Sport-Touring
The Lounge => Off Topic Discussion => Topic started by: Mr. Whippy on June 25, 2014, 01:06:22 PM
-
When Apple had their Worldwide Developer's Conference a couple weeks ago, CNN had continuous "Breaking News!" updates and live streaming from the conference.
Today, the first day of Google I/O, there's not even a mention on the front page. :headscratch:
To get live updates, I had to go to The Times of India.
Just weird to me.
-
Google is not the choice of the lemm.......masses.
-
There were a lot of amazing products announced. And yet no mention on CNN after day 1. Of course San Francisco IS Appleton, so... :-\
Some really neat streaming features in the new Android operation system.
-
Relevent and fair coverage from our media on any topic is rare at best. Apple must spend more on advertising.
-
Google is not the choice of the lemm.......masses.
LemmiPhone....
-
Relevent and fair coverage from our media on any topic is rare at best.
-
It's more basic than all that. The media gives us the info we're interested in, and nobody is all that interested in Android. :shrug:
-
Why would you go to CNN for tech coverage?
-
It's more basic than all that. The media gives us the info we're interested in, and nobody is all that interested in Android. :shrug:
No, the people that are interested in android are generally involved enough in tech to be getting info off of a tech forum or someone that's there and tweeting it. :P
-
It's more basic than all that. The media gives us the info we're interested in, and nobody is all that interested in Android. :shrug:
No, the people that are interested in android are generally involved enough in tech to be getting info off of a tech forum or someone that's there and tweeting it. :P
As a techie, I was with you all the way up to 'tweeting it', and then you lost me.
:)
Carl
-
It has to do with that little yellow bird.
I think.
-
It's more basic than all that. The media gives us the info we're interested in, and nobody is all that interested in Android. :shrug:
Tablet market share:
visitors can't see pics , please register or login
From this website:
http://www.hotappsntech.com/apple-ipad-expensive/ (http://www.hotappsntech.com/apple-ipad-expensive/)
-
It's more basic than all that. The media gives us the info we're interested in, and nobody is all that interested in Android. :shrug:
Tablet market share:
visitors can't see pics , please register or login
From this website:
[url]http://www.hotappsntech.com/apple-ipad-expensive/[/url] ([url]http://www.hotappsntech.com/apple-ipad-expensive/[/url])
Irrelevant, I think.
Most Android people buy tools, and, almost as often, toys.
Most Apple consumers are, to one degree or another, buying a brand (though to be fair, Apple does tend to lead most segments they play in when it comes to early release of products).
This Harley compared to Honda/Yamaha/Suzuki/Et Al
This makes Apple more newsorthy, as more people express interest in the brand.
-
It's more basic than all that. The media gives us the info we're interested in, and nobody is all that interested in Android. :shrug:
Tablet market share:
visitors can't see pics , please register or login
From this website:
[url]http://www.hotappsntech.com/apple-ipad-expensive/[/url] ([url]http://www.hotappsntech.com/apple-ipad-expensive/[/url])
Irrelevant, I think.
Most Android people buy tools, and, almost as often, toys.
Most Apple consumers are, to one degree or another, buying a brand (though to be fair, Apple does tend to lead most segments they play in when it comes to early release of products).
This Harley compared to Honda/Yamaha/Suzuki/Et Al
This makes Apple more newsorthy, as more people express interest in the brand.
Does the tool/toy assumption apply to smartphones as well as tablets?
visitors can't see pics , please register or login
-
It's more basic than all that. The media gives us the info we're interested in, and nobody is all that interested in Android. :shrug:
Yeah um, not true. Maybe you should take a better look at Google market share. You can read plenty of articles that go either way, but the bottom line is it is as big a player as Apple.
-
World market share data:
visitors can't see pics , please register or login
-
It's more basic than all that. The media gives us the info we're interested in, and nobody is all that interested in Android. :shrug:
Tablet market share:
visitors can't see pics , please register or login
From this website:
[url]http://www.hotappsntech.com/apple-ipad-expensive/[/url] ([url]http://www.hotappsntech.com/apple-ipad-expensive/[/url])
Irrelevant, I think.
