Again, so what? Can you quantify how a handset getting fragmented after one year is somehow any worse than a handset getting fragmented after 3 years? Most people don't buy phones based on some unnamed features that they may or may not get some time in the future. If upgradability is something a consumer wants, then there are android handsets that will get FW upgrades, and rooting is always an option as well.
Got a tip for us?
Let us know
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
Who's more likely to dominate the future of technology, Apple or Google?
- Thread starter wikoogle
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
Again, so what? Can you quantify how a handset getting fragmented after one year is somehow any worse than a handset getting fragmented after 3 years? Most people don't buy phones based on some unnamed features that they may or may not get some time in the future. If upgradability is something a consumer wants, then there are android handsets that will get FW upgrades, and rooting is always an option as well.
How many people care about fragmentation here anyway?
A lot, I would imagine, here especially, get new phones every 1-2 years. No?
So who cares if the current phone you have doesn't have an OS upgrade possibility beyond 1-2 years. You'll have the latest and greatest phone by then and have bought 1-2 years more of updates until you get another...
You could claim it's fragmentation - but it's also a possible business plan since most people upgrade every 1-2 years (and sometimes MORE often). It's no different than offering hardware improvements every year.
A lot, I would imagine, here especially, get new phones every 1-2 years. No?
So who cares if the current phone you have doesn't have an OS upgrade possibility beyond 1-2 years. You'll have the latest and greatest phone by then and have bought 1-2 years more of updates until you get another...
You could claim it's fragmentation - but it's also a possible business plan since most people upgrade every 1-2 years (and sometimes MORE often). It's no different than offering hardware improvements every year.
Yes i can because one handset has a longer upgrade path while one doesn't. You and others have said that the iPhone is fragmented the same or worse than than Android. And 3 Years VS one year does not qualify as being worse.
Well most people here on Mac rumors may upgrade 1-2 years and then some don't because there are quite a few 1st Gen iphones floating around.
The mainstream consumer probarly doesn't upgrade as frequently as people on this Board do. Therefore they wan't something they can get miles from and you can get more miles from a device that is supported for 3 years of OS upgrades than one that is only supported for one.
I don't think so. Steve sees this is coming, and I'm sure he has an apprentice picked out, or is currently looking for one. He won't let it slide like last time...
+1 It sounds like some people on this board wan't apple to fail.
No one says losing dominance = fail. MS lost dominance, but they are still a giant in tech. Just no longer dominant. It will happen eventually to Apple, too, doesnt mean they failed, just means they will no longer be dominant.
Apple has always been a leading innovator, but never have they DOMINATED a market. Those are two different shoes, and as we all know, you do not need to have the most innovative product in order to own the world market. (Microsoft, anyone?)
Apple still fails to realize that the 1960s are over: That was the time when the computer market was OWNED (and not just dominated) by IBM. Steve Jobs still seems to believe that one single company can have it all.
Apple might remain a strong player in the market for mobile Internet devices, but the simple truth is that quite obviously the remaining industry is consolidating on the Google Android platform. Why? Because it's open source and everybody can build devices for it FREE OF CHARGE. This is how you truly DOMINATE a market. Microsoft reached that goal in the desktop computer market by licensing Windows to everyone who wanted to use it.
While Apple might have the most beautiful to look at devices with good quality, purchase decisions are usually dictated by a budget and a business case. It doesn't matter if a product is so superbly better than all the others -- what matters is if I can have something that's good enough at a better price for me. Enter Microsoft. Enter Google. Enter Lenovo and Dell. You get the idea.
Also, one shouldn't forget that corporations - including Apple - usually only innovate by buying small startup companies. Now that's a business that Microsoft, Google and others can also do.
What distinguishes Apple from the rest of the industry is that the people there actually have taste and focus. BUT that also leads back to square one: It usually doesn't matter when the competition is cheaper and still good enough.
Also, Apple does not build devices for every niche and purpose. You cannot have a real outdoor Mac, for example. But you can buy a Panasonic Toughbook or a Gericom Force notebook. You can buy PCs in industry cases, but you cannot have a Mac in one. You cannot put an alternate operating system on your iPad, but you will have a choice of operating systems for competing products.
Apple's business model evolves around a limited set of highly controlled and restricted products. It obviously works well for them, but this is not the business model that will lead a company to DOMINATION, as you asked.
Apple needs to keep hitting homeruns with their products to maintain their momentum. Nobody knows how long Steve will be around either. I just don't see that happening over the long run.
Predicting the future of tech companies is impossible, a new or old player could come along at any time.
Predicting the future of tech companies is impossible, a new or old player could come along at any time.
Cant happen to Google until they become dominant. Apple is dominating tech right now. Im just saying theyll lose that dominant position to Google.But of course it would never happen to google right?
Dominant is a pretty vague term. I see it as a combination of several factors market share, trends, mainstream profile, etc. Apple has the best combination of all of them. It is a rather subjective title, but Im sure many would agree that Apple is a tech leader, THE tech leader, right now.
Apple fanboys, or zealots
And you joined macrumors to guide the zealot back to the light?? Don't hide under your critics about Google, I can smell your applepeople hate everywhere. There are zealots, and fans everywhere but you just choose Apple users and Apple for your crazy conspiracy theories.
