Beta
×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

Woz Says Android Will Dominate

CmdrTaco posted more than 3 years ago | from the staring-into-the-crystal-ball dept.

Iphone 416

cloudcreator writes "Woz [said] that Android smartphones, not the iPhone, would become dominant, noting that the Google OS is likely to win the race similarly to the way that Windows ultimately dominated the PC world." Update: 11/19 04:54 GMT by T : Apparently, Woz's words were taken slightly out of context.

Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

Just so long as (1)

Chrisq (894406) | more than 3 years ago | (#34268050)

Just so long as SCOracle doesn't kill it.

open vs closed (5, Funny)

nomorecwrd (1193329) | more than 3 years ago | (#34268062)

Isn't it obvious?
Open technology will always win over closed

Just like Linux....

er, hmm, never mind.

Re:open vs closed (5, Insightful)

robot256 (1635039) | more than 3 years ago | (#34268138)

All that matters is that it's open to third party hardware and third party developers in general. The exact nature of that openness is irrelevant as far as the consumer is concerned. All that matters is that there is competition among hardware and software vendors to drive down the price of systems and increase compatibility, and people will buy it in ever-increasing numbers. This obviously will never happen with Apple's OS since there is no hardware compatibility or competition.

Re:open vs closed (3, Interesting)

tepples (727027) | more than 3 years ago | (#34268242)

All that matters is that it's open to third party hardware and third party developers in general.

The three major video game consoles are less open than even an iPhone, yet consoles beat PCs in sales in several genres.

Re:open vs closed (2)

uncanny (954868) | more than 3 years ago | (#34268276)

That's comparing two different things. Can you upgrade parts of a PS1 to run PS3 games? no. But you can upgrade your computer to run newer games, or if you aren't too into games, you can keep your old PC running for years to just do regular tasks.

Re:open vs closed (3, Insightful)

drinkypoo (153816) | more than 3 years ago | (#34268362)

While I kind of agree with you, your example is preposterous. Try upgrading a computer of the PSX era (Say, Pentium II at 400MHz with a Voodoo 2 card) to run a game of the PS3 era (say, Half-Life 2) and you'll find it a frustrating experience. Or you'll basically be replacing everything in the case, and you'll have an ugly computer by modern standards. Which is OK, but you probably won't save any money as compared to buying a complete refurb if you're not looking to build the ultimate computer.

But you can upgrade your computer to run newer games, or if you aren't too into games, you can keep your old PC running for years to just do regular tasks.

You can keep the PSX running for years to play PSX games, too, if you're willing to replace the laser assembly periodically; and there's a continuing supply of replacement parts being made to fill the substantial demand.

Re:open vs closed (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34268396)

So you're saying that as long as the software is closed and the hardware is unable to be upgraded, the iPhone will beat open source hardware, just like console games beat PC games for sales.

Re:open vs closed (1)

tepples (727027) | more than 3 years ago | (#34268426)

Can you upgrade parts of a PS1 to run PS3 games? no.

Can you easily upgrade the CPU and video card of a laptop or a small-form-factor PC to run newer PC games? no. Can you upgrade an early-PS2-era PC to run PS3-class PC games without replacing everything but the case, the TV, and the controllers? no.

or if you aren't too into games, you can keep your old PC running for years to just do regular tasks.

This would be possible with consoles as well if it weren't for not being open. See what was done with PS3 Other OS before Sony shut it down.

Re:open vs closed (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34268286)

a gaming rig is also several times more expensive than a game console

Re:open vs closed (1)

tepples (727027) | more than 3 years ago | (#34268378)

a gaming rig is also several times more expensive than a game console

How is this the case? An ION nettop has a GeForce 9400 GPU, more powerful than that in the Wii, and doesn't cost much more according to Google Product Search [google.com] . Or by gaming rig did you mean something more powerful than a PS3 or Xbox 360?

Re:open vs closed (2, Interesting)

somersault (912633) | more than 3 years ago | (#34268582)

The Wii is more like PS2 in terms of graphical ability though, not quite the same league as Xbox 360 and PS3.

PC specs of course keep developing at a phenomenal rate, so it's maybe possible to build an equivalent powered gaming rig for the same price these days, but it definitely wouldn't have been at launch - especially if you also wanted a blu-ray drive in there..

Historically when I was speccing up gaming rigs I used to buy ones that cost around 2-3x as much as a console.