Most Android people buy tools, and, almost as often, toys.
Most Apple consumers are, to one degree or another, buying a brand (though to be fair, Apple does tend to lead most segments they play in when it comes to early release of products).
This Harley compared to Honda/Yamaha/Suzuki/Et Al
This makes Apple more newsorthy, as more people express interest in the brand.
Does the tool/toy assumption apply to smartphones as well as tablets?
visitors can't see pics , please register or login
Apple was the first to market a "real" tablet. Forget the failed MS tablets of 10 years ago. Apple as a single brand product is still the leader as the competition is divided in multiple players. Android devices run on every versions since 2.3 to the latest KitKat 4.4 which only represent about 9% of user base share.
Early adopters and now, brand loyalists keep Apple relevant. They buy and replace their devices to follow "new" versions sold by their favourite merchant. Android on the other hand is a price based market. Consumers, late to market buyers are price concious. They don't realy care if it doesn't have a famous logo as long as it's cheap to buy, runs relatively well, can browse the intarweb, get their emails and run Candy Crush or Angry bird.
So, yes, if you compare Apple to Android numbers, you get more Androids out there but if you compare Apple to Samsung, Google, Asus, et al. individually, Apple is still the leader. And they can rely on brand loyalty while the competition can't.
-
visitors can't see pics , please register or login
-
Apple was the first to market a "real" tablet. Forget the failed MS tablets of 10 years ago. Apple as a single brand product is still the leader as the competition is divided in multiple players. Android devices run on every versions since 2.3 to the latest KitKat 4.4 which only represent about 9% of user base share.
Early adopters and now, brand loyalists keep Apple relevant. They buy and replace their devices to follow "new" versions sold by their favourite merchant. Android on the other hand is a price based market. Consumers, late to market buyers are price concious. They don't realy care if it doesn't have a famous logo as long as it's cheap to buy, runs relatively well, can browse the intarweb, get their emails and run Candy Crush or Angry bird.
So, yes, if you compare Apple to Android numbers, you get more Androids out there but if you compare Apple to Samsung, Google, Asus, et al. individually, Apple is still the leader. And they can rely on brand loyalty while the competition can't.
I don't think so...
visitors can't see pics , please register or login
-
Apple was the first to market a "real" tablet. Forget the failed MS tablets of 10 years ago. Apple as a single brand product is still the leader as the competition is divided in multiple players. Android devices run on every versions since 2.3 to the latest KitKat 4.4 which only represent about 9% of user base share.
Early adopters and now, brand loyalists keep Apple relevant. They buy and replace their devices to follow "new" versions sold by their favourite merchant. Android on the other hand is a price based market. Consumers, late to market buyers are price concious. They don't realy care if it doesn't have a famous logo as long as it's cheap to buy, runs relatively well, can browse the intarweb, get their emails and run Candy Crush or Angry bird.
So, yes, if you compare Apple to Android numbers, you get more Androids out there but if you compare Apple to Samsung, Google, Asus, et al. individually, Apple is still the leader. And they can rely on brand loyalty while the competition can't.
I don't think so...
visitors can't see pics , please register or login
Nice numbers but not relevant to tablets. Do you have similar numbers for tablets?
-
visitors can't see pics , please register or login
-
visitors can't see pics , please register or login
Thanks!
-
visitors can't see pics , please register or login
-
There are loads of stats though. While the last one shows the buying for the prior year, it doesn't take into account folks who are still using the older gear. I still have my 1st Gen iPad and it still works. No reason to replace it as of yet. There should be a site where you can see usage statistics vs purchasing stats.
Carl
-
Apple was the first to market a "real" tablet. Forget the failed MS tablets of 10 years ago. Apple as a single brand product is still the leader as the competition is divided in multiple players. Android devices run on every versions since 2.3 to the latest KitKat 4.4 which only represent about 9% of user base share.
