The Smartphone Is The Computer

I have spent the past three weeks in Detroit, a city possessing a rich history and an unremitting present. The vagaries of Silicon Valley count for little here. When I heard a young man ask — for real — if the Samsung Galaxy S5 was an iPhone or an Android, I knew there was much to glean if I simply put my smartphone down and listened.

Here then are my thoughts, insights and observations from the past one score and one day…

There are no smartphone wars. Rather, just amazing, affordable and truly expansive opportunity. Android versus iPhone means nothing to nearly everyone I speak with.

It is hard to overstate just how much television will be disrupted by the combination of children, tablets and YouTube. Free, always accessible content uniquely tailored to their own self-driven interests, available from any location is now possible — and the young will accept nothing less.

Facebook, not smartphones, not telcos, not automobiles, not Disney or ESPN, is connecting the world. Facebook is the new oil. If there is any ‘next Steve Jobs,’ it is Mark Zuckerberg. For whatever confluence of reasons, Zuckerberg divined the power of social media from the start, just as Jobs did with computing. No matter how rich, no matter how many struggles, I expect Zuckerberg to devote the remainder of his life to Facebook and all it represents.

There is middling outrage over the Facebook ‘user emotion’ study. As for me, this represents little more than A/B testing. In fact, I’m more angry over the iPhone keyboard. It’s so terrible. Is this some sort of secret Apple study? I mean, what other possible reason could there be?

Sheryl Sandberg

I am in the place where cars and mass production altered the course of humanity. Now, it is smartphones, social media, mapping, and code; these are re-making the planet as much as the automobile did in the 20th century. We are at the start of a new future. That’s just awesome.

I was often asked the best way to become a professional writer. It’s such an easy question to answer.

Marry well.

Oh, and should you be so fortunate to have an opportunity to write about what you love, for an organization with no concern for page views and provocation, as I am at Tech.pinions, then do not fritter away such a blessing.

I first learned about the SCiO from Techpinions. Point this device at a piece of fruit for example, and it will tell you what it is and even provide data on its composition, such as how much fat and carbs the item contains. Every single time I read more about this device, I think it is absolute magic. I told so many people about it that I now desperately hope it works as advertised.

scio2

I have nothing but good things to say about the Amazon Fire Phone. Yet, I can’t possibly recommend it to anyone. Why would I? In the US, at least, there is almost no reason to recommend any smartphone other than the iPhone or the Samsung Galaxy.

Microsoft’s Windows Phone faces a similar fate as Amazon’s Fire. Fair or not, can you imagine any outcome for Windows Phone other than failure? How does Microsoft start over? What amazing technologies, hardware and combination of services can they possibly deliver to make the world care about a device that is not iPhone or Android? I do not have the answers.

jeff_bezos_fire_phone

If I were in charge of Microsoft I would simply continue to make quality devices, offering great Nokia design, great Nokia imaging, incorporating Skype, OneDrive, HERE, Office and other Microsoft-owned products and services. Plodding along, hoping more and more Android vendors exit the business, picking up the scraps, all while leveraging my enterprise install base and security, identity and productivity tools, hoping users discover my superior value.

It won’t help. The smartphone market is lost to Microsoft.

The screen market, however, is barely in its infancy. Microsoft should forget smartphones and focus instead on screens. Screens will become like power outlets, we only notice them when they cannot be found.

Perhaps no company — not Apple, not even Google — possesses the breadth of services Microsoft offers. The problem, of course, is these services are not exposed for all the world to use. They are locked inside unwanted PCs, shoved inside tablet abominations, buried beneath the content we actually seek from our Xbox systems, sold mostly to IT directors, attached to products and platforms we do not need, and hidden behind an incomprehensible UI. Microsoft has built an anti-moat around its services, not locking us in but keeping everyone out.

azure1

The World Cup has introduced to millions the joys of live sports streamed to our smartphones and tablets. This is so in Detroit and around the country. It has never been more clear we all want to watch what we want to watch when we want to watch it where we want to watch it and on the device we want to watch it on. This is simple, obvious and unstoppable. It’s only a matter of time before we have a difficult time explaining to our progeny how it ever could have been anything else.

tim-cook-attends-pride-event

Last week, Apple CEO Tim Cook very happily took part in the San Francisco Pride Parade. Also, Hobby Lobby successfully won the right to provide only certain forms of contraception for its employees. What do these have in common?

Values equal profits.

Companies are publicly declaring their values, even going to court to defend and promote their values. This is only start. The technologies of Silicon Valley are breaking down barriers, bringing corporations to their knees and empowering individuals and groups around the world. With smartphones in hand, with continuous, real time, location-aware connectivity always available, we become our own corporations — with Uber, AirBnB and others merely pointing the way. We will work for ourselves and we will live by our values.

This is good. But it will be messy. Very messy.

CSC_0100SM

Hype aside, can you envision a situation where you use Bitcoin over, say, your iPhone ‘wallet’ linked to your secure iTunes payment data? iPhone offers ease of use and peace of mind. That’s a powerful combination. Still worse for Bitcoin, is that it is essentially digital cash in a world addicted to easy credit. Learn about the blockchain. Bitcoin itself is merely a bystander.

Given Android’s headstart in wearables, it’s hard to see Apple winning any wearable app wars. Given the limitations of its market reach, it’s similarly difficult to see Apple winning the “smart home” market without buying its way in. Sonos would be a good start.

Smartphones are borderline magical. That said, the iPhone 5s battery and the HTC One (M8) camera are embarrassingly bad.

In the past week, I’ve rented two movies from iTunes. I failed to finish both in the first sitting and was not able to watch either until after 24 hours later. iTunes refused, insisting the rental period had expired. This was true, though did not mitigate my anger. I may abandon iTunes rentals altogether. The lure of non-legal downloading is strong.

marissam

How much of Yahoo’s Alibaba riches is Marissa Mayer prepared to spend to get us to visit Yahoo? I suspect all of it. Nowhere I go does Yahoo seem to matter.

Idle prediction: Apple will not kill off the iPhone 5/c/s form factor this year, nor will Apple offer three simultaneous iPhone form factors. Yes, that means I am predicting only one large-display iPhone.

Not a prediction, just a thought experiment: In 2024, when a chid is born, they will be assigned either an Android or an iPhone. This will control everything.

There will be over 1 billion (American) Android activations this year, and several hundred million (Chinese) Android (AOSP) activations. Android is a stunning success story. All those involved in Android have long since earned our respect. That said, some analysts, bloggers and even industry insiders still have not grasped the obvious: Smartphones are the first screen. Smartphones are the primary computer.

Meg-Whitman-CEO-at-HP

The CEO of Yahoo is female. The CEO of HP is female. The #2 at Facebook is female. A man runs Android, the world’s most popular OS. He is from India. The CEO of Microsoft is from India. The tech sector points the way forward not only with its products.