Of course I've just bought an Xbox 360 today, which means I've bought a Wii, PS3 and 360 in the last 3 years, and ended up spending as much as I would have on a gaming PC anyway :p When you add in peripherals too that adds up to quite a bit more than I would have on the PC. But if I'd bought a gaming PC 3 years ago, I'd probably be buying a new one soon, or at least have spent hundreds on upgrades.

Re:open vs closed (1)

morari (1080535) | more than 3 years ago | (#34268412)

a gaming rig is also several times more expensive than a game console

Hyperbole.

Do you recall how much the PS3 and 360 were when they came out? I guess not.

Re:open vs closed (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34268488)

I do, I bought the most expensive model a few weeks after launch. It cost 1/3 as much as my current gaming rig. That gaming rig was bought several months later and is already in need of a new graphics card, the PS3 still runs every game perfectly.

Re:open vs closed (1)

somersault (912633) | more than 3 years ago | (#34268606)

PS3 was about £350. Xbox was maybe £300 for the top model, I can't remember. Still a hell of a lot cheaper than buying a gaming PC with good bang/buck ratio. IMO that usually amounts to about £600-800 if you're wanting to play the latest games with decent graphics settings.

Re:open vs closed (1)

B1oodAnge1 (1485419) | more than 3 years ago | (#34268450)

only if you don't count the cost of a TV, and you insist on running all your PC games at max settings.

Re:open vs closed (3, Insightful)

donny77 (891484) | more than 3 years ago | (#34268444)

BS. Hardware manufacturers in the cell phone market do NOT compete on price. All the smart phones are priced the same INCLUDING the iPhone. Android may outsell iOS in the future mostly due to user preference. Not of the OS, but of the hardware. There will never be a iOS device with a physical keyboard. The iPhone will continue to be the most popular individual handset. Android will also find a home on quasi smart phones that lack the all the features.

iOS is JUST as open to third party development as Android. iPhone hardware is just as open to hacking as any Android phone bought in the US. The average American is never going to order the unlocked version from overseas. The only thing closed on iOS is App distribution. And, if you really care about that, get a developer licenses and load your own apps manually. Sad fact is, the average user shouldn't have the ability to install anything. Windows and the Internet taught us this.

Re:open vs closed (2, Insightful)

rakuen (1230808) | more than 3 years ago | (#34268448)

Marketing is a big deal. Microsoft and Apple constantly market things. They're always in your face. The general public knows they exist, and they also know how to use them without too much fuss. Compare this to Linux, which I have never seen a mainstream advertisement for and which can be daunting to a new user.

The situation between Google and Apple here isn't the same as between PC/Mac and Linux. Google markets their Android. I see commercials and advertisements for it everywhere. Yes, it's open technology, but it's open technology people know about. It is also similar to Apple's iPhone, which means people know how to use it. It makes a huge difference in adoption rates.

So I suppose in closing, Google's open technology could indeed win the day, and if you want Linux to take off, you best be getting commercials for it in primetime as well.

Cheap vs Expensive? (2, Insightful)

mveloso (325617) | more than 3 years ago | (#34268480)

Cheap shit sells better. Why is this a surprise?

Re:open vs closed (1)

falldeaf (968657) | more than 3 years ago | (#34268502)

Actually, Woz was saying android would win because of features and hardware choice, not because of openness. He's got a pretty good point there because it sure seems like history repeating itself after the PC race. And btw, Android IS linux.

Re:open vs closed (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34268534)

All things google lead to data mining. Data mining is profitable. Profits win. The end.

Re:open vs closed (1)

PsyciatricHelp (951182) | more than 3 years ago | (#34268572)

Really its the lack of hardware restrictions that win. With android you actually have choices. I know it tends to be a hard concept for businesses but people don't all want to own the same damn thing. I want my device to be better than everyone else. $100 android device or $1000 android device or somewhere in between. or $800 iphone.

Re:open vs closed (3, Insightful)

Bert64 (520050) | more than 3 years ago | (#34268692)

Linux has already won over proprietary unix, anyone remember SCO unixware or BSDi?
All the other proprietary unixes are relegated to niches on their own hardware (AIX, HPUX) or dead (Tru64, Ultrix, DG/UX, IRIX)

Windows has inertia and lock-in behind it, but windows has already proven that open technology will win out over proprietary - software was always considered a very cheap component of an expensive hardware purchase so windows came along for the ride in the drive towards the open x86 compatible...
Proprietary hardware has also been driven into small expensive niches despite being massively superior to the open x86 hardware of its day..