Early adopters and now, brand loyalists keep Apple relevant. They buy and replace their devices to follow "new" versions sold by their favourite merchant. Android on the other hand is a price based market. Consumers, late to market buyers are price concious. They don't realy care if it doesn't have a famous logo as long as it's cheap to buy, runs relatively well, can browse the intarweb, get their emails and run Candy Crush or Angry bird.
So, yes, if you compare Apple to Android numbers, you get more Androids out there but if you compare Apple to Samsung, Google, Asus, et al. individually, Apple is still the leader. And they can rely on brand loyalty while the competition can't.
I don't think so...
visitors can't see pics , please register or login
Nice numbers but not relevant to tablets. Do you have similar numbers for tablets?
There was the posited theory that tablets are just toys/tools for Android users and more of a lifestyle accessory for apple buyers, so I figured smartphones were a closer apples to apples comparison (sort to speak).
-
Plus usage stats would tell you the difference between folks who bought a tablet, found it didn't do what they wanted and it's sitting in a drawer somewhere vs folks who have and still use theirs. That would be harder to figure out though. Maybe someone like Google or Yahoo would have such stats.
Carl
-
visitors can't see pics , please register or login
Thanks!
Be careful of confirmation bias. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Confirmation_bias) It's a common phenomenon.
-
Here's an interesting site, lots of stats:
http://tabtimes.com/resources/the-state-of-the-tablet-market (http://tabtimes.com/resources/the-state-of-the-tablet-market)
2.3 What are the tablet OS shares in online traffic?
OS share of online traffic from tablets
iPad: 84.3%
Kindle Fire: 5.9%
Samsung Galaxy Tab: 4.2%
Nook: 1.2%
(source: Chitika, based on ad impressions on its network in the US and Canada, June 2013)
-
From November 2013
visitors can't see pics , please register or login
-
Here's an interesting site, lots of stats:
[url]http://tabtimes.com/resources/the-state-of-the-tablet-market[/url] ([url]http://tabtimes.com/resources/the-state-of-the-tablet-market[/url])
2.3 What are the tablet OS shares in online traffic?
OS share of online traffic from tablets
iPad: 84.3%
Kindle Fire: 5.9%
Samsung Galaxy Tab: 4.2%
Nook: 1.2%
(source: Chitika, based on ad impressions on its network in the US and Canada, June 2013)
Since it's based on stats from an Ad network, there could be bias if you're able to add an ad blocker to an Android tablet where you can't on an iPad.
Carl
-
Here's an interesting site, lots of stats:
[url]http://tabtimes.com/resources/the-state-of-the-tablet-market[/url] ([url]http://tabtimes.com/resources/the-state-of-the-tablet-market[/url])
2.3 What are the tablet OS shares in online traffic?
OS share of online traffic from tablets
iPad: 84.3%
Kindle Fire: 5.9%
Samsung Galaxy Tab: 4.2%
Nook: 1.2%
(source: Chitika, based on ad impressions on its network in the US and Canada, June 2013)
As pointed out, Apple was first to market and has a large legacy component. I'm not sure this predicts where sales trends are currently (which is what decides whether a company takes off or becomes the next RIM/Blackberry).
-
CNN.com. -contact us
I double-dog-dare you to ask them yourself!
-
CNN.com. -contact us
I double-dog-dare you to ask them yourself!
HAHA!
They have an "advertise with us" link but no "contact us" and no "about"!
-
Does the tool/toy assumption apply to smartphones as well as tablets?
visitors can't see pics , please register or login
I believe it does, yes . . . . . I doubt if most Android buyers are purchasing a brand . . . I would bet that most Apple purchasers are.
Of course, this doesn't make nearly as conspiratorial a story.
-
Found contact us via google search. :bigsmile:
-
Does the tool/toy assumption apply to smartphones as well as tablets?
visitors can't see pics , please register or login
I believe it does, yes . . . . . I doubt if most Android buyers are purchasing a brand . . . I would bet that most Apple purchasers are.
