Mobile phones & tablets thread

[Dave B]

Fair enough, quite bored of this actually.

In other tablet and tech news, Google released a lot of tech over the last few days:



Google reveals pint-sized Nexus 7 tablet for just $199 | Technology News Blog - Yahoo! News

What do you think?

It looks like a nice little tablet, but apart from the Jellybean OS doesn't appear to offer a huge amount more than the £50 no-names you can pick up - many of which are starting to ship with Ice Cream Sandwich and huge memories. I'm sure it's a lot more powerful, but for casual browsing and simple games the vanilla tablets are surprisingly good.

There's not a huge amount you can do on a £300 iPad that you can't do on a £50 tablet, and many of them address the shortcomings of the Apple by including proper connectivity with the outside world.

[CaptainRaiden]

Just to make it clear, you can buy Apple computers in most electrical retailers in the UK and even our local supermarket Tesco stock them. The post above claims you have to go direct to Apple but that's not the case.

I'm not talking about stores, but manufacturers.

I never claimed you can only buy an Apple computer in an "Apple store".

[CaptainRaiden]

A weird new ball like streaming device from Google. The Nexus Q:

Google Nexus Q review | from TechRadar's expert reviews of Media streaming devices





Runs on an Android OS and can be controlled by several different Android phones or tablets through an app to stream media on a TV or other devices. Weird shape, a competitor to Apple TV, maybe interesting because multiple users can control it, but I don't think it will get a lot of buyers. Maybe the next version will be better.

[CaptainRaiden]

Thanks for posting that. This thread has influenced me to wait until the iPhone 5 is released so that I can compare it to the S3 before I decide which way to go with my next upgrade. With the release not that far away, I think I'd be stupid to upgrade, only to maybe regret it once my wife gets the 5. I have no qualms waiting a couple more months.

I'm actually also inclined towards waiting for the iPhone 5 now just to see what new features, if any, they will unveil.

My hands are getting quite itchy to get the Galaxy S3 though.

If Apple's iOS works fine on lesser hardware, I wonder why they would want to go the quad core route, maybe to be future proof or to be able to stream media on huge TVs more effortlessly.

Either way, if it has a quad core processor and a much bigger screen, it will be VERY interesting to see if it's in the same price range as the Galaxy S3.

[ArrowsFA1]

If someone wants to buy an iMac or a Macbook, they can only go to Apple.

If someone wants to buy a PC or a laptop, they can go to Dell, HP, Sony, Samsung, Acer, Lenovo, LG, HCL, Toshiba, ASUS, Panasonic, MSI, Fujitsu etc. etc. and tons of small PC firms who will assemble your PC components for you.

I'm not clear what your complaint here is. If people want to buy a computer they have a choice. They can choose from Apple, Dell, HP, Sony, Samsung, Acer, Lenovo etc etc. Yes, the iMac or Macbook computers are Apple only. So

If someone wants to buy, for example, a Porsche 911 they can only go to Porsche. There are similar cars, some considerably cheaper, available from other manufacturers. Are you suggesting that Porsche should allow other manufacturers to make the 911 and sell at a lower price it with their own badge on the front?

[CaptainRaiden]

I'm not clear what your complaint here is. If people want to buy a computer they have a choice. They can choose from Apple, Dell, HP, Sony, Samsung, Acer, Lenovo etc etc. Yes, the iMac or Macbook computers are Apple only. So

Jag was comparing Apple with Dell, and IMO the comparison is unfair because Dell is one of many PC vendors, whereas Apple is the only Mac vendor.

While Apple and all the other 15 manufacturers source the same components, make their own peripherals, there is one big difference: the operating system. And that puts Apple in a different category, just as laptops running Linux will be put in a separate category.

And so if you really wanna compare Mac with PC, Mac OS X with MS Windows, Apple is in direct competition with all of them. It is not like Dell, HP or Toshiba make laptops with their own OS. They are all running Windows 7. So, the fact of the matter is that Windows 7 PCs and laptops are selling at least 10 times more than Mac computers running OS X worldwide.

