[Swordmaker]

So, does a smartwatch have to be "programmable memory"? The smart part pertains to being able to do more than regular watches. I had a "smart" watch some 30 years ago, when I could do calculations on my "watch" (and yeah, for calculations, memory would be required).

Yeah, Adorno, it does. There are certain technical definitions that apply and to be a smart watch, not a feature watch which have been around for years, there are differences. You can't just define it the way YOU want, and then argue your strawman. That's the way Liberals frame discussions. I didn't think you were one of them. . .

Yet, even smartphones of today are mostly used to do the things that you describe in your list of functions of those "not so smart" watches. Smartwatches and smartphones can do a lot of things, but for the most part, most people don't use the majority of the features or functions or apps designed for them and into them.

Speak for yourself. What you describe are "feature phones," the kind that most Android users wind up using their far more capable smartphones to do and the reason they don't show up much on network statistics. That's why iOS is by far the most used mobile OS on the net, because Apple users do in fact USE their smartphones and iPads as they were intended, as small, portable computers, not just convenient Rolodexes.

Actually, you would be wrong on all counts!

iPads are no longer the best selling tablets. And iPhones are trailing Samsung smartphones by a bid margin. That the iPad and iPhones are very profitable, doesn't mean that they're the best selling. And, iPhones are getting close to being overtaken in Europe, by Windows phones. The luster is wearing off, quickly.

No, I wouldn't. Keep dreaming. In every category the Apple model is the number one selling model, not any other. If you want to count EVERY Samsung phone, you'd be right, but then you'd be counting feature phones and dumb phones as well. This is not up for debate. The iPhone, and iPad, are out selling all other models. The Windows phone has hit a little over 10% in Europe but not broken 2% share in the world market. . . Counting ALL makes of Windows phones. iPhones have greater than 60% of the Japanese market, approaching 60% of the US market. . .

New report says about a third of all tablets sold in 2013 were iPads<

by David Needle February 4 2014

A new report says iPad continues to be the most popular tablet with a healthy 33.9% share of the market, a slight dip from 35.7% for 2012.

The biggest mover in Strategy Analytics report is Samsung which is in second place with a 17.7% share representing over an 80% jump from a year ago.

Despite heavy marketing, Amazon's tablet share in Q4 stayed about the same as a year ago at 6%. Both Lenovo and Acer had triple-digit growth but sales still account for a relatively small piece of the market, shipping just 4 million tablets combined.

More data in TabTimes' continuously updated free online report The State of the Tablet Market

The vast majority of tablets that compete against the iPad are no-name Android white box tablets that sell for less than $50. . . and wind up sitting in drawers, unused. That is why net statistics show that usage on the Internet tops 80%, leaving a paltry 20% for all the rest!

Yep!!! Trailing! Trailing in "innovations", and Apple is getting worried about how the industry is looking at them. The fact remains that, Apple hasn't really had any real innovations for a very long time, and when they put out the iPhone, it was just the equivalent of a "better mouse trap" in the smartphone arena.

Oh? Show me anything in the Windows PC world the equivalent of the new MacPro. How about a cell phone or a tablet from any maker with a 64 bit processor or operating system. Intel has just finished making an Android 64 bit Kernel three weeks ago, but there are no Android 64 bit apps or devices that can take advantage of it yet. . . So, Adorno, who is trailing who on innovation???

The Android tablet apps are pathetic. . . mostly stretched phone apps. . . compared to over half a million optimized and designed for iPad apps on Apple tablets.

You must be new to the way the technology industry works, especially regarding how Apple works or doesn't work to get products "introduced or even mentioned".

Far from being new, Adorno. I've been in this industry for over 40 years, including in the journalistic end of it many years ago. I know far more about it than do you. And one hell of a lot more than you about Apple's DNA and how they announce, and don't announce, products. You haven't a clue. I also know what journalists can list and what they can't list. You obviously don't. Apple never makes any announcements on future products until they are good and ready. They do not leak rumors if they can at all help it. Many rumors are so far away from final released products they are laughable. . . and many rumored products never see the light of day.

I will be really interested in seeing a Windows PC that matches the MacPro in footprint, power consumption, capabilities, cooling ability, operation noise, cost, features, and abilities. . . and yes, innovation.

[adorno]

There are certain technical definitions that apply and to be a smart watch, not a feature watch which have been around for years, there are differences.

