IPhone 5 opens the door for Nokia, Samsung(reviews.cnet.com)
reviews.cnet.com
IPhone 5 opens the door for Nokia, Samsung
http://reviews.cnet.com/8301-19512_7-57511658-233/iphone-5-opens-the-door-for-nokia-samsung/
12 comments
Market share is like "users" in a startup, it means nothing. Revenue is everything. Sometimes, market share is directionally proportional to revenues, in the phone wars case, it isn't.
Does any one really think Cook is loosing sleep at night because he wants customers from "android's share"? He wants users from the rite market segment aka the ones who spend money. I'm going to go out on a limb here and say they have quite a bit of those types.
-- Edit: spelling
Does any one really think Cook is loosing sleep at night because he wants customers from "android's share"? He wants users from the rite market segment aka the ones who spend money. I'm going to go out on a limb here and say they have quite a bit of those types.
-- Edit: spelling
For a company directly, yes. For a platform, market share is very important. It wasn't until recently that Android caught up and surpassed iOS in total user base, but given some of the problems of the Android ecosystem, iOS will probably remain the main platform for the time being. But eventually Android will become the main platform through sheer numbers. It's poised to have 3 billion devices on the market by 2016, while iOS only 1 billion.
"only"??
If your point is that there will be 3X as many Android devices, fine.
but a market of 1 billion? I'll take it.
If your point is that there will be 3X as many Android devices, fine.
but a market of 1 billion? I'll take it.
I think it's becoming clear that Android is winning over the majority of feature phone upgrades, which is great for raw numbers but I wonder if it will take a while for those people to buy into the eco-system. Is the existing wedge going to be less and less profitable?
A lot of people had feature phones that had Java ME or BREW, but aside from telephony and texting, many only ever played Snake on it. If the phone manufacturers aren't making much money off of the hardware bought by feature phone upgraders, how much will Google or other ecosystem vendors make much off of the software side?
A lot of people had feature phones that had Java ME or BREW, but aside from telephony and texting, many only ever played Snake on it. If the phone manufacturers aren't making much money off of the hardware bought by feature phone upgraders, how much will Google or other ecosystem vendors make much off of the software side?
Apple is one company. Android devices are made by a wide array of companies. So in terms of marketshare per company, yes, Apple has dominated (although I think they were recently surpassed by Samsung?).
But Android is not a phone, look at market share by smart phone vendor instead of OS. It's a comparison that makes much more sense since there are many vendors, each competing with each other, all with individual market shares, all using the Android OS.
I don't see that matter. To the extent that I am invested in a mobile platform, it's Android I'm invested in. My next phone will probably run Android so I can carry along my familiarity and my app purchases. It's only likely to be a Samsung specifically if they have the right combination of hardware features and price at that time.
It matters since we (parent comment and the article) are talking about market share of phones.
We are both responding to: "I love my iPhone but I really don't get this. Apple only has 31% of the smartphone market and Android has 59%, for example." and in turn the original article
In this context the interesting definition of 'market share' is the one that focuses on platforms. There isn't very much interesting to be gleaned by making the distinction that Apple has a bigger market share than Samsung as Samsung and other Android OEMs collectively benefit from Android's market share.
In this context the interesting definition of 'market share' is the one that focuses on platforms. There isn't very much interesting to be gleaned by making the distinction that Apple has a bigger market share than Samsung as Samsung and other Android OEMs collectively benefit from Android's market share.
No, because the article essentially asks: does the new iPhone have enough bells and whistles to keep it's position, and compares it to other handsets like Nokia Lumia and Galaxy Note. It's putting up iPhone 5's hardware features against a few competing phones. It does not take platforms, operating system or any software into account.
I agree. Are there any numbers available with this phone vs phone type analysis?
What do you want folks? What one feature are you buying your phone based on? A stylus, a 20 hour battery, or a springy camera?
The iPhone is crap! It doesn't have any of these! Pick your other substandard phone that has the one you want now!
