Page 6 of 9 FirstFirst 123456789 LastLast
Results 101 to 120 of 171
  1. #101  
    Quote Originally Posted by SoFly View Post
    No where did I say the Gov accounted for 22% of Firefox market share. I said we are required to use it. I'm sure other businesses, consumers, etc probably like using Firefox over IE. I know I like Firefox over IE on the PC because to me it seems faster. I'm sure other people notice that, too.

    How many business computers (the largest market for computers) would ever install iTunes? Mostly NONE. So, how would Safari have the opportunity to get installed on there in a sneaky way as you put it? About Chrome? We have a development section which is on an internal closed network and Chrome is installed and being used because people are curious about it because Google is pushing it as an future OS. Safari is just another browser. Nothing exciting about it.

    And no where did I say that everything Apple makes, they try to push it on everyone at any expense. Safari is just another FREE browser out there. You hear me talk about the Mac, iPhone, iPod, iPad and how successful those products are in the markets they compete in. Hardware is where Apple makes the majority of it's money, it's not software. I don't think you have heard me talk too much about Apple's software, other than Mac OS X, on this forum.

    Where is Apple trying to sneak Safari in with iTunes? Plese go to Apple. Click on the link at the very top that says "iTunes". Then when the page comes up, click the link in the upper right corner that says to "Download iTunes". Then another screen comes up and it says Download now. So, I downloaded it and NOWHERE does it try to install Safari.

    SO, YOU'RE LYING!
    Thats because Apple knows Safari sucks.. as does Chrome. Viva firefox!!
  2. #102  
    Quote Originally Posted by Weaser999 View Post
    funny enough, even though it was meant as sarcasm, if the iPhone were available on other carriers in the US it probably would sell more.
    It most certainly would, but it's not a matter of not being able to afford it. Few smartphones are more expensive to own over the length of a contract than Verizon ones, yet they continue to add more phone customers than ATT per quarter and remain a larger carrier overall as well. With a diversified Android lineup alone, they are smoking the ATT/iPhone combo. Truth is, they shed a lot of the people who "had to have" an iPhone already. A lot of carriers have.
  3. #103  
    Quote Originally Posted by SoFly View Post
    No where did I say the Gov accounted for 22% of Firefox market share. I said we are required to use it. I'm sure other businesses, consumers, etc probably like using Firefox over IE. I know I like Firefox over IE on the PC because to me it seems faster. I'm sure other people notice that, too.

    How many business computers (the largest market for computers) would ever install iTunes? Mostly NONE. So, how would Safari have the opportunity to get installed on there in a sneaky way as you put it? About Chrome? We have a development section which is on an internal closed network and Chrome is installed and being used because people are curious about it because Google is pushing it as an future OS. Safari is just another browser. Nothing exciting about it.

    And no where did I say that everything Apple makes, they try to push it on everyone at any expense. Safari is just another FREE browser out there. You hear me talk about the Mac, iPhone, iPod, iPad and how successful those products are in the markets they compete in. Hardware is where Apple makes the majority of it's money, it's not software. I don't think you have heard me talk too much about Apple's software, other than Mac OS X, on this forum.

    Where is Apple trying to sneak Safari in with iTunes? Plese go to Apple. Click on the link at the very top that says "iTunes". Then when the page comes up, click the link in the upper right corner that says to "Download iTunes". Then another screen comes up and it says Download now. So, I downloaded it and NOWHERE does it try to install Safari.

    SO, YOU'RE LYING!
    LOL. You've come unraveled, my son.

    Here. Aaaaaaaand Here. Have a nice weekend.
  4. #104  
    Quote Originally Posted by SoFly View Post
    Apple didn't graciously concede the laptop and desktop market to others. They just don't compete in the markets that are the largest when it comes to computers. I think we all know that Apple does not try to go after the huge enterprise markets or large businesses. The two markets where the majority of computers are sold. Businesses are also price conscious and unless they need the capability of a Mac they are not going to pay extra for it when a cheaper PC will do the same thing, even if it's not as user friendly as a Mac.

    Their main markets are consumer, small business, education, graphics, and other speciality markets. In those markets they have a respectable market share.

    If you look at the markets that they compete in and not this broad market that they don't compete in then you will see that Apple does well.

    Just like the iPhone market is not as large as the general, cheap cell phone market.

    Just like Ferrari does not sell anywhere near as many cars as Ford. But, you wouldn't call them a failure because they compete in two totally different markets in the broad auto industry.