Who cares? (4, Insightful)

schnikies79 (788746) | more than 3 years ago | (#34268064)

Use what you want and leave the "I win"/"you win" dogma aside.

Re:Who cares? (5, Funny)

AnonymousClown (1788472) | more than 3 years ago | (#34268158)

However, he then conceded that, "Android phones have more features," and offer more choice for more people. Eventually, he thinks that Android quality, consistency, and user satisfaction will match iOS.

In the news, an Apple fanboy ran up to Mr.Wozniak, starting beating against Mr. Wozniak's chest and exclaimed "You beast! You beast! You beast! You beast!You beast! You beast!You beast!" and after exhausting himself, broke down in tears. Mr Wozniak then held the fanboy and said, "There there. Shhhhhhhh. It's OK. It'll never be Apple. Shhhhhhhhhh."

Re:Who cares? (2, Insightful)

falldeaf (968657) | more than 3 years ago | (#34268200)

Well, it's not quite that simple. There's some good reasons to cheer for your favorite platform. The platform that's doing the best gets the most attention from developers and hardware manufacturers. Also, some apps are more useful with a larger user base, like multiplayer games... Go android! :)

Re:Who cares? (4, Insightful)

LWATCDR (28044) | more than 3 years ago | (#34268578)

But I do not want one or even two to dominate.
Really that sucks.
Right now we have multiable consoles and that works out pretty well.
I would like to see IOS, Android, MeeGo, QNX/Blackberry, and WebOS all have about equal shares.
That would drive competition and improvements.
Let's face it before IOS the state of MobilePhone OSs was pretty bad. Apple brought new ideas and fried everybody else up.
WebOS for those that have not used it is IMHO has the best UI out. It has the best multitasking interface out there.
BTW I own an Android phone, develop for IOS, and my wife has a WebOS phone so I have used all of them a good bit.
Android brought a compass to the list of standard hardware on a smartphone. Apple is now bringing super dense displays and gyros.
Microsoft brings it's name and a pretty UI. IMHO it is still lacking a lot of manditory features for a phone OS but that is just my opinon.
So no I want everyone to have a nice sized slice of the pie. That will be the best possible outcome. I do not want to be stuck like we are with PCs where one OS has 70+ of the market and one ISA has 100+ of the consumer market.
Oh and I want a new ISA for phones that isn't based on the ARM. PPC, MIPS, SH-4... Come on folks.
 

Re:Who cares? (2, Insightful)

Enderandrew (866215) | more than 3 years ago | (#34268634)

Android isn't going to get 90% market share or anything like that.

I expect iOS, Blackberry and Windows Mobile to continue to challenge and compete in the market. Four serious contenders in the same market should provide for a reasonable amount of competition and innovation.

Re:Who cares? (1)

robot256 (1635039) | more than 3 years ago | (#34268236)

That's right. We're consumers! We vote with our wallets! And since all smartphones are terribly unsecure and overpriced, I'm voting for the dumbphone! End of problem.

Re:Who cares? (1)

CarpetShark (865376) | more than 3 years ago | (#34268320)

"Use what you want and leave the "I win"/"you win" dogma aside."

That's great advise for users. Not much use if you don't happen to be in the IT/Mobile industries, and need to know what direction those industries are taking.

Re:Who cares? (1)

CarpetShark (865376) | more than 3 years ago | (#34268392)

Advice, even. :/

Re:Who cares? (1)

tepples (727027) | more than 3 years ago | (#34268478)

Use what you want and leave the "I win"/"you win" dogma aside.

Provided that what I want even exists. The iPhone is to the iPod touch as an Android phone is to what Android media player that one can try in person? I looked for Archos 43 and Samsung Galaxy Player 50, which fit this description according to online reports, but neither Best Buy nor Sears had it. Where do you recommend buying gadgets like these online that doesn't charge a restocking fee if I try the product and end up finding it unusably unergonomic?

Maybe (5, Insightful)

swimin (828756) | more than 3 years ago | (#34268076)

Part of the reason Windows was successful was that it supported a lot of hardware, with only one API. Android needs to insure that it's not difficult to write a single application that will run on every decently modern ( 2 year old) android phone, or else it would give up what is probably its biggest advantage.

Re:Maybe (1)

K. S. Kyosuke (729550) | more than 3 years ago | (#34268144)

Part of the reason Windows was successful was that it supported a lot of hardware, with only one API.