Be smart. Work hard. That’s true everywhere.

Published by

Brian S Hall

Brian S Hall writes about mobile devices, crowdsourced entertainment, and the integration of cars and computers. His work has been published with Macworld, CNBC, Wall Street Journal, ReadWrite and numerous others. Multiple columns have been cited as "must reads" by AllThingsD and Re/Code and he has been blacklisted by some of the top editors in the industry. Brian has been a guest on several radio programs and podcasts.

121 thoughts on “The Smartphone Is The Computer”

  1. Yay! Brian is back! Seemed like forever.

    “There are no smartphone wars”

    Best line I’ve read in quite a while.

    Joe

  2. “What amazing technologies, hardware and combination of services can they possibly deliver to make the world care about a device that is not iPhone or Android? I do not have the answers.”

    I found the keyboard in Nokia Lumia to be the best. Better than Swype and iOS keyboard. I was a fan of Swype. I use an Android phone and an iPad. My wife uses a Lumia. I am seriously considering a Lumia just for the keyboard, though I doubt it will convince anyone other than me. Maybe 5-6 small things very well done and maybe MS has a chance 🙂

    1. that’s a good point. i touched on that — microsoft keeps plodding along, focusing on value — but have become more convinced that there is no hope beyond some massive technological shift. i hope you are correct.

        1. Could be. I find Cortana more useful than Siri, though still not as useful as plain old Google notifications and cards. But, the combination of Cortana on phones, Xbox, leveraging Bing, plus Yammer — that’s a lot of intelligence to tap.

  3. “Given Android’s headstart in wearables, it’s hard to see Apple winning any wearable app wars. Given the limitations of its market reach, it’s similarly difficult to see Apple winning the “smart home” market without buying its way in.”

    Of course Apple won’t win either of these markets. Apple isn’t playing to win ‘the market’. Apple targets a small segment of the market and dominates it. I call it the ‘best customer segment’.

    Also, you have no idea if Android has any kind of headstart in wearables, Apple is always working on closed door secret lab stuff for years before we see any product. The Android Wear stuff I’ve seen so far is very ho hum mediocre. I wouldn’t get too excited just yet.

    1. Oh give me a break, this argument has been done to death. Apple doesn’t target the rich, they would love to sell as many iPhone as possible. That’s where the money is, the 50%+ pure profit per sale. Who cares if it was bought at Walmart?

      1. I didn’t say Apple targets the rich. Rather, Apple focuses on delivering value in the user experience, and that attracts a specific segment of any market that places value on the experience Apple delivers. Many people view Apple’s experience as inferior, even wrong/evil, (I would guess you are in that camp), whether rich or poor, and for a variety of reasons. But for those that see value in what Apple offers and gain value/benefit from the user experience, Apple is not expensive. So no, Apple does not target the rich, on that we agree.

        1. Before you categorise me as someone who hates a company, I assure you I don’t.

          But some comments just beg a reply.

          For instance, you just commented that Apple targets users who value what Apple offers. Really?!

          1. I did not categorize you as someone who hates a company. I’m simply making a guess that you believe Apple’s curated ecosystem and more closed, vertically integrated model is inferior to Android’s more open less curated model. Or at the very least that Apple’s model serves your needs less well. Am I wrong? BTW, that’s a valid point of view, very many people don’t want what Apple is selling. Many in the tech industry do think Apple’s approach is simply wrong, even evil, but that comment wasn’t directed at you.

            “For instance, you just commented that Apple targets users who value what Apple offers. Really?!”

            I agree, the end result may sound silly and obvious, but I assure you it’s not. Apple offers up a specific vision, a specific user experience, computers for the rest of us, a curated ecosystem, a vertically integrated model, what many call a ‘walled garden’. This resonates with a segment of the market, people willing to pay money for the value that Apple delivers. Most people aren’t willing to pay for the value Apple delivers, hence Apple’s minority share of the markets they operate in. But when you focus on the user experience and build value by making it simpler, curating, integrating, that attracts very good customers. So it isn’t exactly that Apple “targets users who value what Apple offers”, it’s that Apple’s solution attracts those users. A subtle but important difference.

          2. Well said. I pretty much agree.

            Just one small thing… this isn’t about iOS vs Android, this is premium (expensive) vs average (cheap). Apple may not be in the “junk business” but they lose $450 in pure profit every time someone buys a $100 phone. Saying “You’re not my target audience anyway” is childish at best.

            A comparison would be to compare gaming laptops with regular laptops. Not everyone want a gaming laptop and that’s ok, it won’t make them worse customers, they just have different needs.

            When they said “people want what we don’t have” — it wasn’t just about screen sizes.

          3. “this isn’t about iOS vs Android, this is premium (expensive) vs average (cheap)”

            Consumers who gain value/benefit from Apple’s products, services, content, user experience, those consumers do not view Apple as expensive. I would guess they do consider Apple to be premium, given the value they’re getting, the build quality, the customer satisfaction. But premium and expensive aren’t exactly the same thing.

            The problem for Android on the premium end of the spectrum is there is no ecosystem and experience that matches Apple. No other company offers a complete solution, a vertically integrated and curated ecosystem. If you find value in the kind of solution Apple offers, there’s one place to get it: Apple. In that sense Apple has no competitors.

            “Apple may not be in the “junk business” but they lose $450 in pure profit every time someone buys a $100 phone”

            This is not the case. While there may be some crossover, the market segment buying $100 phones is not the market segment Apple operates in. If cheap Android phones were having an impact on iPhone sales we should have already seen a dramatic decrease in unit sales for the iPhone. Not a slow down in growth, not a levelling off, there should be a huge decrease in sales. But there is no such thing happening.

            This is a common idea put forth though, that at some point cheap Android phones will be good enough and will steal away all the iPhone customers. It’s a longer discussion to get into why this is not likely to happen. John Kirk has a good article on Techpinions, fairly recent, he covers some of this. I’m probably getting some details wrong but the basic idea is that Apple sells much more than just the iPhone. It’s not enough for a cheap Android phone to be roughly equivalent on the hardware side. But back to my point about different market segments, there’s a huge segment that does believe that roughly equivalent on the hardware is more than enough, that segment doesn’t value the ecosystem behind the iPhone. And that’s fine. Use what works for you. But it is foolish to believe that the market segment that does value the entire ecosystem and user experience, the curation, the vertical integration, will suddenly switch to a cheap Android phone simply because the hardware is roughly the same.

          4. “The problem for Android on the premium end of the spectrum is there is no ecosystem and experience that matches Apple.” — I beg to differ. The Nexus range is quite comparable if not superseeds Apple’s offer. But this is more about personal preferences honestly so I won’t comment about it anymore.

            “the market segment buying $100 phones is not the market segment Apple operates in” — that is exactly the market Apple operates in, the smartphone market. The artificial divide you put in is imaginary. There are ways to get less fortunate people to buy your product (ex subsidies and credits). It works perfectly well in America and UK. You just have to convince them. So every $40 is a potential loss, a loss reflected in the their growth.