Of course, this doesn't make nearly as conspiratorial a story.
I didn't say it was conspiratorial. My theory is, CNN views Apple as a Social Trend. That they sell electronics is of secondary concern. If apple marketed running shoes, it would be "Breaking News" from a social trending perspective. In that sense, Apple has made media outlets their lil' advertising 'bots--free advertising 'bots at that.
-
...and btw,
THAT should concern you. Media outlets SHOULD be thoughtful about what and why they write stories and WHY they decide something is worthy of greater promotion (via "Breaking News" or Homepage headline or whatever). Does an Apple advertisement for their latest cell phone warrant that?
-
Found contact us via google search. :bigsmile:
Maybe the Android coverage was there all along, but you just couldn't find it! ;D
-
I believe it does, yes . . . . . I doubt if most Android buyers are purchasing a brand . . . I would bet that most Apple purchasers are.
Of course, this doesn't make nearly as conspiratorial a story.
I didn't say it was conspiratorial. My theory is, CNN views Apple as a Social Trend. That they sell electronics is of secondary concern. If apple marketed running shoes, it would be "Breaking News" from a social trending perspective. In that sense, Apple has made media outlets their lil' advertising 'bots--free advertising 'bots at that.
Fair enough, and you are likely right . . . .our local broadcast morning news carries stories about Starbux raising prices, Mickey D's changing ingrediants, and Whole Foods discussion of plastic bag use . . . . . . .
...and btw,
THAT should concern you. Media outlets SHOULD be thoughtful about what and why they write stories and WHY they decide something is worthy of greater promotion (via "Breaking News" or Homepage headline or whatever). Does an Apple advertisement for their latest cell phone warrant that?
Oh, I would be concerned if I viewed CNN as a news outlet . . . . but I don't . . . .. neither do I turn to Entertainment Tonight for a digest of the day's dimplomatic issues, or TMZ for information abut the happenings in Syria.
That so many others view CNN as a plce to become informed on issues that matter, now THAT concerns me.
Media, News. They may have been the same, at one point (or close enought to be interchangable) . . . that day is no longer.
-
I would be concerned if I viewed CNN as a news outlet . . . . but I don't . . . .. neither do I turn to Entertainment Tonight for a digest of the day's dimplomatic issues, or TMZ for information abut the happenings in Syria.
That so many others view CNN as a plce to become informed on issues that matter, now THAT concerns me.
Media, News. They may have been the same, at one point (or close enought to be interchangable) . . . that day is no longer.
This, a million times.
-
[
Oh, I would be concerned if I viewed CNN as a news outlet . . . . but I don't . . . .. neither do I turn to Entertainment Tonight for a digest of the day's dimplomatic issues, or TMZ for information abut the happenings in Syria.
That so many others view CNN as a plce to become informed on issues that matter, now THAT concerns me.
Media, News. They may have been the same, at one point (or close enought to be interchangable) . . . that day is no longer.
I would be concerned if I viewed CNN as a news outlet . . . . but I don't . . . .. neither do I turn to Entertainment Tonight for a digest of the day's dimplomatic issues, or TMZ for information abut the happenings in Syria.
That so many others view CNN as a plce to become informed on issues that matter, now THAT concerns me.
Media, News. They may have been the same, at one point (or close enought to be interchangable) . . . that day is no longer.
This, a million times.
I stopped reading MSNBC/NBCNews a couple years ago and switched to CNN.com.
Who do you use for your quick update on news events?
-
For a quick update . . . . local news and weather. . . . . local broadcast (the networks are OK, couple of indie stations are better).
National/International . . . . . .a mix of CNN/MSNBC (which, as you say, carry fluff as well, but they do carry big stuff on a surface level -- I ignore the editorializing) and the local PBS affiliate (carries BBC), Al jazeera, and scanning the local paper.
During the winter (not on the bike) NPR.