So, in order for a smartwatch to be classified as such, it has to show differences from a feature-watch? To many, and perhaps the majority of people, there is a very fine line between the "feature" designation and the "smart" designation. Many feature phones actuall had the "smarts" to be classified as "smartphones" but, since smartphones came loaded with more "features", they somehow became "smarter" or smart? Your definition of "feature" and "smart" only suits your desired definition, or desired outcome. Sound familiar? It's like the desired outcomes that global warming "scientists" wanted the world to believe.

You can't just define it the way YOU want, and then argue your strawman.

Yet, the only one creating the strawman and your own definition, is you. Look in the mirror, and you'll see the person you're describing very clearly.

That's the way Liberals frame discussions.

Well, you seem to understand the process very well. Why are you here? Aren't the liberal web sites exciting you anymore?

I didn't think you were one of them.

And you thought correctly the first time, but now, you want to include me in your liberal thought process.

Yet, even smartphones of today are mostly used to do the things that you describe in your list of functions of those "not so smart" watches. Smartwatches and smartphones can do a lot of things, but for the most part, most people don't use the majority of the features or functions or apps designed for them and into them.

Facts are hard to overcome, and most people still don't use most of the features that come with their smartphones. And most won't ever use more than 10 apps, even as there are many thousands of "free" apps available, and most of the paid are "cheap" to download. So, my comments stand unrefuted by you.

Speak for yourself.

I speak for myself, but I also speak from knowledge about how things actually work in the real world. Most people go with what's popular, and many just follow the crowd. What most smartphone users have in their hands, is what is popular, and not because they actually did any research on what those devices have that people actuallly need.

What you describe are "feature phones," the kind that most Android users wind up using their far more capable smartphones to do and the reason they don't show up much on network statistics.

Well dude, you just made my point. That's exactly what I said before, that, most people use their smartphones as "feature" phones, and don't actually need the other features that come with the more capable smartphones. Same thing would happen with "smartwatches" if they could be called smart.

That's why iOS is by far the most used mobile OS on the net, because Apple users do in fact USE their smartphones and iPads as they were intended, as small, portable computers, not just convenient Rolodexes.

The most "used" mobiel OS is Android, by far. iOS had a lead in the early years after the iPhone was introduced, but the market-share for mobile devices usage, has iOS declining its "share", while Android continues climbing.

"Today, Android runs on 43 percent of all the world’s smartphones while Apple iOS still runs on one in five smartphones.

Of the 227 countries for which data is tracked by StatCounter, Android was the market leader in 135 countries, whereas Apple was the market leader in only 38 countries, including the U.S.

Android’s biggest advantage is that it isn’t tied to a single device manufacturer or relatively limited price point, which is why the Google-owned OS is very popular in countries with low per-capita income. Android isn’t losing any non-price-sensitive consumers either, because companies like Samsung and HTC produce high-end Android-powered phones featuring the newest technology."

http://www.ibtimes.com/android-vs-ios-whats-most-popular-mobile-operating-system-your-country-1464892

iOS might still have great numbers, but, it's headed in the wrong direction: downwards.

Actually, you would be wrong on all counts!

iPads are no longer the best selling tablets. And iPhones are trailing Samsung smartphones by a bid margin. That the iPad and iPhones are very profitable, doesn't mean that they're the best selling. And, iPhones are getting close to being overtaken in Europe, by Windows phones. The luster is wearing off, quickly.

I'm still correct with all my statements above...

No, I wouldn't. Keep dreaming.

This is the real world, and I don't dream about technology or about companies or about devices. But, why do you?

In every category the Apple model is the number one selling model, not any other.

Well, dude, when playing the single model device game, you would be right, but, iPhones compete in the space of MANY, meaning, it's just one of many devices which occupy the competitive space of "smartphones", and when it comes to the larger ecosystem, the totality of Android devices have iPhones beat by a mile. Heck, iPhones have HTC beat by many miles, but the, HTC is just one of many, and when one talks about the competition, it's about the OS supported devices, and when it comes to Android, it's got iOS beat by a few miles.

If you want to count EVERY Samsung phone, you'd be right, but then you'd be counting feature phones and dumb phones as well.

Well, again, you're playing the game with your simple set of rules, but, that's not how the competition in smartphones works. The competition is composed of many players, and Samsung is the one player with the most smartphones, and the biggest variety of them. iPhones come in simple variety of "release cycles', meanning that, the variety is made up of new and older and oldest, but in reality, it's just the same iPHone with some minor upgrades for each new release cycle. Samsung has iPhones beat handily, and the whole Android marketplace has Android phones beating iPHones by a lot of miles.

This is not up for debate.

You sound like a well-trained liberal, with the "debate is settled" argument. But, the debate really is settled when it comes to smartphones, and Samsung alone has iPhones trailing badly, and when the whole Android set of phones are counted, Apple is even further behind. Those are real facts, and the "debate is over"..

The iPhone, and iPad, are out selling all other models.

Then, you must be looking at figures from 2 or 3 years ago, because, current figures have iPHones coming in second, but way behind Andriod phones, and iPads might still be selling well, but, declining and in danger of becoming also rans in about another year.



WP is already ahead of iPhones in many European countries, and growing. iPhones are in danger of becoming #3 in all of Europe soon. WP wasn't even available in most parts of the world last year, in reality, at this stage after thier release, they have more smartphones sales than iPhones did at the same stage. When it comes to wordwide market share, I've heard that WP is closer to 3.2% and rising, while iOS is losing market share, even as it still has good sales.

"For 2013, the Microsoft mobile operating system placed third with 3.2 percent of the market share. "

http://www.latinpost.com/articles/7356/20140215/ios-vs-android-windows-phone-market-share-2013-google-smartphones.htm

Counting ALL makes of Windows phones. iPhones have greater than 60% of the Japanese market, approaching 60% of the US market. .

Well, you can go ahead and pick and choose the numbers which make you feel comfortable, but the fact remains that, Android is still way ahead of iOS worldwide, by a lot, while WP is on the rise, and Apple's devices are on the decliine.

New report says about a third of all tablets sold in 2013 were iPads

Well, there you have it. iPad "only" have 1/3 of sales, whereas, everybody else is rising in sales, and iPads continue dropping in market share.

A new report says iPad continues to be the most popular tablet with a healthy 33.9% share of the market, a slight dip from 35.7% for 2012.

There you go again, making the points for me which I've been making all along. The point being that, Apple's share of tablets sold is decreasing, while the competition is taking off. Android tablets sales are way ahead of iPad sales, and Windows tablets are just beginning to make noise, and they too, will eventually overtake iPad sales; it's just a matter of time.

The biggest mover in Strategy Analytics report is Samsung which is in second place with a 17.7% share representing over an 80% jump from a year ago.

Well, there you go again. Picking and choosing the figures and reports that make you feel comfortable.

Fact: iPads compete against Android tablets and Window-powered tablets. iPads are falling behind, while total sales of all Android tablets has overtaken iPads, and then, you have Windows tablets on the rise too. Try looking a the total picture, rather then the bits that make you feel comfortable.

Despite heavy marketing, Amazon's tablet share in Q4 stayed about the same as a year ago at 6%.

That's fine and dandy, but, irrelevant for the total picture. Fact is that, that 6% is just part of the big picture for tablets sales. Android tablets sales, including the Amazon devices, are way ahead of iPads. It's as simple as that.

Both Lenovo and Acer had triple-digit growth but sales still account for a relatively small piece of the market, shipping just 4 million tablets combined.

Again, you're picking and choosing the minor points which make you feel comfortable. Lenovo and Acer and all others that make tablets, are all part of the "competing team", the team being composed of all Android tablets, and, those are actually beating iPads very handily. That's not counting the many millions of Surface tablets sold, which also keep iPads from gaining market share, and actually have iPads losing market share.

More data in TabTimes' continuously updated free online report The State of the Tablet Market

No matter where YOUR chosen data comes from, it's still not going to undo the real facts on the ground.

The vast majority of tablets that compete against the iPad are no-name Android white box tablets that sell for less than $50. . .

That might be a fact, and even I have major problems with what people are being sold, and which count as tablets for Android. Having said, that ,the fact remains that, they're Android tablets, and for a lot of people, those tablets might suffice to keep them or their children occupied. The major fact remains that, they didn't have to pay the "Apple tax" to own a simple "media/entertainment device". BTW, not all of them are $50 devices, and many are $100 and above devices, which are quite capable, and offer capabilities about equal to, or better than what iPads offer. The matter remains that, those are tablets, and when a sale is made of one of them, it takes away from the iPad market share, which means that, whoever purchases a "non-iPad" tablet, won't be buying an iPad, which, again, hurts the iPad marketshare. It's as simple as that, dude.

and wind up sitting in drawers, unused.

Heck, that happens with iPads too, and in fact, the original iPad has been orphaned by the newer iOS versions, which means that, they're likely to be collecting dust on a shelf or corner or closet somewhere; and that device is barely 4 years old, and cost a lot of money to own, which tells people to stay away from Apple devices, which might become orphaned and unusable 3 or 4 years after purchase.

That is why net statistics show that usage on the Internet tops 80%, leaving a paltry 20% for all the rest!

Well, dude, the competition has had less time in getting started, especially when it comes to Windows-powered devices. When it comes to iOS devices, well, what else are they going to use, since the vast majority of them won't have Macs to use for internet stuff. Spending $600-$900 on an Apple device, tends to leave those people with not too much disposable incoome to get a PC; which leads me to the next point. The bigger point is that, when it comes to internet usage, over 80% of people use PCs to do their browsing and content consumption, which then leaves all tablets and smartphones combined, with less than 20% of internet usage. Thus, even that 80% that Apple might have for internet usage with their devices, turns out to be a very minor share of internet usage.

Yep!!! Trailing! Trailing in "innovations", and Apple is getting worried about how the industry is looking at them. The fact remains that, Apple hasn't really had any real innovations for a very long time, and when they put out the iPhone, it was just the equivalent of a "better mouse trap" in the smartphone arena.

Those comments are still true, like them or not!

Oh? Show me anything in the Windows PC world the equivalent of the new MacPro.

Oh? How about any PC that is equivalently equipped with hardware, and that runs Windows Pro? Remember that, whatever a MacPro has, is made from components available to the Windows OEMs too, and even to Microsoft. But, what good is a powerful MacPro, if it doesn't have the client base? The MacPro is not much more than a marketing gimmick, since, there aren't too many takers for something that can cost around $10,000 for something that can be made a lot cheaper by others? My daughter just bought a couple of servers from Lenovo for her business, and they were tailored for her business, and each of them offer about as much power as a comparabley equipeed MacPro, and both of them together cost less than $5,000. Yep! Apple, the dinosaur!

How about a cell phone or a tablet from any maker with a 64 bit processor or operating system.

The Surface tablets, and other OEM tablets with i5 and i7 processors, were out a long time before any iPad or iPhone 64 bit devices. And, when it comes to the usability or necessity of 64 bits on a smartphone, is actually overkill and unnecessary. But, smartphones and tablets with 64 bits will become the norm in a few months. even as it's still overkill. The 64 bits is already the "norm" with Windows devices, and with Windows 7 and Windows 8, so, again, Apple is playing catch-up.

Intel has just finished making an Android 64 bit Kernel three weeks ago, but there are no Android 64 bit apps or devices that can take advantage of it yet. . . So, Adorno, who is trailing who on innovation???

Again, you have no understanding of what real innovation is about. Innovation is not about slapping a useless 64 bit processor on a device. It's about actually creating a usable device with the technology. 64 bits that is overkill and unneeded, is the same as putting a 600 horsepower engine on a Chevy Cruze. DUMB!!! But, for Apple it's not dumb, since they still have the Apple fanatics, like you, who'll eat it up, and will plunk down $600 for something which is totally without need or use. So, who's fooling who? Apple has all of you people eating all of its crap, while they take your money and put it into its huge stash of cash.

The Android tablet apps are pathetic. . . mostly stretched phone apps. . . compared to over half a million optimized and designed for iPad apps on Apple tablets.

Fact: over 65% of apps in Apple's apps store, go unnoticed and unused and never get downloaded. Only a tiny percentage are of actual value to the consumer. Apps count is just a marketing strategy, and of little use to Apple device users. I have no illusions about the quality of Android apps, but the vast majority of them are of no use, and never used. The apps ecosystems are a major con job for the OS makers. Some of the better apps. come already includded with the devices, like connectivity to the social sites, and Skype, and GPS and other such software. In fact, with my LG G2, I haven't had to buy any app from Google's store, and I haven't even had to investigate what comes for free, since, they're of little use to me. And I'm pretty sure that most people are like me, but many might have a use for a few more apps than I have.

You must be new to the way the technology industry works, especially regarding how Apple works or doesn't work to get products "introduced or even mentioned".

I still feel that way about you, no matter how long you've been in the industry. Some people can work in an industry, and still be very clueless about a lot of it.

Far from being new, Adorno. I've been in this industry for over 40 years, including in the journalistic end of it many years ago.