Apple may be a true competitor to Dell, but Mac computers are not a true competitor to PC. Nor will it be for a very long time. It is a luxury brand for a niche market.

If someone wants to buy, for example, a Porsche 911 they can only go to Porsche. There are similar cars, some considerably cheaper, available from other manufacturers. Are you suggesting that Porsche should allow other manufacturers to make the 911 and sell at a lower price it with their own badge on the front?

I don't really understand the car manufacturer analogy here. Are there 15 different car companies selling different looking cars with the same exact engine inside against Porsche?

[Malbec]

All that is good, but you're making the mistake of comparing Apple with only Dell, who is one of MANY PC vendors.

If someone wants to buy an iMac or a Macbook, they can only go to Apple.

If someone wants to buy a PC or a laptop, they can go to Dell, HP, Sony, Samsung, Acer, Lenovo, LG, HCL, Toshiba, ASUS, Panasonic, MSI, Fujitsu etc. etc. and tons of small PC firms who will assemble your PC components for you.

No matter how many Macbooks "flew off the shelves" last year, Apple's share of the worldwide market still lingers around the 10% range, and that's just in the US, Apple's biggest market. Their worldwide share is even lesser, and they're counted in "Others". And while Apple may have had a solid growth against Dell and kicked their rear ends to oblivion, but PCs and laptops sold 10 times more than Apple computers, and that's only in the US. The ratio is even bigger for worldwide sales.

While they're undisputed market leaders in tablets, and marginally in smartphones, they are not really a "true" competitor to PC's domination of the world market.

I think you're making a mistake there. What you say is true of individual consumers but many companies and large institutions do not buy hardware in the way you describe. They buy an entire solutions package and the OS and hardware supplier is not under their control.

Apple is indeed seeing higher sales to individual users but they are not making large inroads into the corporate segment outside areas where they have been traditionally strong such as graphic design. The reason is that most institutions computerised their systems years ago on Windows based systems and switching OS would represent too much of a risk for them.

Most hospitals in the UK use computerised test request and results systems, many of them bought back in the '80s and '90s. While the wards have good looking new PCs running late versions of windows, they often have to open up an MS DOS emulator to run the software they were bought to run. Likewise the software packages that handle many of the routine financial transactions at banks are equally old and they are loath to fiddle with them at all because of the risks involved (as RBS has shown over the past week).

Most cases are of course not as extreme but the pressure to continue with the same solution which uses the same OS to run on is very strong.

Therefore the fact that major institutions still use windows based systems is not necessarily a good comparison of the effectiveness of the OS as many procurement decisions are based on institutional inertia.

[Jag_Warrior]

All that is good, but you're making the mistake of comparing Apple with only Dell, who is one of MANY PC vendors.

If someone wants to buy an iMac or a Macbook, they can only go to Apple.

If someone wants to buy a PC or a laptop, they can go to Dell, HP, Sony, Samsung, Acer, Lenovo, LG, HCL, Toshiba, ASUS, Panasonic, MSI, Fujitsu etc. etc. and tons of small PC firms who will assemble your PC components for you.

No matter how many Macbooks "flew off the shelves" last year, Apple's share of the worldwide market still lingers around the 10% range, and that's just in the US, Apple's biggest market. Their worldwide share is even lesser, and they're counted in "Others". And while Apple may have had a solid growth against Dell and kicked their rear ends to oblivion, but PCs and laptops sold 10 times more than Apple computers, and that's only in the US. The ratio is even bigger for worldwide sales.

And even with my cute little story, you continue to miss the point.