    As for browsers. Most people are going to use what is installed on the computer by default or what they know from work and it's not Safari.

    You are making my point, You really can't have it both ways:

    *They make Safari for Windows, but don't really try to compete in the PC market. And why has Firefox and Chrome been able to pickup more market share that Safari. None of those come pre-installed either. And Mozilla has nowhere near the resources.

    *A "respectable share" means they don't dominate (not even close) in those markets (except maybe the Graphics professional market). But with the same type of upscale marketing, the dominate in the smartphone market (at least so far). I serious doubt that Steve Jobs and company is so driven in one phase of business (phones) but could care less about grabbing the lion's share of sales in another (PC's and Laptops).

    (Just curious, how does the mini mac compare against your typically priced PC? - prices are close enough for a valid comparison)

    * Apple doesn't go after the business market????
    see: Apple - Business
    They just have NOT had the same success there so far. It more like business hasn't gone after them.

    And I'm hardly a Micro$oft fan, and I certainly would not consider Apple to be a failure (don't think anyone has claimed that). But frequently when a company has success, they buy into their own hype... as do their fans.

    I can guarantee you that by this time next year, we will have seen a number of moves by Apple to shore up their position from primarily Android, but possibly also from RIM (and if HP start to show a measure of success, Palm as well).

    If the mythology is true, none of this would be necessary. Simply keep making the superior product and "they will come" - at any price. No marketing, no price discounts, no additional carriers, no increase the speed of new phone releases.
  5. #105  
    Quote Originally Posted by Weaser999 View Post
    Thats because Apple knows Safari sucks.. as does Chrome. Viva firefox!!
    If Safari sucks then the Pre's browser must suck as well. I'll let you fathom that one for a bit.
  6. #106  
    If you would be so kind, please resolve the disparity of these two statements:
    Quote Originally Posted by dandbj13 View Post
    It is everyone else, including fans of other devices, who like to pretend that there is some comparison to their device of choice and the iPhone.
    Quote Originally Posted by dandbj13 View Post
    Yesterday, Apple made it clear that all of Android OS does not match iOS in new activations per day. Profitability is not even close..
    So, if it's "everyone else" doing it, how did Apple make that comparison to Android?

    You have a strange way of "making your ponit..."
  7. #107  
    Quote Originally Posted by mikah912 View Post
    It's "the federal government" that accounts for 22 percent marketshare. And trying to repeatedly sneak install a program on 120 million different machines is less effective than Google "talking a lot". Ok, buddy. I learned something today alright.

    You're like a Penny Arcade parody of an Apple zealot. I am no longer certain you're a real person.
    Mikah,

    He's projecting the policies of one department on to the entire federal government, and the projection is false.

    I work for the federal government as well. In the branch I work for (indirectly, I work for a contractor), IE is the standard, Firefox was only recently implemented, and its use is not forced.

    I doubt anyone is removing IE from any federal computers, it's a pretty complex proecedure with lots of ramifications.
  8. #108  
    Quote Originally Posted by barkerja View Post
    If Safari sucks then the Pre's browser must suck as well. I'll let you fathom that one for a bit.
    Is it your contention that the Pre runs Safari?
  9. #109  
    Quote Originally Posted by hparsons View Post
    Is it your contention that the Pre runs Safari?
    Both Safari and the Pre use the webkit engine; Apple developed webkit. See where I'm going with this?
  10. #110  
    Quote Originally Posted by barkerja View Post
    Both Safari and the Pre use the webkit engine; Apple developed webkit. See where I'm going with this?
    That's flawed logic and doesn't lead to the conclusion to which you infer. Other people can improve upon an idea or patent. Because the original idea sucked doesn't mean that the only way the ideas that were spurred from that initial idea or design also suck.

    For instance, Palm invented PalmOS. However, I constantly heard about Palm branded PalmOS device crashing and resetting. Sony used PalmOS for their Clie's. Yet I never heard of constant reset and crashes. In fact the device were so good that they brought me to PDAs, digital devices, and later smartphone. I may not have made the leap had my introduction not showed me the possible. However, the people who stated PalmOS sucked weren't completely erroneous based on their experience or Palm branded PalmOS devices if they're interpretation of suck was constant resetting.
  11. #111  
    Quote Originally Posted by bdhu2001 View Post
    That's flawed logic and doesn't lead to the conclusion to which you infer. Other people can improve upon an idea or patent. Because the original idea sucked doesn't mean that the only way the ideas that were spurred from that initial idea or design also suck.
    It makes sense to me. The heart of a web browser is its rendering engine, after all.
  12. #112  
    Quote Originally Posted by nappy View Post
    It makes sense to me. The heart of a web browser is its rendering engine, after all.
    True. But there is allot more that goes into the browsing experience than just the rendering engine.