            “Not a slow down in growth, not a levelling off, there should be a huge decrease in sales.” — the smartphone market grows YOY considerably. You don’t have to have a reduction is sales to realise you’re not taking advantage of the situation. If you only grow a fraction of the overall market, you are clearly missing out.

            I noticed all your arguments assume Apple provides the best ecosystem. It may or may not be true, but you would be surprised to find out the real reasons why people buy smartphones. A lot of the times it is not for the experience or ecosystem, but because of marketing, finance, Facebook and Skype, friends and family. People don’t care that much about “vertical integration”. I don’t even care honestly and at least I know what it means.

            So don’t assume all Apple users have good taste because they buy Apple. After all, you can buy an iPhone in Wal-Mart for $100.

          5. “I beg to differ. The Nexus range is quite comparable if not superseeds Apple’s offer.”

            A Nexus device doesn’t offer anywhere near the same user experience as Apple, it is a different model entirely. This is my point, many people place zero value on Apple’s integrated/curated model, they don’t see it as adding any value or differentiating in any way. You prove my point when you say that the Nexus products are the same, even better, than Apple’s products. I don’t doubt that the Nexus line is better for you, and many others, but they offer a different solution. For someone who gets a great deal of value from Apple’s model, a Nexus device is not better since it does not deliver the same value/benefits to the user.

            “You don’t have to have a reduction is sales to realise you’re not taking advantage of the situation. If you only grow a fraction of the overall market, you are clearly missing out.”

            Clearly Apple would sell more iPhones if they lowered prices (and they might, with more robotic manufacturing coming online, be careful what you wish for), but for your imaginary scenario of Apple losing iPhone sales to cheap phones, we would have to see a dramatic decrease in unit sales. You can’t have it both ways. Either Apple has been successful in insulating the iPhone from commoditization (I would argue via the value add in the user experience), or Apple has not been successful in insulating the iPhone from commoditization and unit sales are cratering. Which is it? It isn’t enough just to say that the Apple isn’t keeping up with the mobile market as a whole, that does not explain away the flaw in your argument.

            “I noticed all your arguments assume Apple provides the best ecosystem.”

            No, I never said ‘best’, you assumed that. What I said was Apple provides the only ecosystem of its kind, the only integrated, curated, ‘whole widget’ solution. For a segment of the market this is viewed as the best, for that segment. I have also said a couple of times that a much larger segment does not see value in Apple’s model, and that is a valid point of view. For this segment Apple is not the best, Apple is in fact an inferior solution for those people.

            “but you would be surprised to find out the real reasons why people buy smartphones. A lot of the times it is not for the experience or ecosystem, but because of marketing, finance, Facebook and Skype, friends and family. People don’t care that much about “vertical integration”. I don’t even care honestly and at least I know what it means.”

            Correct. Consumers care about jobs-to-be-done, and word of mouth is powerful. Consumers do not know about or care about ‘open’, ‘walled garden’, ‘vertical integration’, and so on. How Apple delivers value is mostly invisible to the consumer, but the value in the user experience is real. This value resonates with a segment of the market, and it does not resonate with a much larger segment of the market. But it is important to understand that the segment that gets value from Apple’s model cannot be easily taken by companies that are not offering a similar user experience or value.

            “So don’t assume all Apple users have good taste because they buy Apple.”

            I do not assume this, and I’m pretty sure I’ve never said this. However, we do know that Apple’s customers are very, very satisfied. For me, this strongly suggests that the value Apple adds to the user experience is real and tangible. There seems to be a very strange effort on the part of many analysts to explain away or excuse Apple’s success with magical thinking, such as ‘marketing’, ‘fad’, ‘status’, ‘toy’, and so on. Again, this goes back to my point about people who see zero value in Apple’s model. They simply do not understand why anyone buys an Apple product. And they assume that it is only a matter of time before all those Apple customers ‘wake up’ and stop buying Apple products.

          6. “dramatic decrease in unit sales.” – – – they see a dramatic decrease in potential unit sales. They can do better. The whole C range exists because Apple thinks so too.

            “And they assume that it is only a matter of time before all those Apple customers ‘wake up’ and stop buying Apple products.” – – – what if it’s true though? What if people stop caring about the Apple kool-aid? The market is incredibly volatile.

            Go back 5 years, replace Apple with BlackBerry and vertical integration with keyboard and your argument theoretically still worked. Practically it didn’t end well.

            Other than that, you have some nice points. But they sound a whole of a lot different than “Apple targets a small segment of the market and dominates it. I call it the ‘best customer segment’.”

          7. ” they see a dramatic decrease in potential unit sales. They can do better. The whole C range exists because Apple thinks so too.”

            But the iPhone 5C is not the ‘cheap iPhone’ many analysts said was coming. If your point was valid the 5C would be a cheap off contract device. It is not.

            However, I do believe cheaper devices will come from Apple, that is a normal strategy for Apple going back many, many years. When they can deliver the same value/user experience in a cheaper device, they will do so.

            “what if it’s true though? What if people stop caring about the Apple kool-aid? The market is incredibly volatile.”

            Again, you’re proving my point. You think it is “Apple kool-aid” and not real value within the user experience. You’re free to think that, but you are quite wrong.

            We are probably going to see your imagined scenario play out though, but it will be with Samsung.

            “Go back 5 years, replace Apple with BlackBerry and vertical integration with keyboard and your argument theoretically still worked. Practically it didn’t end well.”

            Blackberry isn’t relevant to my argument, they are not a maker of computers and never have been. The vertical integration created by Apple in no way compares to a hardware keyboard. If you think it is even similar, then you do not understand Apple’s integrated model.

            “Other than that, you have some nice points. But they sound a whole of a lot different than “Apple targets a small segment of the market and dominates it. I call it the ‘best customer segment’.”

            Not at all. I’ve simply been explaining the same point in different ways to help you understand it. But as I’ve said a few times, if you see zero value/differentiation in Apple’s model, then it will be next to impossible for you to understand the foundation of Apple’s success. You will instead believe that it is some sort of magic or “kool-aid” that is responsible for Apple’s success, and once you believe that it naturally follows that you will also believe Apple’s success can crumble at any moment. I can assure you, Apple’s success is real and not nearly as fragile as you seem to believe.

          8. My Apple “kool-aid” was a metaphor, if you didn’t get it. Don’t be so literal.

            And you missed my entire analogy of BlackBerry. I didn’t say they offered vertical integration. But they did have their strengths in business, security and ease of use with keyboards (handy when you write emails all day).

            Go back to articles from 5 years ago and you’ll find a duplicate-you saying how blackberry doesn’t target poor people or teenagers, they only target business men and they will always have that market. So again, what makes you so sure Apple with it’s ecosystem is so safe? Lots of people think the Google ecosystem is good enough and better today.

