipod touch"
The basic functions: calander, internet, notes, extra added apps,... Are the same. Yes it adds a phone but again that simply because mid 90's mobile phones were just too big to be able to put it in something like that.
The things you always sum up: multittouch, gesture based, kinetic scrolling aid in these task but do not define them.
It no more serves the same functions and has the same possibilities than a laptop of the same era -- even less. It is not pocket-sized, no music, no phone, tethered internet, stylus-based hand-writing input.
Again all these things either were in infantt stages or not ready to be put into such a mobile device again you seem to think early to mid 90's they could have build an iphone. They couldnt period.
There is at best a vague conceptual connection between the Newton and the iphone or the ipad, but in the case of the mac there is a long list of concrete methodological elements that have hardly changed in 25 years.
So, to repeat, there is no doubt that Apple's success with the Mac can be traced back to Jobs, but Apple's success with the iphone owes little, if anything, to the Newton.
Still BS, again on the one hand you credit jobs for everything while on the other downplay everything jobs didnt direct as irrelevant.
There is just as much difference between an imac and early mac as there was between a newton and the iphone/ipad.
Let's put them in context:
That suggests to me that you think the products would be better if Jobs were not at Apple. And that interpretation is consistent with your tiresome argument, against all available evidence, that Apple without Jobs was more innovative than it was with him.
And again you seem the need to make things up, never said "Apple without Jobs was more innovative"
And certain things that I dont like about i-product probably stemm forward from JObs, If you have read abit about the man he has some clear destinctive demands like thight control(closed software, itunes integration,...) , form over function (almost fetish focus on thin) ,stuborn refusing ideas until everyone complains about it (copy/paste , multitasking )
Well, your context doesn't really change the meaning much. The mac existed in 1985 and in its current form because of Jobs. To say it succeeded partially despite Jobs is just an expression of your petty frustration about Apple's and Jobs' perceived arrogance. The equation is simple: No Jobs, no Apple. No Apple, no mac. It could not have succeeded in spite of him, partially or not.
First I must repeat myself: I have no problem with jobs as a person he has done some incredible things for apple, no doubt about that.
and second: you still credit everything apple ever did to the man who was its ceo since 97 and founded it together with others and worked at it its first years.
third: I wonder if you are able to admit that during those times jobs did make quit some mistakes?
Yes. Industries: PCs, music, phones.
He changed the world instead of selling sugar-water.
music? Phones? Even PC's is arguable again if you see what xerox was already doing waaaaay before apple did it, if you look at the apple II that jobs had not much to do with,...
Music industry was changed with MP3, didnt realise jobs was involved in that.
phones? Seeing apple sells 2.x% of the mobile phones worldwide ... let alone the whole industry surrounding it (providors etc) ...
This contradicts the sentence I quoted above, that you see great products, which could have been perfect but aren't thanks to Jobs. So, you haven't really set anything straight, until you admit you were mistaken before, and that 90% of what you have been spouting is in fact -- how would you put it -- BS.
No it isnt, apple still delivers great, very great even with the ipad products . JObs still is CEO. Jobs is probably also partly responsible on why they are great, i have no doubt about that. You seem to have it in your head I hate JObs, I dont get that out of your head. Never once did I question wether or not jobs deserved the title. If you bothered to look it up you would see I questioned some COMMENTS here that jobs single handed invented markets and he alone brought apple to where it is now.