No, I am not only comparing Apple with Dell. I mentioned HP. I mentioned IBM. I'll mention any PC OEM that you like. Pick one and we'll go through the same exercise again... and we'll get the same results again. We'll compare Apple's margins to any and all of them. It is what it is. Facts are facts. The point is, no matter what your market share is, no matter how big a truck you buy to carry your products in... at the end of the day, you still have to turn an acceptable profit. This is not a debatable theory. This is quite simply an economic fact! OK? OK! Is it not clear to you why HP, even with its immense market share (globally and in the U.S.), was prepared to sell its PC division? Is it not clear to you why Dell is moving its focus more toward corporate/governmental services and away from the consumer segment? I'm not married to any of these companies. I don't work for any of them. So rather than continue going in circles with this issue, I'll point out one last time that Apple is not and probably never will have the market share as Dell, HP or any of the other large OEM PC makers. Why? For the very reasons that I illustrated in my watermelon story. The PC business has become commoditized. This was the stated reason that IBM gave for selling its PC division to Lenovo. The ultrabook concept is an attempt to move away from that. Whether you understand this or not, the CEO's of these OEM companies understand that they have to begin offering products that are more than just cheap, featureless boxes - as Apple has understood for some time. Do you understand why having your product being perceived as a commodity is not a value proposition, and why just having a given market share does not guarantee your success? Constant references to market share, in the absence of an acceptable profit margin, just provides a meaningless talking point. GM's global market share was #1-#2 right up until they went bankrupt. This isn't rocket science. Refer back to my watermelon story, think about it (objectively and without the spin) and see where the data leads you... instead of you trying to lead the data.

Now, with all that said, from a business standpoint, having a large number of OEM's making essentially the same "commodity" product that you're making is not good - it squeezes margins. You basically have to compete on price and price alone. And the race to the bottom is a short, painful one. Only by offering better customer service, or something along those lines, can you differentiate your product. But from a consumer point of view, this is a good thing. I am not arguing that it is not. Because if you're in the market for one of these items, you have a variety of sources (as you said) and you can make your choice based on who offers the best price, and hopefully an acceptable level of service.

[CaptainRaiden]

Without quoting specific parts of the above two posts, since I'm in a hurry, I'll just say this: I agree that Apple has had solid and steady growth against PC manufacturers, namely Dell and HP, and that they have sold a hell of a lot of computers, especially Macbooks recently. I am also aware that while Dell and HP sold twice the computers than Apple over the last year or so, they actually made a loss. So, yes, Apple did make a sizable dent on the computer market against its two main competitors.

Why I don't consider them "true competitors" is for a couple of reasons. First, Apple's US share (only computers, not tablets or smartphones) is around 11% and the worldwide share is a little over 4%. That has moved slightly over the last 4-5 years. Yes, sure, maybe PC brands are not enjoying the same amount of success and profits as Apple is, but that doesn't change the fact that still PC outsells Apple computers by a big margin worldwide, and it is still the preferred choice of a majority of buyers all over the world. And of course, this is not even taking into account how many separate PC components are sold daily and how many people simply buy the components and assemble the PC themselves. I personally know at least 10 people who have built PCs off and on over years and still update their hardware on a regular basis.

US and UK are two of the biggest markets for Apple, but that's still quite a small chunk when we talk about the whole world. For example, in India corporations prefer PCs because it helps them keep their costs down dramatically and deliver pretty much the same quality, which is crucial when American or European companies outsource their work to these firms. Same can be said of many other future big economies in Asia. For personal users in India, you can buy components at a big discount from small computer firms who will assemble the PC and even install the OS for you at a fraction of a cost of a Dell or an HP computer. I don't even wanna begin to get into how much cheaper they are compared to iMacs!! And so a lot of corporations, in my experience, have bought such PCs and hired one or two technicians who do the PC maintenance and also handle servers and networking. This saves a HUGE amount of money for them and makes good sense for business.