            So yes, Apple can do better. And in many regards they are. A bigger screen, widgets, third party keyboards, perhaps a drop in price… They are fighting fire with fire against Android.

          9. “My Apple “kool-aid” was a metaphor, if you didn’t get it. Don’t be so literal.”

            If you meant it as a metaphor, that’s actually worse. You are then in essence saying that consumers might stop caring about a great user experience, having their needs met, being satisfied customers, and so on. I suppose that is possible, but it is unlikely among the segment that Apple attracts, since the value within the user experience is a key driver of the purchasing decision for these people. Once again you’re trying to have it both ways.

            “And you missed my entire analogy of BlackBerry.”

            I did not miss it, I said it wasn’t relevant.

            “Lots of people think the Google ecosystem is good enough and better today.”

            Yes, I’ve said this more than once.

            “So again, what makes you so sure Apple with it’s ecosystem is so safe?”

            I would suggest you read John Kirk’s piece in this site “Disrupting Apple’s Tao”. He really dives into this question.

          10. Blackberry is very relevant. It’s a company selling it’s own phone with it’s own OS that you had to have if you were successful. Sound familiar?

            Those who don’t learn from history are doomed to repeat it. Luckily Apple doesn’t hire people like you who doesn’t see the challenges ahead of them.

            “the value within the user experience is a key driver of the purchasing decision for these people” — it is not, people don’t care, you already agreed on this, remember? “This is my point, many people place zero value on Apple’s integrated/curated model, they don’t see it as adding any value or differentiating in any way.”

            Keep patting yourself on the back for being so much more sophisticated than everyone because you appreciate “premium” experiences.

          11. Again, I suggest you read the two articles I mention at the end of my previous comment.

          12. “SMARTPHONE TRUTHS AND SAMSUNG’S INEVITABLE DECLINE” — shocker,the premium/expensive model doesn’t work forever. I wish I said that about Apple before. Oh wait, that’s exactly what I said.

            The other article you recommended had the word Apple 5 times in every sentence, it made me sick. But the idea was the competition will eventually offer more and better features for less money in any industry. But they can’t buy the experience of excellence, which magically only comes from Apple.

            First, I got your point the first time, didn’t need a reference. Second, I don’t believe in the Apple’s magic experience, it’s just a damn smartphone for a consumer.

          13. You have completely misunderstood both articles. I’m not sure further discussion will be anything but tedious.

            You have also not understood my point, not in the slightest. From the first Smartphone Truths article: “you cannot do any serious sort of analysis about Apple specifically without appreciating how they use software to differentiate their hardware”.

            And a point I made earlier about Samsung: “Ultimately, though, Samsung’s fundamental problem is that they have no software-based differentiation, which means in the long run all they can do is compete on price. Perhaps they should ask HP or Dell how that goes.”

            I think you skimmed the article and took the author’s conclusion about Samsung to be about Apple. That is not the case.

            And from the conclusion of the Smartphone Truths article: “In fact, it turns out that smartphones really are just like PCs: it’s the hardware maker with its own operating system that is dominating profits, while everyone else eats themselves alive to the benefit of their software master.”

            I would be interested in how you got “the premium/expensive model doesn’t work forever” from that article. Especially when two of the bullet points are:

            “There will always be a high end segment”

            “The high end isn’t that expensive on an absolute basis”

            Basically what’s happening here is I am explaining again and again and again that Apple provides value/differentiation within the user experience, and you are denying that this value/differentiation exists. You are denying reality. That is why you are wrong.

            But I did predict your response, quoting myself from earlier:

            “if you see zero value/differentiation in Apple’s model, then it will be next to impossible for you to understand the foundation of Apple’s success. You will instead believe that it is some sort of magic or “kool-aid” that is responsible for Apple’s success, and once you believe that it naturally follows that you will also believe Apple’s success can crumble at any moment.”

            You’ve proven my point again, as you say “I don’t believe in Apple’s magic experience”.

            I get that, if you don’t place any value on Apple’s model, then you are unlikely to ever understand why Apple is succeeding and why Apple will continue to succeed.

          14. I won’t deny I don’t understand the Apple experience but I don’t deny it’s success. I question the importance of it in said success.

          15. As I said elsewhere, you admit that you don’t understand the Apple experience, and yet you offer your analysis anyway. It’s madness. “Hey, I’ll tell ya, I don’t understand economics, now listen up and I’ll tell ya all about economics.”

          16. “the value within the user experience is a key driver of the purchasing decision for these people” — it is not, people don’t care, you already agreed on this, remember? “This is my point, many people place zero value on Apple’s integrated/curated model, they don’t see it as adding any value or differentiating in any way.”

            Yet again you prove that you did not understand what I said. The segment of the market that Apple attracts does place value on Apple’s integrated/curated model. And yet it is also true that a large segment of the market does not place value in an integrated/curated model.

            I’m not sure how I can make this any simpler.

          17. The difference between our views is that I don’t believe the majority of *Apple’s customers* know or care about this experience, not just Android users.

          18. Certainly the user doesn’t know how Apple delivers value (again, I’ve explained this more than once), but they do experience it, in many ways. We have lots of customer satisfaction data that gives us a clue about this. We can also look at usage data. It’s really not up for debate.

          19. I think customer satisfaction has more to do with … socker … customer service. Not some abstract unverifiable magical experience iOS provides.

          20. It isn’t abstract or magical. As you said, you don’t understand it: “I won’t deny I don’t understand the Apple experience”.

            So if you don’t understand a thing, which you admit, how can you then provide intelligent analysis about that thing?

          21. I don’t understand relativity but I know it affects satellites due to time dilation. I know it’s effects.

          22. If customer service is the primary reason for Apple’s high customer satisfaction results, then why don’t Apple’s competitors (save for possibly Microsoft) provide better customer service, instead of investing in the OS, bounceback, 3-D views, removable batteries, better cameras, etc? Or do they really just care about a one-time sale and don’t care about customer satisfaction?

            Or is it because you are so much smarter than all of them put together?

          23. “– the smartphone market grows YOY considerably. You don’t have to have a reduction is sales to realise you’re not taking advantage of the situation. If you only grow a fraction of the overall market, you are clearly missing out.”

            This discussion has been done to death, too. Read up on Asymco. Of course the “smartphone” market “grows”, when almost every new phone is a “smartphone” by some definition. Why, just putting Android on a phone makes it a “smartphone” by some people’s definition. So?

            Talk about arbitrary, artificial divides: “Smartphone” is the biggest one. There is just the mobile phone market, period. In that market, Apple is constantly and consistently growing its share, moving through 10% globally.

            Apple is not “missing out” simply because some definition of “smartphone” was hypothetically 30% of all mobile phones two years ago and is now 60% of all mobile phones this year, and Apple hasn’t shown a corresponding 100% increase in the same time frame.

