Posted on 07/03/2010 9:38:54 PM PDT by stripes1776
It is floundering if they cannot compete with the lowly iPhone 4. They can’t gte one on the market.
What do I care what 50 million China men use to make a phone call. This is me, here, in the USA. Nokia sucks bigtime!
Excuse me, what part of 44% of the market do you not understand?
Do you seriously continue to admit that Nokia completely dominates mobile devices and the smartphone market? Seriously?
Some companies take the open web literally. There really has to be some line drawn between public and private conversations. Perhaps this company wants to comb your conversations and then target advertising at you based on the subjects that you talk about. This is what Google does in gmail. Google reads your email, keeps track of what you talk about in a database along with what you search for, and then targets advertising at you based on what you are talking about. It's called personalization. But I could think of more accurate terms for it.
Racist much?
If they don’t have a product to compete with the iPhone 4, then what kind of junk are they selling?
Do you care about QUALITY, or only millions of people buying junk because it’s cheap?
I know your answer.
Nokia does NOT have a viable alternative to iPhone 4.
But see, that's talking about actual superiority, which is an actual argument (one that I won't enter) but you were using number as units sold to imply superiority. If you do that, Windows beats Mac as a desktop OS.
Whether that's true or not rests on the merits of the OS itself, not on how popular it is. ie. Bell bottoms were notsuperior pants, and James Cameron is not history's best director.
Since when do Conservatives care about racism? Would you prefr I allude to Europeans?
You’re now drifting into Liberal Land.
Ah jeez, I'm still back on 56 here...
God God!
Apple knows Microsoft has the numbers down pat.
It’s just that their products are as ugly as sin, un-fun and just plain disgusting.
Apple knows Microsoft has the numbers down pat.
It’s just that their products are as ugly as sin, un-fun and just plain disgusting.
So like I said, an Apple fan doesn't want to go down the Market Share path if their going to argue that commercial success of the iphone proves superior design.
Then Apple may be a better choice for people who's primary criteria is that it has to be pretty and fun.
Okay. What do you have against pretty and fun? You seriously like ugly and difficult?
PPS already laid out the numbers.
I do not own Apple products because the company sells more products. I seriously like them. Many people do.
I feel Apple has the edge in innovation, design and ease of use. They excel in industrial design.
Some people love Apple but won’y buy it due to price. Some don’t like Apple. People should buy what they like o matter what it is.
See? Now there is an actual argument.
People should buy what they like o matter what it is.
And there is a truth.
I'm actually pretty easy. I'm an Exchange adminstrator, and I use it for work. I want it to work with my mail servers and not cause me any grief about it. Pretty and fun are subjective.
You don’t have a computer at home? Where are you Freeping from?
I work in an industry where I have 5 computers and a TV on my desk. All of them [except eh TV] Windows based. I know what a pain it is use them. I hate them. From time to time they get viruses and I lose a lot of time and data.
I love coming home to my Apple. I’m on my fifth one. I have every computer I’ve ever owned. All work, but I don’t use them.
But they take ideas from others, pretty them up, and then sell it out as "brand new, totally invented by Apple" and most of their loyal buyers completely swallow it - hook, line, and sinker.
I think they go beyond prettying it up, and the success goes beyond marketing. What's frustrating to a lot of people who dislike Apple is that they don't get what Apple does, and here's where I think the disconnect comes in. A lot of the people who get on these threads are in the computer industry, frequently as programmers. To them, things that seem trivially easy are quite difficult to the average person, and their contempt for the average person is often barely concealed.
In my personal dealings with programmers, I've found that human interaction isn't high on their priority list. IIRC, the guy who got Windows XP out the door did a list of things that were and weren't important to programmers. On the important list were free Diet Cokes, snacks and fast computers. On the unimportant list were clothes, a social life, and personal hygiene. Where a lot of companies who do great technical innovation fail to get market share is because their interface is terrible, and when people can't figure it out, the programmers say it's because the end user is stupid. It's the same attitude I used to see in lumberyards before Home Depot and Lowe's took over the industry. If you walked in and you didn't know how many square feet a square of shingles covered, they treated you like crap on a birthday cake. Lowe's didn't invent the lumberyard/hardware store, but they ran most of the old style ones out of business. They did it by making an interface where someone who wasn't a contractor felt comfortable.
If you think Apple just pretties up the interface, you don't get it, and will never understand why their products develop such a loyal following, and quite honestly, why so many on these threads are so hostile to you. They make it so a non-technical person can understand it. Most programmers are horrible at interface design and don't care about it. Apple does. Using an Apple product, it's clear the end user was the focus during the entire design cycle, not the programmer.
My point is that has absolutely zero chance of happening as long as FaceTime is restricted to WIFI only. Apple will first need to get it working with 3G connections, and then figure out how to play with the other established networks (MSN, Google, Yahoo).
I agree with you, but I don't think it's staying on Wifi only, and Apple is offering it as an open standard. Obviously, MSN, Google, and Yahoo would love to have their own standard (well, Microsoft and Google, I dunno if Yahoo could pull one off) but if the FaceTime standard takes off, they may have to jump on board. There's no guarantee Apple can pull this off, BUT if they can make a video call as seamless as making a phone call, it really will change the game.
Well, I think more and more Microsoft is returning to their roots - make a solid, easy-to-use OS and leave it at that. They’re not worried about many of the application markets that they competed in before, and they’re letting smaller, more nimble companies move in. Those that actually DO innovate, not just integrate like Apple and Microsoft.
As far as FaceTime, the big beast in VOIP for consumer is Skype. That has an untold advantage in user base and simplicity. Both on the phone and on the desktop, and the syncing between the two.
For business, Cisco and Polycom dominate the market (like 90% of the market). Apple isn’t even a blip, and I don’t see that changing anytime soon because of the back-end and server integration required. When I was working on the Microsoft Roundtable (now Polycom VX5000, I believe) the push to make it work with all Cisco and Polycom devices was huge, because - even though it is by far the most innovative (truly innovative) and immersive conference room video conferencing tool - it had to work seamlessly with those other vendors to have any shot at all of being accepted. And I don’t see Apple doing that; it means Apple has to accept the Cisco and Polycom way of doing things, not expecting the other way around.
More of your vast store of Apple information? Like the rest. WRONG. I have it installed on my iPhones and iPad. Got it from the app store. Free.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.