NEWS: Apple sued over hot iPad shutdowns
in [Wireless Internet]
|
Prev: NEWS: Security shortcomings in WPA2 that threaten security of wireless networks
Next: NEWS: Security shortcomings in WPA2 that threaten security ofwireless networks
From: John Navas on 8 Aug 2010 17:56 On Sun, 08 Aug 2010 16:22:20 -0400, in <4c5f11ff$0$9263$c3e8da3(a)news.astraweb.com>, JF Mezei <jfmezei.spamnot(a)vaxination.ca> wrote: >John Navas wrote: >> >> You're still misreading what he wrote, which is that brand recognition >> in this particular context is more a matter of carrier ("Can you hear me >> now?") than of device. > >I am not sure that this is to the manufacturer's advantage because in >the end, the manufacturer gets much less exposure and brand recognition >for its products. > >At one point in time, the largers fizzy drink bottler in north america >was a small canadian company called "Cott". > >Nobody knew of them. But if you purchased any fizzy drink that was a >store's brand, no name etc (aka: not a Coke or Pepsi brand), chances >were high that it had been bottled by Cott. > >If Verizon gets all the hype for some HTC phone, HTC doesn't get the >brand recognition that will help it market its phones to other networks. That would only be true if HTC cared about selling direct. It doesn't It sells to carriers, for whom such branding is irrelevant. >This is where Apple did it right with its iphone. It may be sold by AT&T >in the USA, but it remains an Apple branded product, Apple gets the >recognition and publicity. But that only matters to Apple because it doesn't OEM products, sells directly to consumers -- different business model, different branding, and not viable for most suppliers, as Google found out the hard way with the Nexus One storefront. [original cross-posting restored] -- John "Assumption is the mother of all screw ups." [Wethern�s Law of Suspended Judgement]
From: John Navas on 8 Aug 2010 18:06 On Sun, 08 Aug 2010 16:57:25 -0400, in <4c5f1a37$0$32727$c3e8da3(a)news.astraweb.com>, JF Mezei <jfmezei.spamnot(a)vaxination.ca> wrote: >nospam wrote: > >> rim is losing market share. > >This was inevitable. RIM managed to create a new class of phones for >statistics point of view. They were alone in that class, because all >other phones with similar features were just considered "phones", not >"smartphones". Smartphones were actually pioneered by a number of different companies, notably Handspring/Palm, IBM, Nokia, and Sony Ericsson. >When Apple came in, they got put into that class, and so did HTC, and >apparently a few Windows Mobile phones. So in that class where Rim used >to stand alone, Rim's market share can only go down and others get >counted in that same class. Not necessarily, and you start with an incorrect presumption. >There are Nokia, Sony Ericsson, Samsung, LG etc which have similar >features, but are counted as "phones" instead of "smartphones". Earlier notable smartphones you don't seem to know about: * IBM Simon * Nokia Communicator * Palm Treo * Sony Ericsson P800 RIM earned its current lead by better serving the market than the competition, not by being first. >There is a lot of "hype" surrounding smartphones, and my guess is that >to get included in that class, the manufacturer has to generate a lot of >hype about their product to get noticed by the media. It's actually based on phone capability: <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Smartphone#History> >I suspect that Nokia's phone that have browsers, email clients etc and >not included in the "smartphone" class probably still outnumber HTC, RIM >and Apple by a large margin. (at least on a worldwide basis). They are called smartphones, but do not lead the market. >And expect Nokia to re-enter the USA market once Verizon has moved to >LTE. Nokia was sued by the owned of the proprietary CDMA (Qualcomm), and >pulled out of the CDMA market. Once CDMA is dead, Nokia might come back >with a vengenace. Nokia has been trying and failing to come back in the USA. [original cross-posting restored] p.s. Why are you changing the cross-posting? -- John "Assumption is the mother of all screw ups." [Wethern�s Law of Suspended Judgement]
From: John Navas on 8 Aug 2010 18:10 On Sun, 08 Aug 2010 16:44:02 -0400, in <4c5f1714$0$5493$c3e8da3(a)news.astraweb.com>, JF Mezei <jfmezei.spamnot(a)vaxination.ca> wrote: >ZnU wrote: > >> I suspect Apple was aware of the tradeoff being made and decided to make >> it anyway on the basis that it didn't impact real-world performance that >> much. Which it doesn't seem to. > >I am convinced that there are folks within Apple who knew the antenna >had problems. I don't know who, and high high up. > >What puzzles me is that Jobs would have extoled the virtues of the new >antenna in his keynote speech if he knew the antenna had flaws. Perhaps because he thinks "the best defense is a good offense." >Perhaps he could have said "the antenna is so magical, it only works if >you don't hold the phone :-)" > >Perhaps, at the time of the keynote, Jobs was confident that a fix would >be found prior to first shipments. > >Perhaps Jobs is still confident that a fix will be made. You will note >that the offer for those free bumbers ends September 30th. Perhaps >lacker coated handsets will start shipping soon. Likely in my opinion. Small comfort for earlier purchasers that don't like bumpers. "I just love being screwed by Apple!" ;) [original cross-posting restored] -- John "Assumption is the mother of all screw ups." [Wethern�s Law of Suspended Judgement]
From: nospam on 8 Aug 2010 18:10 In article <bp9u561d4hlhc7sldote8j8s8qnp49hepc(a)4ax.com>, John Navas <spamfilter1(a)navasgroup.com> wrote: > >This is where Apple did it right with its iphone. It may be sold by AT&T > >in the USA, but it remains an Apple branded product, Apple gets the > >recognition and publicity. > > But that only matters to Apple because it doesn't OEM products, sells > directly to consumers they have in the past -- hp ipods. they also have special editions such as the u2 ipod and the product red ipods. > -- different business model, different branding, > and not viable for most suppliers, as Google found out the hard way with > the Nexus One storefront. google had many other obstacles, such as customers not being able to see the phone prior to purchase and very little support for it after they purchased it.
From: JF Mezei on 8 Aug 2010 18:10
(newsgroups trimmed back, many NNTP servers filter out posts that have more than 3 crosspostings) John Navas wrote: > But that only matters to Apple because it doesn't OEM products, sells > directly to consumers -- different business model, different branding, > and not viable for most suppliers, as Google found out the hard way with > the Nexus One storefront. Google doesn't have infrastrucrture to deal with individual customers. Trying to sell/support a retail device when you have no such infrastrure is bound to fail. It doesn't mean that the principle of a manufacturer selling directly is flawed. Just means that Google grossly underestimated the fact that it was not equipped to sell to individuals. |