I try to go deeper than a quick update once a day . . . . I'm a print guy, at heart.
-
You guys are trying to disillusion the fruit fanbois. It's a waste of time.
visitors can't see pics , please register or login
-
For a quick update . . . . local news and weather. . . . . local broadcast (the networks are OK, couple of indie stations are better).
National/International . . . . . .a mix of CNN/MSNBC (which, as you say, carry fluff as well, but they do carry big stuff on a surface level -- I ignore the editorializing) and the local PBS affiliate (carries BBC), Al jazeera, and scanning the local paper.
During the winter (not on the bike) NPR.
I try to go deeper than a quick update once a day . . . . I'm a print guy, at heart.
In numerous studies, MSNBC "wins" most of the time or ties with FoxNews in biased reporting. Seriously, MSNBC consistently does worse than CNN and splits 50/50 with FoxNews at the bottom of the heap.
-
I'm not looking for reportage in the morning, Whip . . .
I'm looking for local weather, did our king, er, Mayor give away public property to some famous guy to build a museum on, and did we nuke/get nuked by Syria type stuff for a quick check.
CNN, MSNBC, damn near everybody can supply that.
News, Whip. Not commentary. If I want commentary, I go to print, 8 times outa 10.
-
I'm not looking for reportage in the morning, Whip . . .
I'm looking for local weather, did our king, er, Mayor give away public property to some famous guy to build a museum on, and did we nuke/get nuked by Syria type stuff for a quick check.
CNN, MSNBC, damn near everybody can supply that.
News, Whip. Not commentary. If I want commentary, I go to print, 8 times outa 10.
Yea, I was referring to news reports. Studies consistently show MSNBC has a pronounced bias in their NEWS reporting. Sometimes worse than FoxNews, often equivalent. CNN is better. PBS, BBC rated better, but they're not as browser friendly for me at work. (and BBC is harder to get US-centric stories).
BTW, these are studies out of USC, UCLA, and various non-profits who come up with these conclusions. If it were one researcher, that'd be one thing, but it is seen consistently in US based studies and UK based studies.
Again, News stories, not commentary or blog stuff.
-
I get the vast majority of my non-local news from The Daily Show. At least it's not pretending to be anything other than entertainment. :lol:
-
I get the vast majority of my non-local news from The Daily Show. At least it's not pretending to be anything other than entertainment. :lol:
:bigsmile: :razz:
-
I get most of my news via Reddit. I can decide the topics that are of interest to me and read them on a daily basis. There are many non-mainstream sources that you don't often get to see as well. I try to avoid the more wacky sites like Salon or The Blaze.
-
I'm not looking for reportage in the morning, Whip . . .
I'm looking for local weather, did our king, er, Mayor give away public property to some famous guy to build a museum on, and did we nuke/get nuked by Syria type stuff for a quick check.
CNN, MSNBC, damn near everybody can supply that.
News, Whip. Not commentary. If I want commentary, I go to print, 8 times outa 10.
Yea, I was referring to news reports. Studies consistently show MSNBC has a pronounced bias in their NEWS reporting. Sometimes worse than FoxNews, often equivalent. CNN is better. PBS, BBC rated better, but they're not as browser friendly for me at work. (and BBC is harder to get US-centric stories).
BTW, these are studies out of USC, UCLA, and various non-profits who come up with these conclusions. If it were one researcher, that'd be one thing, but it is seen consistently in US based studies and UK based studies.
Again, News stories, not commentary or blog stuff.
OK, Whip . . . I am satisfied that my choices (please note, plural) will let me know if a mushroom cloud appears ovoer NYC, or not. If they tell me that it is the fault of XYZ, I'll likely filter that out, as I am familiar with the source, and do my own research.
You are not satisfied with them.
So it goes.
-
I'm not looking for reportage in the morning, Whip . . .
I'm looking for local weather, did our king, er, Mayor give away public property to some famous guy to build a museum on, and did we nuke/get nuked by Syria type stuff for a quick check.