            Rather, “Android” is simply the default, base, common denominator OS that gets put on anything and everything. That doesn’t define a market that Apple is somehow missing. And it is only Samsung that is really benefitting from the Android explosion (read, chaos) …oh, wait, their ability to make profit seems to be slowing.

          24. Interesting concept, although I don’t see how Android being the “default” smartphone changes anything.

          25. You implied that Apple is “missing out”: ie, not addressing some kind of growing “demand” for “smart” phones. Rather, “everyone” gets Android whether they are thinking about some particular job to be done or not.

            When people begin to grok what it means to have a computer in their pocket, and when they see the potential for various jobs they want to do, many people “upgrade” to an iPhone.

            It’s just as Space Gorilla said. When people see the value Apple has to offer and appreciate it, there is no competition. Apple is not missing a trick in competing with “smartphones”, it is essentially still competing with “non-consumption” (see Horace Dediu of Asymco). Users of so-called “smartphones” are simply non-comsumers of pocket computing (obviously, all phones are smarter than they used to be; that’s simply progress and nothing to shout about).

            That surely changes the whole perception of what is happening. As even Samsung is finding that using the readily available, modular OS means the real differentiation is on price, and the result is a race to the bottom — the result is not some “magical” (since you like to use this term as a pejorative when it comes to Apple) panacea to float all non-Apple mobile phone boats by somehow converting them into pocket computers the like of the iPhone when no thought whatsoever is given to their continuity, integration, ecosystem, productivity, intuitiveness, UX, durability, upgradeability, etc.

          26. My point is Android is addressing a market that Apple isn’t.

            Similarly, a laptop doesn’t have to be used at its full capacity to qualify as a laptop.

            Just because my grandparents use their laptop for Skype and Facebook only, does not make it less of a laptop.

            It’s simply derogatory to imply that people aren’t smartphone users because they prefer text messaging instead of snapchat, and therefore are “less engaging in the ecosystem”.

          27. Actually, I am saying just the opposite: everyone is a “smartphone” user; that is now the natural state of affairs. But not all appreciate or are looking for something else: a computer in the pocket, for example. It is not derogatory to suggest that most people using a certain type of product are unaware of or are uninterested in the differentiation that sets a particular one apart.

            Most people use home appliances in the kitchen and cook at home, but we don’t call everyone a chef. But if you happen to be “into” cooking, whether you are a professional chef or not, then often as not, you will be more aware of your tools in the kitchen and be more particular about them in particular — while also having a crappy drill or lawnmower that would not appeal to more of a DIY or gardening enthusiast.

            No, you are being derogatory: you want to dismiss cooking or coffee or gardening enthusiasts who care about the particular tool they use in a particular capacity as rabid fanatics who drank some kool-aid to chose their particular appliance or tool of choice. Apple doesn’t have to make Mr Coffee drip filter machines.

          28. So… what’s your point? My point is Apple is not addressing some market demands, while Android is. And I also see that Apple knows this, it is learning and evolving with bigger screens, widgets and iCloud for Windows.

            Honestly, I don’t know why are you arguing with me.

          29. “My point is Apple is not addressing some market demands, while Android is”

            I wonder if you truly understand that this is intentional on Apple’s part. Apple is constantly moving forward, expanding, building, creating, and they will address new jobs-to-be-done in the market when it fits with their strategy and adds value to the user experience.

          30. Intentional… right… “You weren’t our target demographic anyway”.

            What you said is marketing bullshit. There’s no reason to not sell more iPhones today.

          31. You can justify any company with that! BlackBerry is targeting only users who appreciate their product. Brilliant!

          32. Now I’m even more certain that you don’t understand segmentation. So if you don’t understand the Apple experience, and you don’t understand segmentation, then it does make sense why you hold the views you do re: Apple.

          33. The view that Apple needs to address more market requirements to grow? Yeah, terrible view.

          34. I think you’re setting some kind of record for how many times you can prove that you don’t understand something.

          35. I guess it is a question of strategy. Read John Kirk’s article about Microsoft’s lack of strategy and the discussion following it. Whether or not you agree with Kirk’s premise, it might help you understand Space Gorilla’s and my points…

            Basically, “addressing” “all market demands” (which by the way Google and Samsung are doing, and not “Android”) may be strategic or not strategic. It may be strategic of Google, it may be a marked lack of strategy on Samsung’s part.

            Either way, just because Android can be made to work on anything from a toaster to a high-end Samsung tablet doesn’t really commend it to future personal computing needs per se. Again, it’s the default OS that has been adapted from the old-style Java on Linux type-OS that Nokia and MS have had to abandon. Is it really that exciting? Does it have the legs to cope with expectations for the future of personal computing?

            Going forward, I think it will be more and more evident that it is Google and Samsung that have to change whatever “strategy” they may have, whatever segments they are attempting to address by their “throw-everything-at-the-wall-and-see-what-sticks” approaches.

          36. Is it really that exciting? – – yes. You can get any type of phone you want, how is that not exciting?

            “throw-everything-at-the-wall-and-see-what-sticks” – – that strategy does work because you can’t predict the market in the lab. I guarantee you that Apple wouldn’t make a bigger iPhone if Samsung’s strategy didn’t discover that people actually do like bigger screens.

          37. Then I guess Apple is addressing some new market segments.

            But I think I did just say you can get any type of phone running Android. I guess it really must be exciting for those who equate different colors of plastic, different shapes and sizes, etc., with the ability to get certain jobs done and produce a satisfactory result. Again, everything runs on Android, and since everyone needs a phone, that’s what they get. Some choice.

            But, underlying all this “choice” is still Android, and while this is great for phones, the actual choices available still: display less integration with the OS; have fewer, poorer and less secure apps; demonstrate less concern about about personal data at the system level; contain less innovative and custom components like 64-bit custom SoC’s and motion detectors; have less optimization with such components; mostly lack high quality materials and build quality; rarely get easy, timely OS updates; etc.

            There are few individual Android models that are actually “comparable” to an iPhone in real-world performance and use as a pocket computer (though perhaps on paper various models show more or higher specs in one area or another). Most Android makers are making little if any money on their phones, as they end up giving them away; and even “flagship” models sell poorly in comparison to the “failed” iPhone 5C. But, apparently, all those people choosing the iPhone as the single most popular phone in the world do so because they are deluded fans?

          38. Yeah, well, the title of the article is the smartphone as computer. You are suggesting that Apple should make what everyone else is making and appeal to “market segments” that don’t appreciate that or look for that in the device they are buying.

            I am suggesting that with Google’s approach of moving value and intelligence up to the cloud, and the difficulties OEMs are facing and will face (Ben Evan’s new article “Unbundling innovation: Samsung, PCs and China” is pertinent), that “smartphones” is about all the OEM’s devices will ever be, and As Space Gorilla has repeatedly pointed out, Apple isn’t moving in that direction.