Yeah, that's why Linux is particularly successful as well. :)

Re:Maybe (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34268338)

Part of the reason Windows was successful was that it supported a lot of hardware, with only one API.

Yeah, that's why Linux is particularly successful as well. :)

You're confusing "necessary" and "sufficient" again.... Look them up!

Re:Maybe (3, Insightful)

muuh-gnu (894733) | more than 3 years ago | (#34268430)

Linux (the ecosystem) doesnt have "one API", it has dozens. And all of them are updated so often and so unpredictably that by the time you finished your application, you cant install it on new systems without rewriting parts of it. Bad, really bad "API stability" is the main reason Linux failed so badly in the "industry".

> Part of the reason Windows was successful was that it supported a lot of hardware, with only one API.

The other part was supporting this API for decades, and thus saving their customers the expenses of rewriting their applications over and over and over.

Re:Maybe (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34268524)

Linux (the ecosystem) doesnt have "one API", it has dozens. And all of them are updated so often and so unpredictably that by the time you finished your application, you cant install it on new systems without rewriting parts of it. Bad, really bad "API stability" is the main reason Linux failed so badly in the "industry".

All of these sentences are false.

Re:Maybe (2, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34268164)

It's really easy to do that, actually; you set up your project to use the 1.6 libraries, or the 2.1 libraries, or whatever older version you want, and only use the newer ones if they have a feature you need. Take a look at the devkit sometime, it's free.

Re:Maybe (4, Insightful)

bemymonkey (1244086) | more than 3 years ago | (#34268456)

How does that help people buying current 1.6 phones because they don't know any better, and then wondering why so many apps are unavailable on their devices?

If Google doesn't start forcing carriers/vendors to upgrade their handsets in a timely manner, no amount of SDK wizardry is going to help.

Re:Maybe (1)

thePowerOfGrayskull (905905) | more than 3 years ago | (#34268506)

It's really easy to do that, actually; you set up your project to use the 1.6 libraries, or the 2.1 libraries, or whatever older version you want, and only use the newer ones if they have a feature you need. Take a look at the devkit sometime, it's free.

Easy is a very relative term. This sounds similar to the BlackBerry setup - which means it's anything but easy. Each new OS iteration adds features that developers want to be able to incorporate into their applciations; however, they also need to retain compatibility with older versions. Your suggestion doesn't address that - based on what you suggest, as soon as there's a new feature you need/want, you're now stuck targeting the newest platform - in spite of the installed base of millions of handsets using older platforms.

The only practical options are a) as you suggest - use new features when you want them, and don't support older versions; b) ignore new features, which is a mistake when trying to stay competitive and c) maintain a multi-platform build.

c) is the only real option if you want to reach the broadest audience; and it's also why multiple platform versions can be so painful. It is certainly possible to manage -- there are a few different reasonably efficient approaches you can take - but it's not easy, and often means many times the amount of work required. For example: you have already implemented future platform functionality, and now must replace it with the new native version to give the best user experience -- all while not breaking your older versions. In addition (I don't know if this is true on Android, but it is on BB ) some features have slightly different variations in behavior -- which you must then work around or otherwise account for in a consistent way across all of your deployment versions.

More Certain Than You Think (4, Interesting)

eldavojohn (898314) | more than 3 years ago | (#34268188)

Android needs to insure that it's not difficult to write a single application that will run on every decently modern ( 2 year old) android phone, or else it would give up what is probably its biggest advantage.

No it doesn't. That would certainly help but it's not necessary. If you read the very short article:

However, he then conceded that, "Android phones have more features," and offer more choice for more people. Eventually, he thinks that Android quality, consistency, and user satisfaction will match iOS.

Emphasis mine. You're mostly right about Windows (I think marketing should be mentioned) but Android could fail on 5% of the phones that ship with it and I think it will still be okay if it can match iOS in the above categories. I think everyone knows that two or three years from now Android will be the clear winner. There would have to be earth shattering changes made on either Android or Apple's part in order to shake off course what has been set in motion. Even the market analysts have been saying this [slashdot.org] .

Let's face it, there's going to be some applications written on Android that demand multitouch support or the screen resolution of a tablet. And they won't work on the vast majority of smartphones that don't offer that kind of thing. That's not a bad thing, it's just the reality of targeting all the devices made by the Open Handset Alliance. That's a lot of devices. That's a lot of choices. They're doing the best they can but at some point you just can't magically give hardware support to a device that doesn't have the hardware. And I think that problem is inseparable from the choices Android wants to give consumers.