CNN, MSNBC, damn near everybody can supply that.
News, Whip. Not commentary. If I want commentary, I go to print, 8 times outa 10.
Yea, I was referring to news reports. Studies consistently show MSNBC has a pronounced bias in their NEWS reporting. Sometimes worse than FoxNews, often equivalent. CNN is better. PBS, BBC rated better, but they're not as browser friendly for me at work. (and BBC is harder to get US-centric stories).
BTW, these are studies out of USC, UCLA, and various non-profits who come up with these conclusions. If it were one researcher, that'd be one thing, but it is seen consistently in US based studies and UK based studies.
Again, News stories, not commentary or blog stuff.
OK, Whip . . . I am satisfied that my choices (please note, plural) will let me know if a mushroom cloud appears ovoer NYC, or not. If they tell me that it is the fault of XYZ, I'll likely filter that out, as I am familiar with the source, and do my own research.
You are not satisfied with them.
So it goes.
Well, I was pretty satisfied with CNN... I didn't realize it wasn't considered a "reasonable source" any longer. I had been a big fan of MSNBC, but they went wacky. BBC is great, but I like more US centric stories on the homepage.
-
CNN.com. -contact us
I double-dog-dare you to ask them yourself!
Well, this doesn't look promising... :lol:
Greetings,
Thank you for taking the time to submit this information to CNN. This message is your confirmation that we have successfully received it. Due to incredible volume we are unable to personally reply to every message, but we do read each and every one. Your feedback matters, and we sincerely appreciate that you took the time to share it with us.
Emails are read in the order received, so if you used this form to send us a question or a story idea that’s ok, but please allow time for us to route your message to the appropriate person.
Thanks again for your feedback, and keep your browser pointed to CNN | The Most Trusted Name in News
-
Well, I was pretty satisfied with CNN... I didn't realize it wasn't considered a "reasonable source" any longer. I had been a big fan of MSNBC, but they went wacky. BBC is great, but I like more US centric stories on the homepage.
If you are serious about getting good information, do some research (beyond what you've done) . . . . look for a news source that has it's own, large, multinational, paid, world wide news gathering staff . . . . .
CNN and MSNBC aint it ;-}
-
Well, this doesn't look promising... :lol:
Greetings,
Thank you for taking the time to submit this information to CNN. This message is your confirmation that we have successfully received it. Due to incredible volume we are unable to personally reply to every message, but we do read each and every one. Your feedback matters, and we sincerely appreciate that you took the time to share it with us.
Emails are read in the order received, so if you used this form to send us a question or a story idea that’s ok, but please allow time for us to route your message to the appropriate person.
Thanks again for your feedback, and keep your browser pointed to CNN | The Most Trusted Name in News
Agreed. Looks like a brush off.
-
If you're wanting to debate % of worldwide sales of cell phones then Nokia/Symbian would have the lion's share of the market.
You can spin anyway you want at Alice's Restaurant.
-
If you're wanting to debate % of worldwide sales of cell phones then Nokia/Symbian would have the lion's share of the market.
You can spin anyway you want at Alice's Restaurant.
Data please? At least for "Smartphones" Android is world dominant (Many sources posted above). Perhaps you're referring to "non" smartphones? That would be apples and oranges since Android doesn't compete there, nor does Apple.
-
If you're wanting to debate % of worldwide sales of cell phones then Nokia/Symbian would have the lion's share of the market.
You can spin anyway you want at Alice's Restaurant.
Data please? At least for "Smartphones" Android is world dominant (Many sources posted above). Perhaps you're referring to "non" smartphones? That would be apples and oranges since Android doesn't compete there, nor does Apple.
You're comparing apples and oranges. There is no 'Android' brand phone. It's an operating system on top of a vendor's hardware.
Carl
-
You're comparing apples and oranges. There is no 'Android' brand phone. It's an operating system on top of a vendor's hardware.
Carl
This is a salient point . . . . .folks are interested, most of em, in features. If smart, benefits.