            Rather, with this last WWDC, Apple has uncapped a whole lot of new potential for itself — health and home, etc. Apple is presenting a completely different value proposition than OEMs who make smartphones. So, yes, it is about the OS, because that is the value that places an Apple device in the premium segment of the phone market.

          39. There are premium smartphones from Android too you know… YOU may not like them, but other people do. That’s why this has nothing to do with Android vs iOS, it’s about premium vs cheap and if Apple is really only targeting the rich with its expensive phones.

            And stop quoting other people from other websites on other topics. You’re not even following the conversation. Be original for once.

          40. I think it’s a little more original to find oneself resonating with one or two interesting thinkers that buck the vast majority of punditry (ie Ben Evans and Horace), than regurgitating tired ideas of everyone else who has no idea what makes Apple tick and have the success that Apple has.

            There are indeed premium smartphones running Android. The reality is, very few on their own represent the ideal Android experience or potential as it is portrayed in comparison to the iPhone. And the vast majority of Android users don’t have one of these premium smartphones, and thus don’t relate to the experience as it could possibly be, at best were they to get just the right device from the right OEM with the right carrier relationships and services, etc. Comparing the usage and experience of a couple of % of Android users to 100% of iPhone users is no comparison, but that is the unoriginal picture presented time after time. That is why it is easier to see iPhones and iPads in use “in the wild”; they are not being flaunted by people who want to appear rich, they are being used for various things because their utility for those things and ever more things is high.

            So, most “Android” users, the ones people like you unoriginally invoke to show “Android” caters to everyone, that Apple should too, that Android is everyone’s “favorite”, or that Android is “winning”, have little to no conception or experience of the “smartphone as computer” or its potential for a device to perform certain jobs for them in a certain way.

            If this discussion has nothing to do with Android vs iOS, that is why. The ideal Android experience can only be found in a concept video or on a faked ad, and yet this is what is presented in comparison to the everyday experience of normal, non-rich iPhone users, even of those who have a second-hand or passed down device that is some 4yrs old.

            Therefore, as I said, the vast majority of “Android users” are non-consumers. Therefore, they are already potential future customers for Apple — even if they get a premium Android smartphone in the meantime. Once again, Apple is not making a phone for phone users, nor phones for the rich; no, Apple is making pocket computers.

            Since that is the case, the software has everything to do with it; the phone part is just an app. And since that is the case, only by insisting on ignoring it, as you have, can anyone possibly continue to pretend to be incredulous about Apple’s “not addressing all segments of the the phone market”, or “making a phone only for the rich”. If you step out of your unoriginal box for a minute, you might be able to answer your own questions.

          41. Completely missing the point. Same old tired Android vs iOS discussion. Almost everything you said is moot, copy pasted or irrelevant.

            Look, you don’t get bashed at WWDC every 2 minutes without doing something right. Android is clearly a reason why Apple’s growth relative to smartphone growth is small AND Android caters to users Apple doesn’t cater too.

            The point I’m arguing is that Apple does very well by adapting and challenging Android to these needs. Stop ignoring the fact that there are gaps in Apple’s offering. You sound like those people who said mini-tablets are stupid.

          42. “Stop ignoring the fact that there are gaps in Apple’s offering”

            Trying my best to follow this discussion. This may be one of those few times where everyone really is arguing semantics, that is, whether those gaps are a success/deliberate (Kizedek and Space Gorilla) or failure/shortcoming (Will) of the current strategy on Apple’s part. But I don’t think either side is denying the gaps.

            I may be wrong about that.

            Joe

          43. Thanks. That’s a big help.

            However, I do think it is more than semantics. It is possible that “strategy” covers the differences of opinion.

            Will seems to want to divorce OS/software from the discussion and make it all about business and economics — making the “issue” of different “market segments” all about affordability, etc.

            Space Gorilla and I are suggesting that you can’t divorce OS and Software from the discussion because that is at the heart of the value proposition that Apple is offering, and you very much “get what you pay for”. It really is as simple as that.

            When Apple can or wants to make their value proposition available in different sized/priced packages, they will.

          44. Who got bashed “every two minutes” at WWDC? Google? Samsung? or just Android?

            The only reason Apple has to “bash” “Android” is that it is a representation of everything “out there” that is not Apple and iOS. Because the world’s mindset is that once-lucky, insubstantial Apple is locked in a death struggle with every other tech company on the planet combined and Apple is, as usual, perpetually doomed. Not so.

            The only reason you believe your own arguments to be making sense, the only reason you can declare others to be missing your point, whatever it is, or that my argument is tired or moot, is that you have convinced yourself that Android is some singular competitive entity that Apple needs to worry about.

            Android must be doing something right? Huh? Exactly whom is doing something right, and what exactly is it?

            Ubiquitous Google, as it tries to be all things to all men but really just cares about its advertising customers? Google as it promises the world with Android and puts it out there warts and all, rife with insecurities so that the enterprise won’t touch it, and then retrenches and tries to regain control from its OEMs?

            Samsung, as does anything and everything expedient that it can to gain an edge over other OEMs? As it gets as close to the look and feel of Apple as possible? As it spends an unsustainable 14B per year on marketing and promotion? As it reaches it peak of profitability and starts to miss forecasts? As it persists in being a dishonest component maker and pushes Apple to take its business elsewhere?

            All the others associated with Android *except maybe Xioumi), who are barely breaking even?

            Android gained the position it has very rapidly through a number of factors, most of which has little to do with merit or anything that vaguely presents a worrying threat to Apple from a tangible source. Android is an expediency. The things that Google and OEMs are and could ever do with it seem to be diminishing every day (hence my reference to the very timely and current article by Ben Evans, hardly “tired”).

            When Apple is good and ready to go “smaller” or “lower budget” in some way, it will; and it will not be to chase some current Android market segment, just as Apple didn’t produce a netbook. Instead, Apple will present a new value proposition to new customers who won’t get a similar value from Android devices.

            I had been giving you the benefit of the doubt, had been thinking you had an interesting argument to make. Stop ignoring the fact that the “gaps” you think you see are the gaps that Apple needs to address or will address. You sound like those people who belong to the Church of MarketShare.

          45. But even with bigger screens, widgets and iCloud for Windows, Apple won’t sell a $100 (unsubsidized) phone. They will continue to ignore that market segment, and that is intentional.

          46. But that market segment can simply buy it subsidised from Walmart. And there is always an older cheaper model available with the same magic experience. If Apple is not targeting them, why spend so much effort to sell them iPhones?

          47. If we’re talking subsidized, that market segment would choose a free (subsidized) plus up-to-$200-rebate phone. The point is that there are smartphones in the US that are $200-$400 cheaper than even the oldest iPhone available.

            What does Apple do that makes you think Apple spends “so much effort to sell” iPhones to lower-income people in the US? (In many emerging markets outside the US, Apple is still experimenting with how to reach even 5% of the population.)