Another big factor, and this I have seen in US, Asia and Europe, is many corporations' and users' unwillingness to move away from Windows XP. It's the "If it's not broken, why fix it" attitude. And because of Vista's failure, people were apprehensive in switching over to Windows 7, and this prevents Windows 7 from fully being implemented. Apple doesn't have this problem. This, coupled with regular revamping and revisions of the Mac OS X more recently has meant Apple has enjoyed quite a lot of success lately.

Despite this, Windows 7 still is the most used OS in the world, and more Windows 7 laptops are sold than Macbooks, yes, not at a huge profit, but they are still selling more nonetheless. Once the full implementation of Windows 7 happens worldwide, and the Windows 8 onslaught begins, I expect PC sales to pick up massively. Only time will tell.

[Malbec]

Without quoting specific parts of the above two posts, since I'm in a hurry, I'll just say this: I agree that Apple has had solid and steady growth against PC manufacturers, namely Dell and HP, and that they have sold a hell of a lot of computers, especially Macbooks recently. I am also aware that while Dell and HP sold twice the computers than Apple over the last year or so, they actually made a loss. So, yes, Apple did make a sizable dent on the computer market against its two main competitors.

Why I don't consider them "true competitors" is for a couple of reasons. First, Apple's US share (only computers, not tablets or smartphones) is around 11% and the worldwide share is a little over 4%. That has moved slightly over the last 4-5 years. Yes, sure, maybe PC brands are not enjoying the same amount of success and profits as Apple is, but that doesn't change the fact that still PC outsells Apple computers by a big margin worldwide, and it is still the preferred choice of a majority of buyers all over the world. And of course, this is not even taking into account how many separate PC components are sold daily and how many people simply buy the components and assemble the PC themselves. I personally know at least 10 people who have built PCs off and on over years and still update their hardware on a regular basis.

US and UK are two of the biggest markets for Apple, but that's still quite a small chunk when we talk about the whole world. For example, in India corporations prefer PCs because it helps them keep their costs down dramatically and deliver pretty much the same quality, which is crucial when American or European companies outsource their work to these firms. Same can be said of many other future big economies in Asia. For personal users in India, you can buy components at a big discount from small computer firms who will assemble the PC and even install the OS for you at a fraction of a cost of a Dell or an HP computer. I don't even wanna begin to get into how much cheaper they are compared to iMacs!! And so a lot of corporations, in my experience, have bought such PCs and hired one or two technicians who do the PC maintenance and also handle servers and networking. This saves a HUGE amount of money for them and makes good sense for business.

Another big factor, and this I have seen in US, Asia and Europe, is many corporations' and users' unwillingness to move away from Windows XP. It's the "If it's not broken, why fix it" attitude. And because of Vista's failure, people were apprehensive in switching over to Windows 7, and this prevents Windows 7 from fully being implemented. Apple doesn't have this problem. This, coupled with regular revamping and revisions of the Mac OS X more recently has meant Apple has enjoyed quite a lot of success lately.

Despite this, Windows 7 still is the most used OS in the world, and more Windows 7 laptops are sold than Macbooks, yes, not at a huge profit, but they are still selling more nonetheless. Once the full implementation of Windows 7 happens worldwide, and the Windows 8 onslaught begins, I expect PC sales to pick up massively. Only time will tell.

Oh dear, you're STILL not getting it.

Apple doesn't shift huge numbers because unlike many PC manufacturers it doesn't target corporate clients (except in a few small fields). You're criticising it for poor sales in a category it clearly isn't aiming for.

Apple targets the casual consumer for home use. That is why its first serious comeback product was the iPod, useless for the corporate environment but very attractive to home users. Ditto the iPhone although it is more useful for work than the iPod. And guess what? In the market its aiming at it is extremely successful to the point where rivals such as Sony and Microsoft, despite strong branding and resources have utterly failed to make a dent in the market (remember Zune?), and where its profitability is very high.

What next? Are you going to call Ferrari and Porsche failures, after all they too have poor market share and near zero fleet sales?