maemo.org - Talk - Nokia N900 vs. Motorola Droid / Milestone

maemo.org - Talk (https://talk.maemo.org/index.php)

- Competitors (https://talk.maemo.org/forumdisplay.php?f=4)

- - Nokia N900 vs. Motorola Droid / Milestone (https://talk.maemo.org/showthread.php?t=33091)

Re: N900 vs. Motorola Droid (Verizon Android device)

Quote:

Originally Posted by johnkzin (Post 360494)

Me.

That's not how I found out about Gmail. I found out about Gmail from the raves of early adopters. For years, I didn't believe them (it's just webmail after all; I had seen other webmail solutions, and they all sucked compared to a nice local mail client). Then a year ago, both in preparation for a project, and because I got a G1, I started to actually use Gmail. Turned out, the raves I had heard were pretty much all true.

I used to be a loyal Apple Mail user (well, actually, a NeXT Mail user ... Apple Mail just inherited the mantle). I reluctantly gave it up for Thunderbird, when Apple refused to fix a few issues in the IMAP client, over multiple versions. And, last year, I gave up Thunderbird. Sure, there are a few little things I wish I still had, but, for about 90% of it, I prefer Gmail.

I have also, for 15 years, been a die hard "run my own mail server" kinda guy. In addition to doing that at work. Google has pretty much put those things to bed ... not by forcing me to, in any stretch of the imagination ... but by simply offering a better alternative in almost every way. "Free" isn't the only dimension in which they're better. "Advertized in their search results" isn't the only draw to them.

Google isn't just leveraging the search engine success to monopolize email. They've created what are, honestly and sincerely, better email products.

I'm not sure I can say exactly the same about their other apps. I barely use their Calendar and Docs. I don't really use any of their other stuff. I can say that I find Google Sites a little annoying, but it has some promise. But my inability to say "better products", except with Sites, is due to my lack of familiarity with them ... not because they aren't better products.

The thing is that it's much easier to develop and improve products either if everyone is using them, or if you've an unlimited amount of money. And this is the unfair advantage that Google has, and since they get more and more money for their following services, they'll only get better and better, and more and more, just like "the evil spiral".

That makes it really hard to compete against Google, and you can't honestly say it's a good thing that one single company rules all information about the entire world, and its inhabitants!? And I didn't even mention what Google can do with the data.

By not using Google's services you make a personal short-term sacrifice, but in the end, you'll have made the right decision, because - as debated here - competition is always good, and there won't be any competition if one company will rule the world.

I agree about that Google's services are really innovative, but once Google maintains domination in that area, then they simply quit to innovate, and if there would be other alternatives from the past, which hopefully have survived until now, with their own funds (this is important, and it's difficult to compete against Google's moneyhats), then we'd have much better products, but unfortunately it isn't the case.

Remember, why does Google have to do an innovative service? To make it everyone's (and then I mean everyone's) service of choise. But once everyone uses Google's services, why do they then need to keep innovating, if they already have all possible customers in the world? It's simple, they won't, and just like M$ or any other profitable company, they won't do something that costs AND isn't worth it for themselves.

Of course they have to keep possible competitors away all the time, and think about their position in the long-term, but better products doesn't always mean (read: almost never means) more popular products. Take the Google Pic Search for example. While they're unrivaled in popularity, Bing Pic Search has actually exceeded Google's counterpart in terms of quality, and yet Bing isn't even close to Google's popularity.

Right now Google only has to be "good enough" to keep their dominative position, and as long as they keep the competitors away, which means people won't jump over from Google, they'll still make profits, which is what it's all about, right? But just imagine how much better Google Search could have been, if someone else would also share a piece of the pie (a significant part of the market share).

MONOPOLY IS NEVER EVER GOOD, AND SHOULD BE AVOIDED AT ALL COSTS, EVEN IF "PERSONAL SACRIFICES" ARE REQUIRED!!!

Note: This text is somewhat naive and simplified, but I find it better to be this way, because the most well-informed people are already against Google, which means this text should be targetet at those who aren't in this belief yet... (sorry for wasting your time in case you don't fit in this targeted group)

Re: N900 vs. Motorola Droid (Verizon Android device)

Quote:

Originally Posted by c0rt3x (Post 360489)

Google is worse than Microsoft, Apple and Intel combined. Why? Because they (unlike the other big boys) keep their (evil) purposes in secret, and they're very good at it, thus their success.

Well, then, please explicitly "spill the beans" -- tell us exactly what Google's evil purposes are. Apparently you know the secrets.

Re: N900 vs. Motorola Droid (Verizon Android device)

Quote:

Originally Posted by GeraldKo (Post 360540)

Well, then, please explicitly "spill the beans" -- tell us exactly what Google's evil purposes are. Apparently you know the secrets.

Oh, this could be good. Better get the popcorn. I really hope the cigarette-smoking man is involved in this one, he was always in the best episodes.

Re: N900 vs. Motorola Droid (Verizon Android device)

Quote:

Originally Posted by BatPenguin (Post 360510)

So, let's see, Google was founded in 1998. Did they decide right away THEN that the date they would unleash their diabolical plans on the unsuspecting masses would be October 29th, 2012, or was this decided at a later board meeting?

2012... the end of the world - Google's world. :)

Re: N900 vs. Motorola Droid (Verizon Android device)

Quote:

Originally Posted by GeraldKo (Post 360540)

Well, then, please explicitly "spill the beans" -- tell us exactly what Google's evil purposes are. Apparently you know the secrets.

I'm short of time right now, but I promise to discuss this later. I'll summarize it like this:

"Watch out when something is free. You may be the price."

Re: N900 vs. Motorola Droid (Verizon Android device)

Quote:

Originally Posted by johnkzin (Post 360494)

I used to be a loyal Apple Mail user (well, actually, a NeXT Mail user ... Apple Mail just inherited the mantle). I reluctantly gave it up for Thunderbird, when Apple refused to fix a few issues in the IMAP client, over multiple versions. And, last year, I gave up Thunderbird. Sure, there are a few little things I wish I still had, but, for about 90% of it, I prefer Gmail.

I have also, for 15 years, been a die hard "run my own mail server" kinda guy. In addition to doing that at work. Google has pretty much put those things to bed ... not by forcing me to, in any stretch of the imagination ... but by simply offering a better alternative in almost every way. "Free" isn't the only dimension in which they're better. "Advertized in their search results" isn't the only draw to them.

Google isn't just leveraging the search engine success to monopolize email. They've created what are, honestly and sincerely, better email products.

I realize this is somewhat OT, but can you tell me exactly what is better about Gmail compared to local clients? To give a counter-example, I was a Gmail user until I discovered mutt and gnus, which blew Gmail out of the water.

IMO, apart from the convenience of ubiquitous access and virtually unlimited storage (an ambiguous blessing, given Google's data mining), Gmail is a tad bit overhyped. Evidence: the way in which many users assume that Gmail "invented" conversations, when conversations, in fact, are just a poor man's version of threading, which has been around since, like, forever. In my view, the appeal of Gmail was in making some power user features available for "for the masses" in a web mail interface. But it is still a web mail interface....

Now I understand that Gmail is user-friendly. You don't have to set up your own software or server. But it certainly does not have anywhere near the flexibity and power as a good local client, such as mutt or gnus.

Re: N900 vs. Motorola Droid (Verizon Android device)

Gmail really isn't all that good. It's necessary, however, simply because you need an account to access the rest of the google cloud. I would imagine Amazon's cloud system could be a massive threat to google because anybody can deploy their own services on a secure and reliable cloud (well, relatively speaking). The problem is amazon is making it extremely hard to use or understand. I certainly don't want a multi million dollar bill at the end of the month simply because there was an attack on my service. Maybe a prepaid service would be better.

As for the applications, it's still possible that all consumer applications will eventually be on the web. That's the idea behind Chrome anyway. Then all platforms (symbian, android, maemo) are equivalent. That's still a long way off, of course.

Re: N900 vs. Motorola Droid (Verizon Android device)

Quote:

Originally Posted by mdl (Post 360589)

Now I understand that Gmail is user-friendly. You don't have to set up your own software or server. But it certainly does not have anywhere near the flexibity and power as a good local client, such as mutt or gnus.

+1 for mutt!!

Re: N900 vs. Motorola Droid (Verizon Android device)

Quote:

Originally Posted by BatPenguin (Post 360504)

First you said they'll "start charging exorbitantly for the service as the lone provider", now it's competition you're worried about.

Quote:

This is again turning into these "google is evil" discussions. They updated one of their programs. I'm happy about that, you seem to scream "murder!" and see it as a mortal blow to an industry that, for some reason, should have been allowed to exist and continue charging stupid amounts for a product that by modern standards really "should be free" as there are plently of free map services everywhere on the Internet. Navigation industry about to go under? Good riddance.

This has nothing to do with Google, and everything to do with competition and innovation. I like Google's app, just not how it kills competitors. Its half their fault for not figuring how to leverage their products, but having one in control is bad news, whether its Nokia, Google, Apple, or anyone else.