The iPhone is crap! It doesn't have any of these! Pick your other substandard phone that has the one you want now!
Trolling for dollars?
This is ridiculous. The iPhone 5 failing to wow everybody is more a symptom of the fact that there's really just not much more a smartphone can, or really should do. I hear people lamenting things like the fact that they won't be able to wirelessly charge the iPhone 5. Really? Placing your phone on top of a wired brick instead of inserting a wire is the next big thing? Please. Smartphones will continue to get faster and have longer battery life, but everyone should stop holding their breath for an announcement as revolutionary as the original iPhone's was.
> there's really just not much more a smartphone can, or really should do
Really? What about:
* haptic feedback as a 2d surface? http://senseg.com/ * replacing all the cards you carry in your wallet (NFC) * going a week on a charge * predictive modeling where your phone preloads webpages/directions/music that it thinks you're going to need
I suspect your comment will seem obviously wrong in five years.
Really? What about:
* haptic feedback as a 2d surface? http://senseg.com/ * replacing all the cards you carry in your wallet (NFC) * going a week on a charge * predictive modeling where your phone preloads webpages/directions/music that it thinks you're going to need
I suspect your comment will seem obviously wrong in five years.
haptic feedback? I only ever hear geeks asking for that feature, and it's YEARS off. NFC will only be as useful as the number of vendors who adopt it. Yes, increasing battery life significantly will always be a killer feature, but that's obvious. Predictive modeling sounds like software to me, and I'm talking about hardware features.
"I suspect your comment will seem obviously wrong in five years."
I suspect your comment too will seem obviously wrong in sixty-five years. Geez
I suspect your comment too will seem obviously wrong in sixty-five years. Geez
For myself, Android phones have 2 major features that I would sorely miss if I switched to iPhone 5:
- a 4.7 inch screen is almost 50% larger than a 4.0 inch screen
- transit integration with maps
As far as I can tell, the only thing that I would gain by switching to an iPhone would be a CBC music app that doesn't suck.
But your basic point is correct: we've reached the point of diminishing returns. Any high end iPhone or Android phone is "good enough" and the differences between them are not worth the time or effort that most people put into them.
Here's my buying advice for smartphones. If you already have one and want to upgrade, buy one of the same kind. The pain of switching ecosystems is far greater than any benefit you'll get from switching. If you don't already have a smartphone, buy one similar to what your friends use. The benefit you get from a shared ecosystem far outweighs any difference between phones.
- a 4.7 inch screen is almost 50% larger than a 4.0 inch screen
- transit integration with maps
As far as I can tell, the only thing that I would gain by switching to an iPhone would be a CBC music app that doesn't suck.
But your basic point is correct: we've reached the point of diminishing returns. Any high end iPhone or Android phone is "good enough" and the differences between them are not worth the time or effort that most people put into them.
Here's my buying advice for smartphones. If you already have one and want to upgrade, buy one of the same kind. The pain of switching ecosystems is far greater than any benefit you'll get from switching. If you don't already have a smartphone, buy one similar to what your friends use. The benefit you get from a shared ecosystem far outweighs any difference between phones.
I'm the opposite, I've been yearning for an even thinner phone. And now that the new one has a unibody aluminum case I won't feel so compelled to fit a rubber bumper around it. Also my current phone, the iphone 4s, feels a bit short, so I could see the increased length working better when talking on it.
Just for those form factor features alone I'd gladly switch to the iPhone 5.
Just for those form factor features alone I'd gladly switch to the iPhone 5.
That's solid advice. As for transit info, that did exist until Apple ditched Google Maps, but Google will release a dedicated app for Maps and all will be right with the world again.
Google's app could also be a supplier of transit info for the built-in (Apple) Maps application.
I am tired of hearing this myth that the first iPhone was so revolutionary. That is completely ignoring that the LG Prada was released prior to it.
The iPhone didn't do anything new. You could buy a Nokia phone at the time that did all the iPhone did and some. The iPhone couldn't copy and paste, MMS and a bunch of other basic things that other phones at the time could.
The iPhone didn't do anything new. You could buy a Nokia phone at the time that did all the iPhone did and some. The iPhone couldn't copy and paste, MMS and a bunch of other basic things that other phones at the time could.
Well, without getting into an argument about what exactly made the iPhone revolutionary in terms of features and design, I think the evidence is clear: average people didn't buy smartphones before the iPhone came out, they did after it came out. Now every phone looks like an iPhone. Sounds revolutionary to me, in every sense of the word.
Touchscreen does not make a smartphone. Plenty of people had non-touchscreen smartphones prior to the iPhone.
Indeed, it was nothing new, brought out by a company that knew nothing about phones. No wonder it bombed so badly. Nearly destroyed Apple - they sure won't make that mistake again.
Anybody saying the LG Prada is proof that the iPhone was not revolutionary has clearly never used an LG Prada. It was not a good phone.
The mere fact that nearly every smartphone on the market today has the same form factor as the iPhone and follows a similar UI paradigm should be evidence enough of the iPhone's impact. I see no reason to deny that.
The mere fact that nearly every smartphone on the market today has the same form factor as the iPhone and follows a similar UI paradigm should be evidence enough of the iPhone's impact. I see no reason to deny that.
It was the first iPod with mobile Safari that worked really well as a browser (it also made phonecalls).
It was fucking revolutionary and the numbers speak for themselves.
It was fucking revolutionary and the numbers speak for themselves.
Well it was revolutionary without any doubt.
I believe software patents should not be granted but Apple really created a revolution. To say the contrary is denial.
It was so revolutionary it was not necessary to have MMS to be a total hit, like it was.
Have you used a LG Prada, we had to do software for it for a big Telcom company. Those companies would decide witch software would run on your phone, and it was total crap.
Android is just a literal copy of Apple iOS, please give credit when credit is due.
I believe software patents should not be granted but Apple really created a revolution. To say the contrary is denial.
It was so revolutionary it was not necessary to have MMS to be a total hit, like it was.
Have you used a LG Prada, we had to do software for it for a big Telcom company. Those companies would decide witch software would run on your phone, and it was total crap.
Android is just a literal copy of Apple iOS, please give credit when credit is due.
It's not so much that users want/need the features you describe, but it's the lack of something... anything ... spectacularly new that is what is opening the door for the competition.
I've had more iPhones than I can count dating back to the first launch, and I'm sure I'm not the only one that's going to be checking out the Luminas soon.. not because I don't like the iPhone, but rather looking at change just for the sake of doing something different. (to coin a phrase)
I've had more iPhones than I can count dating back to the first launch, and I'm sure I'm not the only one that's going to be checking out the Luminas soon.. not because I don't like the iPhone, but rather looking at change just for the sake of doing something different. (to coin a phrase)
> but rather looking at change just for the sake of doing something different
I think this is a geek thing. Non-techies aren't always looking for the latest and greatest beyond the next whole number attached to their brand of choice.
I think this is a geek thing. Non-techies aren't always looking for the latest and greatest beyond the next whole number attached to their brand of choice.
I hear people lamenting things like the fact that they won't be able to wirelessly charge the iPhone 5
I suspect Apple is holding off on wireless charging until they can get all their ducks in a line as it where. Placing your phone on a brick isn't a huge win compared to pugging your phone in. Placing your iPhone, Macbook, iPad and any other battery powered Apple device anywhere on your desk (or at least a large part of your desk) and having them automatically charge would be a pretty huge win.
I suspect Apple is holding off on wireless charging until they can get all their ducks in a line as it where. Placing your phone on a brick isn't a huge win compared to pugging your phone in. Placing your iPhone, Macbook, iPad and any other battery powered Apple device anywhere on your desk (or at least a large part of your desk) and having them automatically charge would be a pretty huge win.
Apple is holding off on wireless charging until wireless charging is more common. Phil Schiller has said as much. You still have to plug in the charger itself. Whereas with USB you can plug it directly into laptops and it's also offered in many other devices (monitors, car stereos, airplanes). And this avoids trying to engineer two different charging methods. Apple would still have to offer USB charging, they're not going to force all iPhone users to buy a wireless charging station, not yet.
What was revolutionary in the original iphone ?
1- Before Iphone, telcom companies would decide what software comes in on a phone and what does not, and it was a political decision, or based on how much you paid the telcom. Say you had a game and wanted to sell like you do on the App Store. The Telcoms would say: sure,we give you $200 for the game property and all rights, including exclusivity, consider yourself fortunate for us letting you in. Take it or leave it but we control the channel.
2- Internet browsing was possible in a phone for the first time. Only Nokia had something similar, albeit much harder to navigate but again the Telcoms will force wifi to be removed so you had to pay them more.
3- Google maps on a phone was fantastic, again only Nokia maps could compete. Easier gmail.(At the time Apple and Google were best pals).
4-Smooth interface, 0 delay, instantaneous feedback, you hold an icon and it moves without flickering and jumping. You could zoom in a natural and continuous way instead of steps for the first time on a phone.
5-All the interface controlled with one button and the screen, with the UI designed for it. This was so revolutionary on a phone, as "people love so much to press keys" like blackberry said.
How easy people forget.
2- Internet browsing was possible in a phone for the first time. Only Nokia had something similar, albeit much harder to navigate but again the Telcoms will force wifi to be removed so you had to pay them more.
3- Google maps on a phone was fantastic, again only Nokia maps could compete. Easier gmail.(At the time Apple and Google were best pals).
4-Smooth interface, 0 delay, instantaneous feedback, you hold an icon and it moves without flickering and jumping. You could zoom in a natural and continuous way instead of steps for the first time on a phone.
5-All the interface controlled with one button and the screen, with the UI designed for it. This was so revolutionary on a phone, as "people love so much to press keys" like blackberry said.
How easy people forget.
How easily people forget.
1. The App Store didn't show up until the 3G; whereas Java ME and Win Mobile apps had been around for years. You could install your own Java ME or Windows Mobile apps without going through the carrier; whereas Apple really does control the whole channel on iOS. That stated, smartphone apps prior to the iPhone 3G tended to miss the mark with respect to convenience, quality, and ubiquity.
2. The iPhone probably was the first phone with a decent browser. Their UX was quite good, and definitely took advantage of the recent evolution in the available hardware (e.g. large, capacitive multi-touch screens).
3. The iPhone didn't have GPS until the 3G. That and other missing features were major complaints about the first release.
4. The interface really wasn't smooth at all until probably the 3GS. The 3G and below were randomly jittery and jumpy, but that's understandable given the extent to which they were pushing the envelope on the hardware of the day.
5. Yes, the iPhone was the first mass-market phone with a UX that really took advantage of a large capacitive multi-touch screen. However, Apple certainly didn't create those screens, or produce the first devices to use them. They did, however, make the first broadly successful device built on that technology, employing a combination of solid design and very aggressive marketing. But it's misleading to claim that others in the industry weren't already moving in that direction as well.
1. The App Store didn't show up until the 3G; whereas Java ME and Win Mobile apps had been around for years. You could install your own Java ME or Windows Mobile apps without going through the carrier; whereas Apple really does control the whole channel on iOS. That stated, smartphone apps prior to the iPhone 3G tended to miss the mark with respect to convenience, quality, and ubiquity.
2. The iPhone probably was the first phone with a decent browser. Their UX was quite good, and definitely took advantage of the recent evolution in the available hardware (e.g. large, capacitive multi-touch screens).
3. The iPhone didn't have GPS until the 3G. That and other missing features were major complaints about the first release.
4. The interface really wasn't smooth at all until probably the 3GS. The 3G and below were randomly jittery and jumpy, but that's understandable given the extent to which they were pushing the envelope on the hardware of the day.