Re:More Certain Than You Think (1)

tepples (727027) | more than 3 years ago | (#34268508)

there's going to be some applications written on Android that demand multitouch support or the screen resolution of a tablet. And they won't work on the vast majority of smartphones that don't offer that kind of thing.

And as far as I know, none of them work on Android-based media players (as opposed to smartphones) because the Android Market app doesn't come on devices without a 3G radio.

But That's the Device Manufacturer's Decision (1)

eldavojohn (898314) | more than 3 years ago | (#34268672)

there's going to be some applications written on Android that demand multitouch support or the screen resolution of a tablet. And they won't work on the vast majority of smartphones that don't offer that kind of thing.

And as far as I know, none of them work on Android-based media players (as opposed to smartphones) because the Android Market app doesn't come on devices without a 3G radio.

I think it's important to be clear that you mean they simply can't be gotten from the Android Market. Not that all of them don't work.

There's a pretty simple method called sideloading [pocketnow.com] that allows you to put non-market apps on your phone. Of course, this usually requires you to get Astro or Dropbox or some such app on your device first. Commonly you can do that from the Market App which you note is not on media players (PMPs).

But I think it's important to note that it's not the Android API's fault that this sort of app transfer doesn't work. It's not like there were bad decisions made in the programmer's interface with Android that prevents this. It's got more to do with the resources that the hardware offers you and less to do with the software's limitations. It also has to do with what the manufacturer of that device wants and does not want done with the hardware they sell you. It's unfortunate but the reality is that if they didn't allow the handset/media player manufacturer the ability to lock you out of doing certain things on your device then they would never have had those big names on board. You will see a lot of different members of the Open Handset Alliance [android-dls.com] launching a lot of different kinds of devices with Android. That's a good thing and hopefully in the future this manufacturer mentality of "I don't want cell phone apps on my users' home media player box" goes away. Because that's what's blocking this from occurring, not Android or Google.

Re:More Certain Than You Think (1)

drinkypoo (153816) | more than 3 years ago | (#34268520)

Let's face it, there's going to be some applications written on Android that demand multitouch support or the screen resolution of a tablet

There's lots of ways a tablet with multitouch can give a superior experience, but there's not too many ways in which it can possibly be required except when you're talking about multiple users on the same display at once. And honestly, no tablet really seems to have what it takes to do that reliably and gracefully at this point, although we've seen some cool hacks around. (And I could be wrong.) And most of the applications that "can't" be shoehorned into a PDA-sized display simply have poor UI design. Lots of them need to be simplified for the purpose, of course; but most of them can have their interfaces broken up into tabs or similar.
I suspect that the handheld revolution (ugh) will lead to less baroque screen-stuffing applications.

Re:Maybe (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34268196)

Windows supported a lot of hardware? when was this?

"Works with Windows" (1)

tepples (727027) | more than 3 years ago | (#34268302)

Almost every PC peripheral, PC app, and PC game that you find in Best Buy will have some indication on the packaging that it works with Windows. Indication that a peripheral works with Linux is far less common except for less familiar brand peripherals that use a common class driver [wikipedia.org] and desperately need bullet points to sway people away from the major brands, such as "off-brand" USB flash drives.

Re:"Works with Windows" (1)

K. S. Kyosuke (729550) | more than 3 years ago | (#34268346)

In other words, Windows supports more PC hardware, Linux supports more hardware?

Re:"Works with Windows" (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34268704)

Ah, I see. The meaning was then "more hardware/software manufacturers support Windows" which is totally true. I'm not sure you can use it as an explanation why Windows _became_ popular as the GP did...

Re:Maybe (1)

bridesrussian (1937750) | more than 3 years ago | (#34268294)

Cool cool

Re:Maybe (1)

DigiShaman (671371) | more than 3 years ago | (#34268466)

Pretty much. Android is the mobile PC platform complete with the same pros and cons. Minus the user building their own phone from spare parts of course.

I know it sounds lame, but with all the different specs of hardware and OS revisions out there, Google should create Market filters to be used by default. That is to say, depending on your Android, only apps that are knows to work with your specific OS and hardware will be viewable. Unless that the end user absolutely has to have that application, non-tested or developer certified apps will be hidden from view. In the end, application support and choices by the end user should be as simple and straight forward as possible like it is from the iPhone.

Re:Maybe (1)

dzfoo (772245) | more than 3 years ago | (#34268510)

The other part, which people seem to easily forget, was the ruthless anti-competitive behaviour exerted by Microsoft over OEMs, and the huge strategic missteps that Apple made; due in part to the hubris and inexperience of Jobs. Neither of these are likely to re-occur on the current mobile market, at least not in the same way.

I'm not suggesting that Apple will "win". All I'm saying is that it is not clear that "open will trump closed every time," as some suggest, and that taking the WinTel PC open architecture as an example and proof is questionable.

If in doubt, take a look at the Linux on the Desktop movement.

      -dZ.

Re:Maybe (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34268654)

You can draw fairly strong parallels to Windows in this respect, just as Windows had the Win32 API (and later MFC, and then .NET) and if you adhered to these APIs your app would be portable across Windows systems catering only to differences in screen resolutions Android similarly has an API whereby you just select your target version (i.e. 1.5 or 1.6 for 2 year old devices) and develop to that API - stick to this and it'll be portable between Android devices.

Also similar to Windows, if that's not giving you the power you need you can use the native interface to write code native to a platform, but you must be aware that this will remove the benefits.

So it gives you the tools you require to either write standard and portable apps, or specific and targetted apps just as Windows did.

All the talk of fragmentation on Android is just FUD, fragmentation exists, but it's not a problem for any developer who knows what the fuck they're doing due to the fact fragmentation has existed to a much greater degree on the PC for the last couple of decades and is a problem we've long been able to deal with generally through abstraction. You'll note that the fragmentation FUD has died down somewhat now that even Apple's platform is becoming increasingly fragmented with different iOS versions between the iPhone, the iPhone 3G/3Gs/4 and the iPad as well as different screen resolutions and hardware availability. Fragmentation was convenient FUD for the anti-Android crowd at the time, but at the end of the day fragmentation is essential for a platform to progress- the only way to avoid fragmentation is to keep your platform static and never evolve the hardware, but this is foolish. Far more sensible to accept fragmentation as the price of progress and deal with it gracefully as Android does and as platforms like .NET and Sun's standard JVM do quite well than to deny it's existence and have it come back to bite when you're left with the inevitable choice of evolving your hardware, or dying out.

How I Learned to Start Thinking and Hate the Jews (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34268096)

There are two types of people in the world: people who think there are two types of people in the world and people who don’t. I’m among the first type and I think the world is divided into people who recognize the Jewish problem and people who don’t.

In other words, the world is divided into smart people and dumb people. If you’ve got an IQ of 80, have difficulty operating a can-opener, and recognize the Jewish problem, you’re smart. If you’ve got an IQ of 180, have already won a couple of Nobel Prizes, and don’t recognize the Jewish problem, you’re dumb.

I’ve been dumb for most of my life: it took me a long time to recognize the Jewish problem. I didn’t think for myself, I just accepted the propaganda and conformed to the consensus. Jews are good people. Only bad people criticize Jews. Jews good. Anti-Semites bad. But then, very slowly, I started to see the light.

Recognizing Jewish hypocrisy was the first big step. I was reading an article by someone called Rabbi Julia Neuberger, a prominent British liberal. I didn’t like liberals then, so I didn’t like her for that (and because her voice and manner had always grated on me), but her Jewishness wasn’t something I particularly noticed. But as I read the article I came across something that didn’t strike me as very liberal: she expressed concern about Jews marrying Gentiles, because this threatened the survival of the Jewish people.

That made me sit up and think. Hold on, I thought, I know this woman sits on all sorts of “multi-cultural” committees and is constantly being invited onto TV and radio to yap about the joys of diversity and the evils of racism. She’s all in favor of mass immigration and there’s no way she’s worried about Whites marrying non-Whites, because “Race is Just a Social Construct” and “We’re All the Same Under the Skin”. She’s a liberal and she thinks that race-mixing is good and healthy and Holy. Yet this same woman is worried about Jews marrying Gentiles. Small contradiction there, n'est ce-pas?

Well, no. Big contradiction. She obviously didn’t apply the same rules to everyone else as she applied to her own people, the Jews. She was, in short, a hypocrite. But not just that – she was a Jewish hypocrite. And that’s a big step for a brainwashed White to take: not just thinking in a negative way about a Jew, but thinking in a negative way about a Jew because of her Jewishness.

After that, I slowly started to see the world in a different way. Or to be more precise: I started to see the world. I started to see what had always been there: the massive over-representation of Jews in politics and the media. And I started to notice that a lot of those Jews – like Rabbi Julia Neuberger, in fact – gave me the creeps. There was something slimy and oily and flesh-crawling about them. And it wasn’t just me, either: other Gentiles seemed to feel it too.

Politicians often attract nicknames based on some outstanding aspect of their character or behavior. Margaret Thatcher was “The Iron Lady”. Ronald Reagan was “Teflon Ron”. Bill Clinton was “Slick Willy”. But these are Gentile politicians and their nicknames are at least half-affectionate. Jewish politicians seem to attract a different kind of nickname. In Britain, Gerald Kaufman, bald, homosexual Member of Parliament for Manchester Gorton, is nicknamed “Hannibal Lecter”. Peter Mandelson, now Britain’s Euro-Commissioner and Tony Blair’s suspected former lover, is “The Prince of Darkness”. Michael Howard (né Hecht), the leader of the British Conservative Party, is “Dracula”.

When I noticed this kind of thing, I started to ask questions. What was going on here? Why did Jews attract nicknames like that? And why had Gentiles reacted to them like that not just now, but a long way into the past? Shakespeare seems to have felt the same kind of repulsion when he created the vengeful lawyer Shylock, and Dickens when he created the parasitic master-thief Fagin. Classic “anti-Semitic” stereotypes, but I knew that stereotypes aren’t always wrong. If anti-Semitic stereotypes aren’t always wrong, then there’s an obvious conclusion: neither is anti-Semitism. Gentiles are sometimes right to dislike and distrust Jews.

After all, at the same time I was noticing something else: the massive over-representation of Jews, not just among politicians and journalists, but among crooked businessmen too. In fact, among very, very crooked businessmen, the ones responsible for really big frauds at Gentile expense. Men like Robert Maxwell (né Hoch), Ivan “Greed is Good” Boesky, and Michael Milken. And, on a slightly lesser scale, Ernest Saunders, who finagled an early release from prison because he was coming down with Alzheimer’s, that well-known incurable brain disease from which no-one ever recovers. Only Saunders managed to confound medical science and recover from it.

Slimy. Hypocritical. Crooked. In a word: Jewish. But I didn’t take the final step, the step to full recognition of the Jewish problem, until I watched the reaction to Mel Gibson’s The Passion of the Christ. I’m not a Christian and I have little sympathy with modern Christianity, but I had a lot of sympathy for Mel Gibson as I watched the hysterical campaign against him. The hysterical, well-organized, international campaign by the slimy, hypocritical, crooked Jew Abe Foxman, Head of the Anti-Defamation League, and his fellow slimy, hypocritical, crooked Jews around the world. They didn’t like something and they were moving heaven and earth to get it stopped.

And what was it they didn’t like? A movie about an event at the heart of European art, literature, and culture: the crucifixion of Christ. So here was another obvious conclusion: Jews hate European art, literature, and culture. In other words, Jews hate White civilization and the White race who created it.

After that, it all fell into place. I finally recognized that Jews weren’t just slimy, hypocritical, and crooked, but actively dangerous too. If I thought of something harmful to White civilization and the survival of the White race – mass immigration, feminism, multi-culturalism, anti-racism, gay rights – I realized that Jews were behind it, were promoting it through their control of the media, and had been doing so for decades.

Finally, I had seen the light. Finally, I had gotten smart and recognized the Jewish problem, the problem that even dumb Gentiles subconsciously recognize when they give nicknames like “Hannibal Lecter” and “Prince of Darkness” and “Dracula” to Jewish politicians. Jews really do want to eat us, and steal our souls, and suck our blood, and it’s about time we started firing a few silver bullets.

Re:How I Learned to Start Thinking and Hate the Je (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34268180)

so what you're saying is that you're an apple fan...?

Woz is wrong. (-1, Offtopic)

gandhi_2 (1108023) | more than 3 years ago | (#34268102)

I dominate. [youtube.com]

What did they expect? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34268132)

This might not be the case if Apple would break the deal with AT&T. It would seem obvious that android phones would take the market, since multiple carriers are supplying android phones, while only 1 is supplying iPhones.

Did they honestly think that they would hold the market forever with only 1 carrier option?

Re:What did they expect? (2, Interesting)

Mark19960 (539856) | more than 3 years ago | (#34268402)

I doubt that.
Something like 70+ percent of iPhone4s sold were to existing users.
The iPhone market is pretty close to dried up.
Everyone that wanted one has gotten one by now.