Rfemember the brazillions that Intel spent tryhing to get something from the branding on their processors? Didnt' do much for em, and they stopped.
-
If you're wanting to debate % of worldwide sales of cell phones then Nokia/Symbian would have the lion's share of the market.
You can spin anyway you want at Alice's Restaurant.
Data please? At least for "Smartphones" Android is world dominant (Many sources posted above). Perhaps you're referring to "non" smartphones? That would be apples and oranges since Android doesn't compete there, nor does Apple.
You're comparing apples and oranges. There is no 'Android' brand phone. It's an operating system on top of a vendor's hardware.
Carl
One can easily make an iOS v Android comparison. Those are directly competing operating systems. The fact that iOS is a completely closed architecture and Android is completely open (except in US carrier markets) are just one point of comparison of the marketing models from Apple and Google. So yes. You can directly compare an iOS (based) phone (has to be Apple) to an Android (based) phone (Samsung, HTC, Asus, whoever or the conglomerate)--especially if you're trying to compare consumer preference for operating systems.
-
You're comparing apples and oranges. There is no 'Android' brand phone. It's an operating system on top of a vendor's hardware.
Carl
This is a salient point . . . . .folks are interested, most of em, in features. If smart, benefits.
Rfemember the brazillions that Intel spent tryhing to get something from the branding on their processors? Didnt' do much for em, and they stopped.
No, that doesn't apply at all. The Intel comparo would be if you were comparing Chipsets, which run the same OS. Intel vs AMD for example or Intel vs Motorola with the same OS.
Android v iOS is the same as Windows v OSX for example.
-
...and just so we can see what Steve Jobs thought of Android v iOS and whether he felt they were direct rivals (ie direct comparos to be made):
Apple CEO Steve Jobs yesterday took shots at Google and dismissed iPad wannabes as "dead on arrival" during his company's earnings call with Wall Street analysts.
In a rare appearance on the quarterly call, Jobs took the floor to boast of the iPhone's success, defend iOS' top-to-bottom integration and rebut claims that Google's Android was a better bet for smartphones and tablets.
Analysts took note of Jobs' combative comments. "Apple's playing hardball," said Ezra Gottheil of Technology Business Research. "I think he scored some points in making the case for a user experience that just works."
Jobs was blunt when he talked about Google, still a partner in some endeavors but since Android's introduction, a fierce rival.
"Google loves to characterize Android as open, and iOS and iPhone as closed," Jobs said. "We find this a bit disingenuous and clouding the real difference between our two approaches."
Rather than worry about definitions, the focus should be on the end result. "We think the open versus closed argument is just a smokescreen to try and hide the real issue, which is, what's best for the customer, fragmented versus integrated?" Jobs asked. "We think Android is very, very fragmented and becoming more fragmented by the day."
Developers see iOS and Android as direct choice options, it appears:
Jobs cited a comment made last week by TweetDeck, developers of a popular Twitter client that runs on both iOS and Android, to back up his claim of Android fragmentation. "They reported that they had to contend with more than 100 different versions of Android software on 244 different handsets," said Jobs. "The multiple hardware and software iterations present developers with a daunting challenge."
Not so fast, said Ian Dodsworth, the CEO of TweetDeck. "Did we at any point say it was a nightmare developing on Android? Errr nope, no we didn't. It wasn't," Dodsworth said on Twitter early Tuesday.
Looks like the "Android is disseminated and fragmented with SO many different makers" is just a Jobs Fanboi reiteration (which developers don't seem to agree with...)
--from 2010
-
You're comparing apples and oranges. There is no 'Android' brand phone. It's an operating system on top of a vendor's hardware.
Carl
This is a salient point . . . . .folks are interested, most of em, in features. If smart, benefits.
Remember the brazillions that Intel spent trying to get something from the branding on their processors? Didnt' do much for em, and they stopped.
No, that doesn't apply at all. The Intel comparo would be if you were comparing Chipsets, which run the same OS. Intel vs AMD for example or Intel vs Motorola with the same OS.