          48. I’m not going to comment on that, it’s ridiculous.

            Here’s a question for you, why would Apple only target the well-off?

          49. If you haven’t noticed, thousands of companies focus their products and marketing only on the well-off. This includes jewelry, cars, investments, yachts, jets, resorts, architects, banks, watches, clothing, realtors, schools, etc. As for your question, why did Toyota create Lexus, Nissan Infiniti, or Honda Acura? Why does VW keep a separate Audi brand, GM Cadillac, and BMW Mini?

            Apple isn’t as extreme as some; for the most part, it’s pricing is relatively affordable to both the middle and upper tiers of its markets. But in the US, Apple doesn’t price any Mac under $599 when competitor PCs sell for $250. Or any iPad under $299 when other tablets go for as low as $47 (see Amazon). Or any iPhone under $499 (unsubsidized, free subsidized) when others go for less than $100 (unsubsidized, rebates when subsidized). Though Apple can, they intentionally choose not to make cheaper products. Isn’t that evidence that they aren’t targeting every market segment?

          50. “As for your question, why did Toyota create Lexus, Nissan Infiniti, or Honda Acura? Why does VW keep a separate Audi brand, GM Cadillac, and BMW Mini” – – these names mean nothing to me but it’s probably examples of more expensive cars.

            But when everyone can afford an expensive car, it’s actually really cheap or free (with the cost hidden in gas price)… Those cars aren’t that premium anymore. So yes, Apple is targeting every segment because every segment of the population can afford one.

          51. “My point is Android is addressing a market that Apple isn’t.”

            You may have just accidentally understood some of what I was saying. Yes, of course Android addresses a segment of the market that Apple does not. Apple has never addressed the entire market, and likely never will. That is intentional. And it does not mean Apple is missing anything by choosing not to serve all segments.

          52. Back again at:

            “Apple may not be in the junk business but they lose $450 in pure profit every time someone buys a $100 phone. Saying “You’re not my target audience anyway” is childish at best.”

            They are losing a lot.

          53. Hmm, I think maybe the problem is that you really don’t understand segmentation. You seem to believe the market is a single entity, a zero-sum game across the entire market. That would explain your flawed conclusions.

      2. Walmart sells $699+ iPhones with 40%+ margins because there are wealthy people who shop at Walmart.

        Of course, Apple would like to sell many, many iPhones but Apple refuses to allow its latest models to be sold below certain threshold margins, so there is an Apple-defined constraint on the “as possible.”

        1. I’m pretty sure those wealthy people could be approached more effectively… And we’re not talking about margins, we’re talking about the type of people Apple targets.

          1. The type of people Apple targets with its products, and the product margins it accepts are very much intertwined. Apple Stores are located in zip codes with high concentrations of high-income people for a reason. For most areas with lower concentrations of wealthy people, Apple relies on chain stores like Walmart, Best Buy, and the carriers for iPhone sales. The cost of operating its own store is estimated to exceed projected revenue in those areas because Apple doesn’t have products that would sell well to lower-income people (i.e., demand is low), mostly because Apple won’t release more affordable products (either less capable but with high margins, or lowered cost due to accepting lower margins). This is elementary.

          2. From what you said, it seems to me Apple is doing everything it can to reach everybody, regardless of socioeconomic position. Which is my point.

    2. Agreed. There is, effectively, no wearables market. None. It’s a rounding error; in practical terms a fiction. A spotty handful of immensely compromised devices. The calculator-watch market of the ’70’s was orders of magnitude bigger, and look where that went.

      It’s a lot like the tablet market before the iPad, actually.

      1. What I hope Apple creates is an iBracelet (that won’t be the name obviously), or even a set of wearable sensors that gather data constantly and feed my iPhone (the hub). The iBracelet would also be my ID, which would be incredibly useful. See recent articles about Disney’s magic band thingy. I don’t want something I have to charge every night, not in a wearable.

  4. If I were Microsoft … hehheh … I would think about this list as a spectrum: servers, software, screens, sensors.

    Servers, both far away and in our hardware, is a done deal.
    Software, as os and apps, is done.
    Screens, big and small, done.
    Sensors, as beacons and bumcheckers*? Not done.

    I would plow everything into sensory experience devices. SX. And work backwards on to screens, software, and servers, to recreate what UX means.

    * I know. But it makes me laugh. Can’t say it without chuckling. … Still can’t.

  5. “Given Android’s headstart in wearables, it’s hard to see Apple winning any wearable app wars. Given the limitations of its market reach, it’s similarly difficult to see Apple winning the “smart home” market without buying its way in.”

    It’s meaningless to be first to market if consumers don’t buy the product. Let’s wait to see what Apple announces in the wearable field before making any “win” predictions. It’s very possible they have a significantly different take on this first wave of wearables and the direction of both hardware and software will shift accordingly. Focus is even more critical on a device with limited battery & screen.

    Android’s dominant “market reach” won’t help much in the “smart home” market if the bulk of the Android user base won’t even spend 99¢ for apps. You think those folks are going to drop $hundreds for thermostats, speakers, locks or lights? Just as in the tablet market, I think we’ll see that developers of 3rd party products will focus on iOS. It’s difficult to see Apple NOT winning this market.

    1. I can easily see Apple not winning the market. Since wearables are all about data, and Apple is not known for good software.
      It’s going to be pretty though, albeit a bit dumb.

      1. It’s not “known” for it because it is an integrated and seamless part of its own hardware. While 80% of its users are happily using 3-5 yr old computers and phones with the latest versions of iOS and OS X.

        Those companies that are “known” for their software (MS and Google) talk about all their wonderful new features all day long; which, perhaps, some users, with certain devices could potentially enjoy, if they’re lucky, and if they have some guru on call. That’s “software” for you.

        Meanwhile, the vast majority of both WIndows and Android user bases, despite their huge size, muddle along with years-old OS versions and account for a decreasing proportion of real world operations and jobs, including simple things that any “smartphone” owner should be capable of: like surfing, buying things online, selling things, making appointments, creating and uploading videos and images, etc.

        1. No, Apple was never strong with it’s software. Maps, iCloud, iPhoto, iWork. There are all inferior services, the only advantage is “simplicity” meaning dumber. If you want to use it go ahead.

          1. You are having a hard time following aren’t you?

            Are you genuinely complain about something having to many features? Ease of use has nothing to do with the number of features! Just because Apple software products do not have as many features than MS or Google (your words), that does not mean they are easier to use.

          2. I don’t recall saying Apple software doesn’t have as many features as MS or Google, although in certain circumstances I agree it is likely true. (I don’t consider “open” a feature. I consider that a handicap.) I would say Apple has the features that are important and handles them much more elegantly than either MS or Google, although MS is getting better. I can’t say the same for Google. Google seems to be making things more unnecessarily complex.