Quote:

Why should we, as consumers, care if the navigation business is being forced into a "give your product for free/cheap and figure out how to make money otherwise" business model by somebody deciding to not charge for somethign that has been ridiculously expensive previously? Good for us. If Google messes this up and provides a service/product that's not good enough, there will still be a market for the other providers just like today.

That's not the point. The point is just like WalMart killed grocery in the South. We used to have Winn Dixie, Minyard's, Jewel T, Albertson's, and many other competitors in the DFW area, and now its just WalMart, Kroger, or Tom Thumb, unless you can afford Whole Foods and Central Market. There are less choices, bad produce quality at WalMart, meat prices and quality are nothing like Winn Dixie, etc. You never know what you miss until its gone. I see offline mapping as a thing of the past in the US without Nokia involved. Maybe this will get carriers into the licensing game with Ovi, but I'd still like to see a TeleAtlas branded app step forward, or Navteq will stop spending on improving map quality, and so on...

Quote:

Anyway, certainly in-car systems will stay around and there will be users for navigation gear that doesn't need a net connection.

That market isn't going to continue to grow, as navigation is becoming a smartphone thing, and automakers aren't going to be able to keep selling $600 Navi packages when we already have them in our pockets. Mobiles are a big threat to ICE companies. There's alot of data on that issue all over the place if you're willing to pay for the research papers. Automakers are trying to figure how to use the mobile data connection and device better to cover the losses, hence media player ports, WiFi and USB connections, etc.

Quote:

TomTom etc. stock price seems to imply that the guess is that Google will not mess this up and the days of most people paying for a license might be coming to an end.

Also, Google has long been a customer of TeleAtlas map data, and now they're using the GPS data of its customers to create its own maps and traffic data. So how does Tom Tom, owner of TeleAtlas, make money now? By selling out, and it'll be cheap. So we'll probably see TeleAtlas sold again, too. Let's hope Google scoops it up, or maybe Garmin.

Quote:

Uh. So of course Nokia shouldn't release Ovi Maps for free or include its price in the price of phones (as I think they do in some cases, probably more in the future), since this might hurt makers of other navigation software? These mobile systems come with all sorts of things, browsers, media players, navigators, email clients, etc. that some other company could be producing...are you similarly against Nokia including new features in updates that have been provided up until now by commercial applications? Selling navigation software for a system (Android) that has always included a very good map software doesn't exactly sound like the safest business to be in, to start with.

You make it sound as if I'm blaming Google for this mess. Its not all of their fault. Tom Tom had a bad business plan, and Garmin was too late to the party and owns no map data of its own. I just don't want any company running the market period. I enjoy my privacy, and Google isn't big on respecting it. Nokia is, but that's not the point. I want choices, and Ovi or Google may not be enough, especially if tied to specific OSes.

Quote:

The Google/Android conspiracy theories have been around here long enough and I have no intention of taking part in those anymore, it seems like in order to enjoy the Maemo products, we need to first "denounce Google and Android".

That's your opinion. Some feel that way, but this is more of a consumer protection stance for me. I don't use Google much except for search, but I see how they've taken over that, and can imagine if no other search engine existed. I don't agree with Google's privacy policies, either, and if you do, that's fine. This is an open source community, and certain philosophies will be prevalent. Don't hate, just realize some of the members here have experience with companies and organizations that have had Google-like philosophies, and they've negatively affected freedom of choices and options in the long run. You're free to like them, as do I, for the most part. But there's been some good points made, and you should research the root of these stances, not lash out at those that already have. For them, this is bad news. For you, it may be good. That's totally ok either way.

Quote:

That is just silly and really hurts the level of discussion over here.

Its not silly. That you don't agree isn't either. We're all free thinkers. Just respect everyone's opinions.

Quote:

But please: when you whine about Google's latest Maps offering update -- because, let's face it, it makes Android seem even more appealing to the ordinary consumer and Maemo conquering the world might look a bit less likely all the time -- consider if you'll be unleashing the same storm the day Nokia announces that they won't be charging for Ovi Maps anymore. That day will probably come eventually, the cost of Maps will be included in the price of all Nokia phones that come with it, that seems to be the safe way out for them. I expect to hear a lot of moaning about the fate of everybody who provides navigation software for Symbian/Maemo then. (Well ok, nobody provides anything for Maemo, but Symbian must have a few commercial navigation software providers somewhere in that wonderful Ovi store or some other place.)

Only if you place most importance in navigation. Not everyone uses it as much as you'd like to believe, and Nokia could easily match them in pricing and features over time. Their Navteq division is lucrative, and their map data is best in class. I hope they DON'T continue to charge for navigation, but I also hope someone can use TeleAtlas maps for an alternative. The fact they aren't charging for it isn't the issue. That less navigation options exist next year is. Cause is of no matter. The end result is bad for US.

Re: N900 vs. Motorola Droid (Verizon Android device)

Quote:

Originally Posted by christexaport (Post 360625)

I'm allowed to stand behind BOTH of those statements. I studied journalism and biomedical engineering, but I took a few business classes, and this is basic business rules. As long as there's one provider of any service, there is the chance that prices can rise AND competition will decrease. In the end, you'll have little innovation or push for improvement can stall for years.

Right now, the only real navi guys out there are Ovi, Google, and that's it. So Google will literally control US navigation unless Nokia can somehow get itself into the market. So we're already without much choice. See the implications? I don't like any map service that doesn't use Navteq maps, so I'd be SOL in the States.

Let's hope a competitor steps forward with similar pricing, or pretty soon, we'll all be having our lives siphoned by Google via mapping software without an offline component. I don't like using navigation software while connected to the web, only offline, to keep my privacy. Google wants the opposite.

This has nothing to do with Google, and everything to do with competition and innovation. I like Google's app, just not how it kills competitors. Its half their fault for not figuring how to leverage their products, but having one in control is bad news, whether its Nokia, Google, Apple, or anyone else.

That's not the point. The point is just like WalMart killed grocery in the South. We used to have Winn Dixie, Minyard's, Jewel T, Albertson's, and many other competitors in the DFW area, and now its just WalMart, Kroger, or Tom Thumb, unless you can afford Whole Foods and Central Market. There are less choices, bad produce quality at WalMart, meat prices and quality are nothing like Winn Dixie, etc. You never know what you miss until its gone. I see offline mapping as a thing of the past in the US without Nokia involved. Maybe this will get carriers into the licensing game with Ovi, but I'd still like to see a TeleAtlas branded app step forward, or Navteq will stop spending on improving map quality, and so on...

That market isn't going to continue to grow, as navigation is becoming a smartphone thing, and automakers aren't going to be able to keep selling $600 Navi packages when we already have them in our pockets. Mobiles are a big threat to ICE companies. There's alot of data on that issue all over the place if you're willing to pay for the research papers. Automakers are trying to figure how to use the mobile data connection and device better to cover the losses, hence media player ports, WiFi and USB connections, etc.

Also, Google has long been a customer of TeleAtlas map data, and now they're using the GPS data of its customers to create its own maps and traffic data. So how does Tom Tom, owner of TeleAtlas, make money now? By selling out, and it'll be cheap. So we'll probably see TeleAtlas sold again, too. Let's hope Google scoops it up, or maybe Garmin.

You make it sound as if I'm blaming Google for this mess. Its not all of their fault. Tom Tom had a bad business plan, and Garmin was too late to the party and owns no map data of its own. I just don't want any company running the market period. I enjoy my privacy, and Google isn't big on respecting it. Nokia is, but that's not the point. I want choices, and Ovi or Google may not be enough, especially if tied to specific OSes.

That's your opinion. Some feel that way, but this is more of a consumer protection stance for me. I don't use Google much except for search, but I see how they've taken over that, and can imagine if no other search engine existed. I don't agree with Google's privacy policies, either, and if you do, that's fine. This is an open source community, and certain philosophies will be prevalent. Don't hate, just realize some of the members here have experience with companies and organizations that have had Google-like philosophies, and they've negatively affected freedom of choices and options in the long run. You're free to like them, as do I, for the most part. But there's been some good points made, and you should research the root of these stances, not lash out at those that already have. For them, this is bad news. For you, it may be good. That's totally ok either way.

Its not silly. That you don't agree isn't either. We're all free thinkers. Just respect everyone's opinions.

Only if you place most importance in navigation. Not everyone uses it as much as you'd like to believe, and Nokia could easily match them in pricing and features over time. Their Navteq division is lucrative, and their map data is best in class. I hope they DON'T continue to charge for navigation, but I also hope someone can use TeleAtlas maps for an alternative. The fact they aren't charging for it isn't the issue. That less navigation options exist next year is. Cause is of no matter. The end result is bad for US.

Well said! I agree comletely! Thanks for your reply, now I don't have to say that. :D

The reason why Google services are free is because Google records the data what you do, how you do it, where you go, and so on, and then they sell the information about you (but who, does anybody know that for sure, maybe some governments with dictatorship are involved).

You "pay" for Google's services with your private integrity, instead of your physical money.

To me, Google is a Lenin (pro-communist) wannabe - no more, no less.