Android v iOS is the same as Windows v OSX for example.
LOL . . . . Well, Whip, I was talking about branding of technology, stuff most folks don't pay attention to. Not Chipsets, nor OSes. It generally doesn't do much for the comapny spending the money, which is why most companies don't do it anymore.
-
You're comparing apples and oranges. There is no 'Android' brand phone. It's an operating system on top of a vendor's hardware.
Carl
This is a salient point . . . . .folks are interested, most of em, in features. If smart, benefits.
Remember the brazillions that Intel spent trying to get something from the branding on their processors? Didnt' do much for em, and they stopped.
No, that doesn't apply at all. The Intel comparo would be if you were comparing Chipsets, which run the same OS. Intel vs AMD for example or Intel vs Motorola with the same OS.
Android v iOS is the same as Windows v OSX for example.
LOL . . . . Well, Whip, I was talking about branding of technology, stuff most folks don't pay attention to. Not Chipsets, nor OSes. It generally doesn't do much for the comapny spending the money, which is why most companies don't do it anymore.
I don't really see how that relates to this.
From my experience, someone looking for a smartphone starts with:
Am I going for an iPhone or not? (if no)
Am I going to try the windows phone or stay with an Android (if stays with Android)...
Which Android phone am I getting?
For tablets, it goes:
iPad or not?
if not, Am I going to get a Amazon Fire or other Android Tab?
Which Android tablet do I like best?
Those two scenarios are really Apple v Android (vs Windows) Not Apple v HTC nor Samsung or Motorola.
Once the decision is made to go with Android, THEN the contenders come into play.
-
damn, I used to be pissed about just being handed things (I-phone, I-pad, Toshiba laptop) from my employer. but, on second thought maybe it's not so bad?? saves a lot of decisions...
-
damn, I used to be pissed about just being handed things (I-phone, I-pad, Toshiba laptop) from my employer. but, on second thought maybe it's not so bad?? saves a lot of decisions...
:lol:
For me, it's pretty easy. I get something that fits the old sheath, and preferably has a mechanical keyboard.
-
I don't really see how that relates to this.
From my experience, someone looking for a smartphone starts with:
Am I going for an iPhone or not? (if no)
Am I going to try the windows phone or stay with an Android (if stays with Android)...
Which Android phone am I getting?
For tablets, it goes:
iPad or not?
if not, Am I going to get a Amazon Fire or other Android Tab?
Which Android tablet do I like best?
Those two scenarios are really Apple v Android (vs Windows) Not Apple v HTC nor Samsung or Motorola.
Once the decision is made to go with Android, THEN the contenders come into play.
I understand you don't get it.
And that's fine.
Enjoy your devices, however you choose em.
-
This subject really jumped the shark as many of them do. The fact of the matter is many news outlets are biased by corporate and political leanings. They cater to their corporate donors. It's really as simple as that. Over the last half century the ownership of the various media outlets has gone from thousands of individuals to five corporations. There are now a total of five corporations in the US that control every form of media.
If you pay any attention to the headlines you see merger after merger. Since 1983 it went form 50 to 5 corporations in control of the media in the US. In that time I think we have seen a significant dumbing down of news and information in general. There seems to be less investigative reporting and many stories that just aren't told. Fortunately with the explosion of information on the internet there are many more alternative sources of information. If you chooses to be spoon fed by the corporate machine you deserve to be the typical uninformed American. Sometimes you need to look around and see what else is out there instead of being lazy and just accepting what your given. There are plenty of good news outlets around that are not mainstream, yet still give good, accurate, unbiased information.
visitors can't see pics , please register or login
-
If you're wanting to debate % of worldwide sales of cell phones then Nokia/Symbian would have the lion's share of the market.
You can spin anyway you want at Alice's Restaurant.
Nokia Symbian is almost dead.
visitors can't see pics , please register or login
Nokia is now pushing WP and Android.