            I’m just trying to figure out where you draw the line between simplicity as dumb and simplicity as smart because you seem to be contradicting yourself.

            Joe

          3. What you don’t understand is that simplicity has nothing to do with number of features. You’re conclusion that Google/MS don’t have simplicity in their products because of the number of features is wrong.

          4. My conclusion that MS and Google don’t have simplicity is based on complexity, not number of features. Ever tried to juggle multiple Google Drive accounts? I’ve mentioned elsewhere, MS trumps Google with Office365 in this regard. But there is nothing simple about Office versus iWork.

            Maybe you could give an example of where more features is simpler than less features.

            Joe

          5. A recipe app vs a recipe book? Search makes finding recipes so much easier even though the feature doesn’t exist for books 🙂

          6. Two things. I am not sure you have illustrated _more_ features, just a different feature. The book has the feature that I can pencil in my own notes in the margins or correct a misprint. The app may or may not have that.

            And there are times where I have found a recipe book’s index to be superior to a search function. Less to weed through. The search introduces its own complexities to sort through. So, again, I don’t think you’ve shown more features=more simple.

            All the same, within the context of this discussion, are you implying that Apple doesn’t have recipe apps?

            Joe

          7. More features does not equal more simple. Simplicity has NOTHING to do with the number of features, don’t you get that?!
            “_more_ features, just a different feature” – – what?!

          8. You’re the one who said Apple’s simplicity=dumb. Then you say more features can be simple and not complex. I ask for an example of where more features=simple. You provide something outside the context of the discussion that doesn’t really illustrate _more_ features=simple, just a different feature and assume this answers the question, not to mention that it is still has complexity.

            Are you sure more features can be simple? I’m not sure you are.

            Joe

          9. “You’re the one who said Apple’s simplicity=dumb” — I actually said you are assuming Apple is simpler to use because it has less features. That’s wrong, not Apple’s simplicity=dumb. Are you 12?!

            “Are you sure more features can be simple? I’m not sure you are.” — again, simplicity has nothing to do with number of features. None, zero, nada. I won’t say it again.

          10. Here is what you said, “the only advantage is ‘simplicity’ meaning dumber”

            I made no such assumption about number of features. I was trying to get you to explain your assumptions. Apparently you can’t.

            Joe

          11. Nice example of taking things out of context. I said that you assume Apple’s products are simpler because they are dumber (i.e. less features), which is not true.

          12. I’m still not sure why you keep insisting that I made this assumption. I think Apple products are simpler because they are designed that way. How many features the products may or may not have is irrelevant to me. As long as they have the features I need and want and I am able to use them easily, I’m good to go.

            Joe

          13. I wasn’t replying for him. I was asking you questions that interested me. I apologize if that offends you. Maybe you should have made the discussion private.

            Joe

          14. Which competitors provide software that is “simpler to use with more features” than Apple’s?

          15. Excel hands down. Both Apple and MS provide software with similar layout, buttons and functionality. But Excel makes your job so much easier because it can do so much without being in your face with it’s features.

  6. I love it when people complain about keyboards – Watched a little 30-something type so fast on her iPhone she’d probably put most professional clerk-typists to shame. All your complaint means is you’re not very adaptable 😉

      1. But I do – A gal I knew was the fastest typist at Honeywell, can’t recall her speed/accuracy numbers anymore though.

  7. An interesting article. I suspect it would have been an even more interesting article with the help of a good edit. Said edit would add “compared to what” after every assertion.

    1. OK. I’ve re-read the article and I can’t for the life of me make sense of this comment. Maybe you could get a little more specific? You may have a point, but I can’t find it. A little help is appreciated.

      Joe

      1. Sorry for not being specific. A couple of examples;

        “Given Android’s headstart in wearables, it’s hard to see Apple winning any wearable app wars. Given the limitations of its market reach, it’s similarly difficult to see Apple winning the “smart home” market without buying its way in. Sonos would be a good start.

        Smartphones are borderline magical. That said, the iPhone 5s battery and the HTC One (M8) camera are embarrassingly bad.”

        The first point made relates to Android and wearables. To suggest that any company has a clear “head start” in wearables contradicts all the analyst information that I have read (see IHS/IDTechEx/GigaOM etc). The market is also currently tiny with no major success:

        http://mashable.com/2014/05/23/fitbit-wearables-sales/

        The reason given for this statement is even more suspect i.e. “given the limitations of its market reach”. Apple, by most accounts is the second/third biggest global platform (depending upon whether valued by numbers or $value). In App revenue terms, iOS is ahead of Android apps. 3 v 1 (See AppAnnie).

        Developer usage is closer 32 v 37% (VisionMobile). However, revenue is much greater in the iOS economy

        http://www.visionmobile.com/blog/2013/04/infographic-developer-economics-2013-dev-tools-are-the-foundation-of-the-app-economy/

        See also NewRelic:
        “Additionally, 54 percent of iOS developers are reported to be making a viable income from their apps, while only 38 percent of Android developers have reached the same benchmark.”

        With regard to battery life, detailed technical reviews indicate at it is at best, the best in the industry or at worst similar to most of its immediate peer group:
        http://www.anandtech.com/show/7335/the-iphone-5s-review/9

        If you have evidence to contradict these readily available points, simple attribution, rather than bald assertion, would be welcome. But as I said, an interesting article.

  8. Venturing far from Tech Wars on this and already anticipating the flaming I will get: The Pride Parade and the Hobby decision are each about the right of choice. I am a Libertarian and I applaud both.

    Everyone should have the right to be who they are and be open about it. And a private owned employer should have the right to say upfront that abortion procedures are against their deeply held beliefs and before you come to work for our company understand in advance that our health plan will not cover these procedures. If it is important to you that these procedures be covered than you have the right to look for a job somewhere else.

  9. Brian, I have always liked your work, even more so of late. You are on a grow and learn trip that most tech prognostics (most busy people, actually) rarely venture. If we can’t grow with our understanding then we stagnate. Few are able to truly think outside the box of their conventions and convictions. You have an incisive original style of writing to boot. (Ignore the nitpickers for taking chance is the key to expression. Seemed to work for a certain grammatically challenged dramatist of the 16/17th C.)

    Your points on ‘children, tablets and YouTube: “Free, always accessible content uniquely tailored . . .etc.” is so clear and precise. In my walks, accosting those fearless to share a nod and who look like they think outside the box, I find many who have given up on TV and are sourcing not only their entertainment, but especially their news and learning from YouTube and other sources on the net. I am not a Google fan, but to its credit, YouTube is the modern liberator equivalent to and possibly even surpassing the invention of the Gothenburg Press. And it seems unstoppable. Maybe in this one acquisition Google actually lives up to what it sees and often expresses as its philosophy and purpose. As for MS and any answers to its raison d’état, there may be none; at least not until it learns to dance beyond the confines of the two step, as for those old beyond their years, such just does not seem possible.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *