Active Topics
-
[M7] [Announce] HP41cx (0)
to Applications by Halftux - 8 hrs, 23 mins ago -
Camera phone competition March 2023 "Endless" (21)
to General by Maemish - 1 day, 6 hrs ago -
Sailfish OS for the Motorola Moto G7 Power (XT1955-5) - (ocean) (9)
to SailfishOS by biketool - 3 days, 10 hrs ago - more...
| The Following User Says Thank You to christexaport For This Useful Post: | ||
 |
|
2009-10-29
, 07:32
|
|
Posts: 733 |
Thanked: 991 times |
Joined on Dec 2008
|
#262
|
Did I seriously just read the notion that Apple has better hardware than Nokia?
No.
Just... no.
Too often (and mostly in North American markets it seems), form is considered to be a direct representative of function and it is not. If I take a Volkswagen Beetle and cover it with gold, it is still a Volkswagen.
You want to see a piece of hardware that was truly ahead its time? The N95.
Designs like that, coupled with premier manufacturing installations (which, unlike other manufacturers, are managed by Nokia itself) makes Nokia one of the best hardware providers in the globe. Period.
People can criticize many things from Nokia, but hardware, no.
No.
Just... no.
Too often (and mostly in North American markets it seems), form is considered to be a direct representative of function and it is not. If I take a Volkswagen Beetle and cover it with gold, it is still a Volkswagen.
You want to see a piece of hardware that was truly ahead its time? The N95.
Designs like that, coupled with premier manufacturing installations (which, unlike other manufacturers, are managed by Nokia itself) makes Nokia one of the best hardware providers in the globe. Period.
People can criticize many things from Nokia, but hardware, no.
| The Following 4 Users Say Thank You to mrojas For This Useful Post: | ||
 |
|
2009-10-29
, 07:42
|
|
Posts: 1,878 |
Thanked: 646 times |
Joined on Sep 2007
@ San Jose, CA
|
#263
|
Originally Posted by christexaport
Maemo doesn't support 320x240 2.2 inch displays because ... Nokia has positioned it for higher end devices. There's nothing to stop the software from being written for smaller than 800x480 displays.
Try running Maemo on a 320x240 2.2 inch display. Try it without a touchscreen. Try it with 64 MB of RAM. Maemo is versatile, but I doubt it could power the 5800 or 6790. Symbian is versatile enough to run the mythical $100 smartphone one day.
I've run Linux and X on systems with less than 8MB of RAM, less than 800x480, and less than 50MHz of CPU. It was both comfortable and responsive. A version of Maemo that was optimized for that would be MUCH less frilly than the _CURRENT_ Maemo5 environment (and it might have to give up things like GNOME). But that doesn't mean Maemo _must_ run on higher end devices. That's just where Nokia has positioned it.
For example, a purely Qt based version of Maemo might be able to give up the X server entirely (Trolltech has certainly deployed Qt on devices small and X-less). Such a device would still be Maemo (nokia's linux, with a Qt API), but with a different set of features, probably a different look and feel, and definitely with a different footprint. And depending on how they've gone about it, it should be source code compatible with an app that only makes Qt and Linux type API calls ... and it _MIGHT_ even be binary compatible.
I'm speaking from a strategic standpoint as well as an architecture position. Maemo's UI will be hardware accelerated in Maemo 6, I believe, whereas Symbian's UI doesn't need a GPU at all at this point. The N900 represents a minimum hardware setup for Maemo 5. Its a high end Symbian device platform, though. It has certain parts that must be high end, whereas Symbian was designed to run on simpler hardware long ago.
Aim it at a low end market, and you can omit those features, and then omit the hardware that's necessary to support those features. It will be less frilly, yes. But that doesn't mean it wont be "Maemo".
__________________
My Personal Blog
My Personal Blog
|
|
2009-10-29
, 07:59
|
|
Posts: 367 |
Thanked: 176 times |
Joined on Oct 2009
|
#264
|
Originally Posted by DaveP1
Bookmark this statement and return 3 years later. You'll feel ashamed by then...
In what way do Google's products lock out the competition? I sync my N810 calendar with Google's because Google developed open APIs. There is an effort at Google to make all data that they store easily retrievable in open formats:
http://dataliberation.blogspot.com/2...ion-front.html
There may be many reasons to dislike Google but this is not one of them. Google dominates the competition, it doesn't lock it out.
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. This makes Google look like a nice, competitive company to the public, simply because no one knows what they're really up to... and you have to agree about that's far away from the truth, right?
The only relevant reason for their success is their dominating position of search engines. If it wasn't for that, they'd be nothing, and you know it. Who would even know about Gmail if it wouldn't be directly showcased after you search for any email client in Google Search (maybe the uninformed people would want other companies' services instead, very competitive Google!).
Sorry, but I can't agree about that Google is benefitting competition, I just can't. If you really want, I could easily continue, because I'd rather find it hard to defend Google...
|
|
2009-10-29
, 08:15
|
|
Posts: 1,878 |
Thanked: 646 times |
Joined on Sep 2007
@ San Jose, CA
|
#265
|
Originally Posted by c0rt3x
Me.
Who would even know about Gmail if it wouldn't be directly showcased after you search for any email client in Google Search
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.
__________________
My Personal Blog
My Personal Blog
|
|
2009-10-29
, 08:25
|
|
Posts: 177 |
Thanked: 128 times |
Joined on Jan 2008
@ Espoo, Finland
|
#266
|
Originally Posted by christexaport
First you said they'll "start charging exorbitantly for the service as the lone provider", now it's competition you're worried about.
If they control a market, they CAN control pricing or features. I'm not so worried about price as I am competition.
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.
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.
Anyway, certainly in-car systems will stay around and there will be users for navigation gear that doesn't need a net connection. 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. I agree with that, they have a good track record of not messing things up, actually, and I'm very happy that I don't have to put up with paying for a navigation license. I've never paid for Nokia's Maps license (used Maemo Mapper on the tablet) and I highly doubt that I ever will pay for it on any platform. Neither will I ever pay for a web browser, email client, webmail service, blogging service etc. either. I'm sure quite a few companies that provided those went under too.
Originally Posted by christexaport
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.
Choice is competition, and right now, Android will become a Google only space for navigation. NOT good, imo. In their quest to get more customer data, they're taking certain markets from the app development arena and keeping them for themselves.
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 is just silly and really hurts the level of discussion over here. 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.)
|
|
2009-10-29
, 08:31
|
|
Posts: 203 |
Thanked: 68 times |
Joined on Oct 2009
|
#267
|
Originally Posted by johnkzin
Throughout this thread I've been arguing that Google/Android will be the dominant mobile platform, in the way that Windows is on the desktop. That's all I'm arguing. You dismiss my discussing this sort of dominance vis-a-vis Windows and Apple as "irrelevant" and not "what counts," which is a bit bizarre since I'm only making a claim about who will have the dominant mobile platform. How is the question of market dominance not relevant to the question of market dominance?
No, it isn't. Apple has a vibrant business. It didn't shrivel up and die, it focused on a market segment it could keep, profit from, and thrive within. That's what counts. Being the biggest predator in the food chain isn't what counts.
Irrelevant. (and, they didn't lose the OS war, they (arguably) lost the war for mass market dominance, and that's assuming you consider the war to actually be over ... despite Apple publicly throwing in the towel in the late 90's, they've made steady gains since then; almost like they threw in the towel more to get people to shut up about useless topics, than because they actually lost an irrelevant contest).
...
It seems like you're arguing with every little thing I said, out of context, and ignoring my actual point. So it's like you're responding to somebody else who said something else.
I'm not making a claim about what is the best platform (I'm most interested in Maemo). I'm not making a claim about what sort of development process leads to the best applications. I'm not making a claim about the moral or philosophical superiority of one platform over another. I'm just making a claim about which platform has a strategy that is likely to lead to market dominance--an arena in which I think is Google/Android is leagues ahead of everybody else.
So, by analogy, that is the only sense in which I suggest that Apple lost the OS war with Windows, which you acknowledge yourself (above). Apple lost the war for platform dominance. Is Apple profitable and alive? Yes. Do they still have less than 10% of market share even after their big comback? Yes. And Windows has almost 90% still.
This is relevant because once Android achieves this kind of dominance, it will likely drive other competitors out of the market and as we all know from Windows, effect all remaining platforms (in terms of application availability, file compatibility, security issues, ability to communicate with other platforms, compatibility with services). 90% market share type of dominance gives influence to a platform that far exceeds it's own domain.
It's nice to talk about how Maemo is better than Android (which I agree with). But I think it's naive to ignore how effective Google's strategy is likely to be (free platform tightly integrated with free services and applications, hardware agnositic platform, and the applications and services will also probably be available on all other platforms). Android does not have to be the best, from the point of view of a sophisticated user, to achieve market dominance. Being the best in this sense may even be a hindrance to market dominance. The mass market is won over through the lowest common denominator (and free services and applications does hurt either).
Last edited by cb474; 2009-10-29 at 09:10.
|
|
2009-10-29
, 08:32
|
|
Posts: 177 |
Thanked: 128 times |
Joined on Jan 2008
@ Espoo, Finland
|
#268
|
Originally Posted by c0rt3x
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?
Bookmark this statement and return 3 years later. You'll feel ashamed by then...
|
|
2009-10-29
, 08:39
|
|
Posts: 1,950 |
Thanked: 1,174 times |
Joined on Jan 2008
@ Seattle, USA
|
#269
|
Originally Posted by Laughing Man
A user can want certain polished consumer apps and, at the same time, not like being closed out of the file system (as in the iPhone), "politically" prefer true (or close to true) open source, and prefer open source flexibility.
It seems you should be in the Android camp and not Maemo camp then. Because no matter how far Maemo goes it'll always be behind the iPhone, Android, and what not in those consumer apps.
|
|
2009-10-29
, 08:45
|
|
Posts: 203 |
Thanked: 68 times |
Joined on Oct 2009
|
#270
|
Originally Posted by christexaport
I only meant to say that Symbian is dead in the sense that I think it's going to die. It's true that it's not dead yet. And it's true that there is a large market for Symbian outside the U.S. and Europe.
Symbian is about as dead as any OS that owns half of the market. I have to call some of the shadetree analysts out. You can't quote singular analyst reports and news headlines as reliable sources. It takes heavy scrutinization of the data and a knowledge of the markets across the globe to get it right.
It took Apple's record-breaking growth for two straight years to get just ~15% of the global smartphone market. In one year, Android has a huge ~5%. At that pace, and with Symbian able to hold its 50% share, and a new UI coming soon, and with the fifth most visible brand in the world behind it, and with African, Indian, and Asian markets loving it (besides the US, those are the main growth markets for mobiles), and with a mature core, I wish the competitors luck.
The fact of the matter is that outside of the US market, Android and the iPhone are minor players. They're heavily leveraged in the US, and a disruption like a new Symbian on carrier shelves alonside a new WInMo could have an effect on the both OSes.
Maemo can't replace Symbian, nor can iPhone. It won't run on the cheap hardware needed in the developing markets of Asia, Africa, and India. Its a strictly high end offering. We're geeks, but not everyone can afford a $500-700 device. Symbian is too versatile and expensive to be ditched.
However, I think you can't ignore that 50% of the wealth in the world is in the U.S. and Europe and 10% of the worlds population has 85% of the wealth. So the market will disproportionatley cater to these places and people. A lot of money is made by selling a smaller number of high value devices and the expensive mobile carrier plans that go with them to the small number of people who have most of the wealth. In fact, most of the money to be made in a consumer economy comes from catering to the small percent of people who have almost all of the wealth. This is why the iPhone and Android can be massively profitable, without having to account for a huge percent of all mobile devices sold. Also, obviously the popularity of the iPhone far exceeds just the geeks and few people who actually pay $500-$700 for their device, since they are subsidized by the mobile carriers. Tens of millions of iPhones have already been sold. And now the iPhone is going on sale in China, so the inroads are starting elsewhere. And whatever products dominate at the top of the market tend to eventually trickle down and dominate the rest of the market as well. So I really don't think it makes sense to trivialize the rapid growth of the iPhone and Android platforms.
 |
| Tags |
| comparison, competition, droid, fight, milestone, motorola droid, motorola milestone, n900, nokia n900 |
«
Previous Thread
|
Next Thread
»
|
All times are GMT. The time now is 23:49.
Maemo-Freak.com
"...and the Freaks shall inherit the Earth."