5. Yes, the iPhone was the first mass-market phone with a UX that really took advantage of a large capacitive multi-touch screen. However, Apple certainly didn't create those screens, or produce the first devices to use them. They did, however, make the first broadly successful device built on that technology, employing a combination of solid design and very aggressive marketing. But it's misleading to claim that others in the industry weren't already moving in that direction as well.
I was waiting for the "it's all marketing" argument to appear and I was not disappointed.
You obviously replied to the wrong comment, or simply read nothing that I wrote.
It was the smart phone that the average consumer actually wanted to buy.
finger based touch screen, a decent web browser, a different ui, etc.
This article should really be re-written and titled "iOS6 opens the door for Microsoft and Google". On the hardware front we are reaching a point where only incremental changes are necessary/possible, and even things like wireless charging or using the phone with gloves on, aren't that revolutionary and are mostly gimmicks.
iOS6, on the other hand, seems like a very incremental step on the software side, a major step backwards on others (like Maps). Seems like the perfect opportunity for Android (and possibly Windows Phone) given they aren't constrained by the "only 1 major iOS update a year" rule that Apple appears to be tied to.
iOS6, on the other hand, seems like a very incremental step on the software side, a major step backwards on others (like Maps). Seems like the perfect opportunity for Android (and possibly Windows Phone) given they aren't constrained by the "only 1 major iOS update a year" rule that Apple appears to be tied to.
Anyone writing about things like NFC are missing the point. Consumers don't care about NFC, they care about convenience. Convenience is paying with your smartphone, and Apple has, apparently, figured out a way to make that happen.
You can't enumerate the experience of using an Apple product with a list of specifications any more than you could express the beauty of a sunset with an Excel spreadsheet. I'm not saying it's unquantifiable, but I am saying it's far more subtle than, "ZOMG the iPhone doesn't even have NFC or springy cameras!" These are implementation details, not features, and consumers don't care about implementation details, they care about a quality experience. Apple knows how to deliver a quality experience.
EDIT: Lest anyone think I am a breathless Apple fanboy, here's some data to back up my claim that Apple knows how to deliver a quality experience:
http://www.jdpower.com/content/press-release/upO8vjP/2012-u-...
You can't enumerate the experience of using an Apple product with a list of specifications any more than you could express the beauty of a sunset with an Excel spreadsheet. I'm not saying it's unquantifiable, but I am saying it's far more subtle than, "ZOMG the iPhone doesn't even have NFC or springy cameras!" These are implementation details, not features, and consumers don't care about implementation details, they care about a quality experience. Apple knows how to deliver a quality experience.
EDIT: Lest anyone think I am a breathless Apple fanboy, here's some data to back up my claim that Apple knows how to deliver a quality experience:
http://www.jdpower.com/content/press-release/upO8vjP/2012-u-...
I find it interesting and awaited that Apple now has grown to the size that it has become more restrictive with introducing new features and technologies. It seems to happen to all companies that get a too big piece of the market cake, think for example what happened to Nokia a couple of years ago.
What does 'more restrictive' even mean? What are you comparing this to? Is there some specific feature that is in demand that Apple has failed to deliver on due to their massive size?
Restrictive in the sense that the company now has so many devices out in the market that making more radical changes in the software (in this case the operating system) or by introducing not backward-compatible new hardware can affect millions of users with older hardware negatively. Apple still wants to support all the older iPhones so that they can get money from the app store, if an app would need to have a separate version for older devices it would change their app market in a negative way.
Ok that makes sense, but isn't that just change for the sake of it. Again, I question if there is a clearly superior alternative that they are deliberately avoiding.
I don't really understand what people expected - Apple's device strategy is fairly predictable, and what was announced was almost exactly what has been expected by all the rumour sites for at least a month or two now...
Hacker News should be renamed to Consumer News with this kind of articles. Please stop upvoting such *@$#! ...