Well, I've got you beat by a few years, and I spent most of it doing the actuall hard work, including programming and analysis and project management and department managemen, and I even owned by own consulting firm, with a few people working for me and around me. Most of my years were spent on mainframes and on mini-computers, and I had my first introduction into PCs when the first McIntosh came out, but even before that, I was fluent on the Ataris and Commodores and a few others.

I know far more about it than do you.

Highly doubtful, and according to your comments, not even close. You operate from a fanboi mentality, with Apple being your mothership, and you would probably sacrifice your pets to defend Apple. ;)

And one hell of a lot more than you about Apple's DNA and how they announce, and don't announce, products. You haven't a clue.

Well, dude, the famous ways that Apple "dropped hints" or "had leaks occur" or "accidentally left a device on a bar counter", are well-known, but that gimmick got pretty old after the first few times, and now, they use "leaked rumors" to get people "excited" about things that might come or not. Like, the famous Apple TV leaks, and the famous Apple gaming device which never happened, or the famous "motion sensing tech" which never came. People are out there, trying to create buzz about Apple's next big thing. But, people aren't buying, and Apple aint doing anything to get people excited. They're just the iPhone and iPad makers, with tiny tweaks to those devices every 6-8 months, while nothing real in innovations.

I also know what journalists can list and what they can't list.

I know what I see and read, and I read extensive from technology tech sites and blogs, and when it comes to Apple, it's one love-affair after another, and Apple is the darling of the tech blogging world. You're obviously one that has had a long-running love affair with Apple, and it makes no sense whatsover. There are far too many people that need to get their life's priorities straight, and you are a prime candidate for that.

You obviously don't.

No, I've got better things to do. I don't go around kissing butts, and I don't have love affairs with inanimate objects, like companies and devices or software. I just use them when needed, and I have no favorites, other than the ones which will get the job done for me, at reasonable and affordable prices. I don't go goo-goo over 64 bits processors when they're not needed, and I don't go for the hype.

Apple never makes any announcements on future products until they are good and ready.

You could say the same for all technology companies, and Apple is the worst when it comes to the hype buildup for a new release. At ZDNet, people were speculating about the "new" iPhones, with the colorful "lower-priced" devices to come, and the new 5S device with the 64 bits processor, with iOS 7. We knew about 2 months ahead of time, and the Apple fanatics were saying that they wanted one, no matter what, and without knowing what was really coming. With Apple, it's just about equivalent to a religion, and one which can be compared to how the global warming people feel about their "science".

They do not leak rumors if they can at all help it.

Oh, but they do "help it". They do it all the time, and they've been doing it forever. The Apple religion depends on the hype and the game of leaks and rumors. It's how Apple keeps people interested, even if there is nothing real to get excited about.

Many rumors are so far away from final released products they are laughable. . . and many rumored products never see the light of day.

We knew about Siri weeks before the 4S came out, and we knew about the iPad weeks in advance, and we knew about the MacPro before it debuted. So, where have you been?

I will be really interested in seeing a Windows PC that matches the MacPro in footprint, power consumption, capabilities, cooling ability, operation noise, cost, features, and abilities. . . and yes, innovation.

I've already said how useless a MacPro is in the real world. No manufacturer should be producing a device with no real market as a target. The MacPro was created with the "wow" factor, but not with the "you need this" factor in mind. But like I said before, there is nothing in the MacPro that can't be produced by any competitor, since, components-wise, it's all made from "boilerplate" technology.

Again, you misunderstand the word "innovation". There is nothing in the MacPro that is innovative, other than the shape of the machine. All of the "innovation" belongs to the manufacturers and designers of the components.

To boot, a machine can be created that can match the components of the MacPro. Heck anybody can create a much better machine with much better components than Apple put into the MacPro, but why? The target clients won't be really interested in paying $8,000-$10,000 for a machine which will be overkill for their needs. For perhaps $5000, a similarly equipped machine can be built. And that machine can be equipped with either Windows 8.1 or Linux, both of which are more powerful than Maverics, and much more useful. And all of that for a much lower price. Innovation is not about slapping components together into a neat looking device. It's a lot moe about practicality and usefulness and price.

Apple does have one thing going for it that neither Google nor Microsoft possess: it's the rabidly loyal fanatics that will purchase any Apple device, no matter how behind he times that device and/or software might be.

And,hey, get a life. Kissing Apple's butt is no way to live, unless you're a paid employee or a huge stock owner of theirs. Otherwise, you're probably losing a lot of sleep, just trying to defend Apple.