Let me remind everyone Apple has been predicted dead 15 years ago and every year since those days. And at some point those predictions may get to be true. I use PCs too and almost every brand available and side by side to my Macs. I am not the only one, but people like you focus on the fanatics and on the negative aspects of the Apple ecosystem. Well friend, if you have such a vision about Apple and their users you enclosed on "fanboys and zealots", please explain what are you doing here? Are you hidden under the protection internet brings to you?.
And you joined macrumors to guide the zealot back to the light?? Don't hide under your critics about Google, I can smell your applepeople hate everywhere. There are zealots, and fans everywhere but you just choose Apple users and Apple for your crazy conspiracy theories.
Let me remind everyone Apple has been predicted dead 15 years ago and every year since those days. And at some point those predictions may get to be true. I use PCs too and almost every brand available and side by side to my Macs. I am not the only one, but people like you focus on the fanatics and on the negative aspects of the Apple ecosystem. Well friend, if you have such a vision about Apple and their users you enclosed on "fanboys and zealots", please explain what are you doing here? Are you hidden under the protection internet brings to you?.
There is one Apple philosophy, which carried over from the IBM days. If you buy stuff, it tends to be usable. IBM used (perhaps still does) to guarantee that their software would be suitable for a specific task. IBM also used to provide a one stop shop. This way a place can let one vendor handle all the issues come up, rather than running between software, hardware, application,and OS vendors.
In some ways, Apple provides a similar service, especially if one mainly uses an Apple application (iWork, Logic Studio, etc.) Apple supports the hardware, OS, drivers, and the application. This by itself can save hours of aggravation should some oddball problem arise when doing stuff needed to keep income coming in.
In some ways, Apple provides a similar service, especially if one mainly uses an Apple application (iWork, Logic Studio, etc.) Apple supports the hardware, OS, drivers, and the application. This by itself can save hours of aggravation should some oddball problem arise when doing stuff needed to keep income coming in.
I think the video is some steps ahead from today's user interface design and this is nice. Today it is very difficult to visualize a UI that wont be heavy graphical or 2D. I think this is because we humans in general have received great training using simple graphics. Also, it is easy for me to say the future OS interaction will be 3D and animated, but 3D has advantages and disadvantages. Graphics are very easy to read and 3D makes for far greater possibilities. I think both UI approaches will coexist in the future with 3D elements adding more and more functionality. And as the fine video presented here I also expect this interaction with the UI to evolve and make good use from more natural human resources as our 10 fingers.
You guys talk like fragmentation is a bad thing.
Its not, as long as there is a big dog calling the shots with reference, vanilla code.
Android phones would be boring if they all had exactly the same features and all had the exact same interface.
There would literally be no reason to choose an Incredible over a Captivate or a Droid 2 over an Epic.
Android's huge selling points are the cloud integration (Google Mail/Maps/Contacts) and a built-in marketplace.
Cell phone carriers and cell phone manufacturers only have to sweat the small stuff when it comes to apps. Google manages the entire back-end and they'll let almost everyone have access to it.
Thats why its going everywhere all at once. If you don't want to deal with turtleneck wearing control freaks, then you still have an alternative.
Its not, as long as there is a big dog calling the shots with reference, vanilla code.
Android phones would be boring if they all had exactly the same features and all had the exact same interface.
There would literally be no reason to choose an Incredible over a Captivate or a Droid 2 over an Epic.
Android's huge selling points are the cloud integration (Google Mail/Maps/Contacts) and a built-in marketplace.
Cell phone carriers and cell phone manufacturers only have to sweat the small stuff when it comes to apps. Google manages the entire back-end and they'll let almost everyone have access to it.
Thats why its going everywhere all at once. If you don't want to deal with turtleneck wearing control freaks, then you still have an alternative.
Fragmentation is not going to be an issue once gingerbread rolls around. Froyo is supposedly the finished/stable version of the OS and gingerbread is going to turn it into a modular OS where you basically download the elements of the OS you want from the android app store and you don't wait for the carrier/manufacturer to upgrade your phone. It's funny but it seems like Gingerbread is going to make it so that you can upgrade your O/S indefinitely while Apple will stop support of their OS On older iphone version after a few upgrade cycles
by far the most ill-informed post filled with contradictory statements.
apple have never dominated a market? um hello ipods??? or did you miss that memo? overall apple have already surpassed microsoft in market cap. in less than 3 years, every single other phone company is scared of apple. the incumbents nokia are a sinking ship. RIM can't come up with any sort of competitive edge against the iphone. they tried with the storm and completely failed.
secondly, free and open-source is how you DOMINATE a market? are you saying linux (and its hundreds of fragmented variations) is the lead OS of the world then?
and yet RIGHT AFTER this idiotic statement you say microsoft owned the market by selling its licensing???
"Steve Jobs still seems to believe that one single company can have it all."
what fantasy world do you live in, in which he ever tried to make such a claim??? jobs himself already said hes not interested in competing for the top in the desktop market. watching a few keynotes would tell you that.
this is obviously going to be hardware dependent. or are you saying i can upgrade my htc hero that just came out barely last year past 2.2 without rooting/hacking/using buggy 3rd party roms? yah i dont think so.
You will always reach a point where new features that are added cannot run on certain hardware due to CPU/memory constraits.
I had not heard that about gingerbread. If that is what they are doing that is a great idea and will certainly help.
Google
Google will dominate. Although I own an iPhone now, I want a choice of hardware, be able to install any apps I want, and get service from other than AT&T.
Google will dominate. Although I own an iPhone now, I want a choice of hardware, be able to install any apps I want, and get service from other than AT&T.