I like how the guy in the picture has really large hands to make the Lumia 920 seem smaller than it is (about as big as a Galaxy S3 or One X, but with a smaller 4.5" screen). But on the other hand, I can't really blame them considering Apple tried to make their iPhone 5 seem to have a significantly larger screen, when it's really just 14% bigger, and what I'd hardly consider a main reason for upgrading to it.
Lumia 920 has interesting hardware, and some important innovations that others should pursue as well - better low-light performance, optical stabilization, a screen that's better in sunlight, but I think it ultimately falls short even of iOS with its WP8 OS. Sure iOS may be boring, and may barely try to catch-up with features Android has introduced years ago, but at least it has the ecosystem WP8 is trying to catch-up with Android and iOS, but it hardly has any ecosystem at all. For example, if you thought "Android has no games" (it does, but maybe not the latest hot ones on iOS), well the situation is much, much worse on Windows Phone. Windows Phone will never be the one to get the latest "hot apps", and will never be the one to have all the best "niche" apps that may be very useful to a certain category for people.
Lumia 920 has interesting hardware, and some important innovations that others should pursue as well - better low-light performance, optical stabilization, a screen that's better in sunlight, but I think it ultimately falls short even of iOS with its WP8 OS. Sure iOS may be boring, and may barely try to catch-up with features Android has introduced years ago, but at least it has the ecosystem WP8 is trying to catch-up with Android and iOS, but it hardly has any ecosystem at all. For example, if you thought "Android has no games" (it does, but maybe not the latest hot ones on iOS), well the situation is much, much worse on Windows Phone. Windows Phone will never be the one to get the latest "hot apps", and will never be the one to have all the best "niche" apps that may be very useful to a certain category for people.
"Lumia 920 has interesting hardware, and some important innovations that others should pursue as well - better low-light performance, optical stabilization, a screen that's better in sunlight"
Has it?
Better low light performance? You mean what NOKIA(biased source) says their PROTOTYPE(vaporware) has compared with olds iphones. You mean the faked night photos that now display a "simulated photo" in the corner after people discovered the truth?.
Are you referring to the "RED camera in a van" optical stabilization of the fake videos NOKIA released and had to apologize for or are you referring to the real prototype stabilization that is worse than the Iphone 4S one?
If so I have some Unicorns and a Big Tower to sell you(it is in the center of Paris, you will love it!).
I find is going to be terrible hard for Windows to compete on phones, tablets are another thing, people need windows for a lot of things after all.
Has it?
Better low light performance? You mean what NOKIA(biased source) says their PROTOTYPE(vaporware) has compared with olds iphones. You mean the faked night photos that now display a "simulated photo" in the corner after people discovered the truth?.
Are you referring to the "RED camera in a van" optical stabilization of the fake videos NOKIA released and had to apologize for or are you referring to the real prototype stabilization that is worse than the Iphone 4S one?
If so I have some Unicorns and a Big Tower to sell you(it is in the center of Paris, you will love it!).
I find is going to be terrible hard for Windows to compete on phones, tablets are another thing, people need windows for a lot of things after all.
With a BOM of $167 for iPhone 5, while selling it for $650 at retail, I think Apple is just being cheap lately. They're all about lowering cost to increase their profit, and less about introducing new type of hardware inside the phone.
http://www.eetasia.com/ART_8800674648_480700_NT_eff210e8.HTM...
And sure, I realize that's not the whole cost for selling an iPhone, but if I remember correctly, a "new" iPhone's BOM used to be somewhere around $250-$300. I'm certainly seeing a trend downwards in cost. I think they mention the iPhone 4S BOM is cheaper "now", but I think it was more than $167 when it first launched, even though they barely changed anything. The iPhone 4's BOM was certainly higher.
http://www.eetasia.com/ART_8800674648_480700_NT_eff210e8.HTM...