    Think about something as simple tabs. Many of us would go mad without them now.
  13. #113  
    Quote Originally Posted by barkerja View Post
    Both Safari and the Pre use the webkit engine; Apple developed webkit. See where I'm going with this?
    Yes, I knew that. That has very little to do with what you said. Sharing the saem base, webkit, by no means equates to "If Safari sucks then the Pre's browser must suck as well"
  14. #114  
    I'm comparing Safari to firefox. If you throw the Pre's browser in there... yes it still sucks in comparison. I'm primarily referring to desktop browsers however.
  15. #115  
    Quote Originally Posted by mikah912 View Post
    It most certainly would, but it's not a matter of not being able to afford it. Few smartphones are more expensive to own over the length of a contract than Verizon ones, yet they continue to add more phone customers than ATT per quarter and remain a larger carrier overall as well. With a diversified Android lineup alone, they are smoking the ATT/iPhone combo. Truth is, they shed a lot of the people who "had to have" an iPhone already. A lot of carriers have.
    I"m not so sure about android smoking the ATT/iPhone combo. Does android have more than 230,000 activations a day? They might, but i'm just grabbing those supposedly accurate figures from Apple's keynote a few days ago. I think brand loyalty is more of a factor than price mind you.
  16. #116  
    I don't know about worldwide, or who has more hundreds of thousands of activations. I just know that currently, the Verizon/Droid/Android combo is resulting in more phone customers per quarter than the ATT/iPhone combo.

    Verizon would love to have iPhone, as any carrier would, but they do not NEED them. They are maintaining #1 status without them just fine.
  17. #117  
    When you say that Android had more activations "per quarter" a couple things to remember: Per quarter means, in this case, exactly ONE quarter - the last reported quarter.

    And two, it pairs an Android explosion with the last quarter BEFORE Apple lauched their new phone. Q3 will be MUCH more illuminating.

    Don't get me wrong- Androids growth has been stunning. I am not disputing that. Just that one quarter's results don't tell the whole story.

    In fact, I think the key is going to be retention, and we're a year away from any useful data on that.
  18. #118  
    Android explosion? Droid Incredible was the only new device to debut that quarter, and it was woefully understocked on shelves. If Verizon could've met demand, sales would've been much higher.

    Sure, it's a marathon, but if Verizon can best ATT with their lineup BEFORE the Droid X, Droid 2, Fascinate, HTC Merge, and various other flagship Android handsets arrive, they're positioned to keep winning in the long run as well.

    I think iPhone is plateauing on ATT. Will be interesting to see when Apple comes to the same realization.
  19. #119  
    Steve Jobs says that the one phone that everyone should have is:
    • 3.5" Screen
    • 5MP camera
    • no physical keyboard
    • no SDCard
    • no HDMI out
    • no WiFi mobile hotspot
    • no removable battery
    • and your carrier must be AT&T

    90,000 people a day want exactly the same thing. It is amazing.

    Remember ?

    The tyrannical empire says that everyone must conform. Everyone is in a submissive trance...

    Android lets you choose phones as little as 3.5" up to 5" and now tablets. You choose your own carrier. You choose if you want a keyboard, HDMI, SDcards, and every other feature.

    You can even choose a basic no-contract Android phone for under $100.

    In May, 2010, there were 100,000 new Android's a day. By August, 2010, there were 200,000 Android's a day (73 million annually). Android production continues to ramp up quickly to try to keep up with demand.

    At the end of the Apple 1984 Commercial, a woman throws a hammer at the screen and it explodes, freeing all the people.

    If you look carefully, on the side of the hammer it says "Android".

    - Craig
    Last edited by milominderbinder; 09/06/2010 at 02:01 PM.
  20.    #120  
    Back on topic:

    Some took umbrage to my calling the Galaxy S a free phone. They argued that Android phones start at the same premium pricepoint as the iPhone. They ignore the fact that those pricepoints drop in a matter of days.

    Now, the forth leg of the Galaxy S has been installed at Verizon. Guess what? It's a BOGOF! Right off the bat, half the units sold are FREE! Every one of those free phones pads the number of Android activations. This is what you call competition? This is the reality of the market. The iPhone has no competition.

Tags for this Thread

Posting Permissions