And sure, I realize that's not the whole cost for selling an iPhone, but if I remember correctly, a "new" iPhone's BOM used to be somewhere around $250-$300. I'm certainly seeing a trend downwards in cost. I think they mention the iPhone 4S BOM is cheaper "now", but I think it was more than $167 when it first launched, even though they barely changed anything. The iPhone 4's BOM was certainly higher.
These BOM calculations are inherently flawed because there's no way a third-party can know what it actually costs to develop and produce the many custom parts in the phone.
The A6 chip, for instance, may incorporate standard ARM cores and chips, but it was developed using a custom internal design process. Similarly, the new combined-glass-and-digitiser screen must have involved a fair bit of R&D spend and changes to the manufacturing process before it could even be produced in the required volumes.
Apple consistently quotes a 30-40% margin (not gross margin) on its iOS range, which is not unreasonable considering the additional costs it sustains in developing value-added services like iCloud and having a good support setup in place.
Looking at the court records that were unsealed recently I honestly don't think the real iPhone BOM has changed that much from model to model, with the exception that it's hugely profitable for Apple to continue to sell the older model (now the 4S) with cheaper-to-produce components.
The A6 chip, for instance, may incorporate standard ARM cores and chips, but it was developed using a custom internal design process. Similarly, the new combined-glass-and-digitiser screen must have involved a fair bit of R&D spend and changes to the manufacturing process before it could even be produced in the required volumes.
Apple consistently quotes a 30-40% margin (not gross margin) on its iOS range, which is not unreasonable considering the additional costs it sustains in developing value-added services like iCloud and having a good support setup in place.
Looking at the court records that were unsealed recently I honestly don't think the real iPhone BOM has changed that much from model to model, with the exception that it's hugely profitable for Apple to continue to sell the older model (now the 4S) with cheaper-to-produce components.
The carriers are also dying for a third major OS, but time will tell. Maybe the features Apple left out aren't as loved by common people as bloggers make them seem.
Personally I'd want better battery life (who wouldn't) but would not buy a phone for a stylus and 5.5 inch screen is too big for me.
Personally I'd want better battery life (who wouldn't) but would not buy a phone for a stylus and 5.5 inch screen is too big for me.
People throwing screen size into the mix with battery life and NFC are confusing 2 very separate things anyway. Screen size isn't a feature. If we all want big screens, then I guess iPad wins at the the mobile phone market (obvious failings aside, like, it's not actually a phone).
And yes, wasn't the whole point of the iPhone (in the 2007 keynote no less) that it didn't use a stylus?
We may not all want big screens, but the trend with Android high end phones has been that each generation has pushed the screen size higher within limit. Presumably for a reason: People buy those models. Even the Galaxy Note, which was ridiculed, went on to sell many million.
As for the stylus: It's a selling point to not need a stylus for regular use, but for some types of use a stylus is far superior. Your fingers are no good for making precise drawings, for example, or for scribbling hand written notes. They simply don't have small enough tips.
And even the name of the Galaxy Note makes the point that it is aiming for a niche of users that want to be able to replace paper note books while still getting all the benefits of a modern smartphone, including being able to not use the stylus when it's not needed.
As for the stylus: It's a selling point to not need a stylus for regular use, but for some types of use a stylus is far superior. Your fingers are no good for making precise drawings, for example, or for scribbling hand written notes. They simply don't have small enough tips.
And even the name of the Galaxy Note makes the point that it is aiming for a niche of users that want to be able to replace paper note books while still getting all the benefits of a modern smartphone, including being able to not use the stylus when it's not needed.
That's surprising to hear, because most carrier stores only seem to push Android and iOS - not Windows Phone (which is the most ideally placed to become no.3).
> "The carriers are also dying for a third major OS"
I'm rooting for either Firefox OS or Tizen to fill that void.
I'm rooting for either Firefox OS or Tizen to fill that void.
http://news.cnet.com/8301-13579_3-57510406-37/iphone-5-faces...
The market is already open. Apple has never dominated. They just make a really good product that's loved by millions. :-) It's also clear that even more people are happier choosing a different phone.