Then you have the people that would jump ship off of AT&Ts crappy network to Verizon.
Those would likely be a lot of existing users.
Apple won't be gaining many new users but shuffling its existing users.

In the US the one carrier option probably did not hurt them very much, everyone that I know with one is actually thinking about jumping ship even if
it comes to Verizon citing the fact that it's 'boring' to them now.
iGadgets are driven by cliques and the desire for an image, and that audience is starting to fade away.
I don't see the kids at the bus stop with white earbuds anymore holding iPods - I am seeing kids with Droids, Zunes and Sansas.
There still are some with iPods but not as many as I used to see.
It's appeal is starting to fade away because in the end people like choice.
The only thing iWidgets have going for them is that on day 400 they behave like they did on day 1... unless Apple manages to botch updates

Hell, even the women I work with jumped off iPhones to Droids - that to me was a sign that things are shifting.
Eventually, Android will be dropped for the next best thing... and I hope that all of this competition leads to greater things down the line
because consumers will all benefit.

Dumb Phones (0, Flamebait)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34268160)

Will *continue* to dominate for as long as data plans are mandatory. There's wifi everywhere in my life, so if data plan is mandatory I'll use something other than a phone for the 'smart'.

Re:Dumb Phones (2, Insightful)

Pojut (1027544) | more than 3 years ago | (#34268198)

Someone correct me if I'm wrong, but I was under the impression that mandatory data plans function as a way for the carrier to make back the share of the phone they paid for.

Not saying it's right (personally, I agree with you), just saying it's the way it likely is.

Buy the phone up-front (1)

tepples (727027) | more than 3 years ago | (#34268536)

I was under the impression that mandatory data plans function as a way for the carrier to make back the share of the phone they paid for.

Then why don't more U.S. carriers copy T-Mobile's "Even More Plus" plan and give a discount on plans designed for phones purchased up-front?

Re:Dumb Phones (1)

kannibal_klown (531544) | more than 3 years ago | (#34268638)

Eh, I'm not a fan of mandatory data plans either. As 90% of the time I'm in an area with WiFi.

However there still are a bunch of instances where I find myself using the Internet on my phone when not in a WiFi area (or even conventiently close to one).

The big ones are:
- Address lookup / directions / etc
- Movie schedules
- Flight status

Sometimes I'll be in a grocery store or something without WiFi and I need to look it up.

If so, probably a bad thing (3, Insightful)

Kupfernigk (1190345) | more than 3 years ago | (#34268162)

Everything we've always said here about avoiding monocultures and the need for competition remains true. The phone market is actually much bigger in volume than the PC market, so a number of cultures could flourish and still have good economies of scale. So long as standards are enforced on security and the actual radio and phone parts, it shouldn't matter.

Gaming (3, Interesting)

Pojut (1027544) | more than 3 years ago | (#34268166)

Gaming will play a measurable role in this. As things stand now, iOS is trouncing Android, as far as gaming is concerned. Pretty much the only leg up that Android has is the fact that there are multiple emulators available directly from the market, with no need to mod your phone in any way to use (don't even have to click the "non-marketplace applications" option.)

Besides that though, iOS is handily beating Android when it comes to gaming. Some developers are finally starting to wake up, and are either porting things over or making things specifically for it. I maintain that until there are more quality games out there for Android, iOS will continue to have a substantial lead.

Note: I'm not implying that gaming alone is the reason for the divide, but it certainly plays a role.

Re:Gaming (1)

bluefoxlucid (723572) | more than 3 years ago | (#34268284)

Yes, everyone wants their phone to last 2-3 hours playing Quake on the newest nVidia mobile chipset. Nobody buys a phone to be an information device. Cell phones are slowly killing the Dual Screen and 3DSi, of course; just look at Nintendo's unfathomable sales numbers and you'll realize how very soon they are going to collapse under the weight of imponderable demand.

Re:Gaming (2, Informative)

Pojut (1027544) | more than 3 years ago | (#34268382)

I didn't say a single word about phones vs handhelds for gaming.

As far as gaming on phones are concerned, check out some of these numbers [macrumors.com] . Keep in mind that article is now a year and a half old.

Not to mention the elephant in the room. [product-reviews.net]

I'm not saying that smartphone gaming will ever replace actual handhelds, but they still sell a hell of a lot of copies. To pass them off as being anything other than a growing business is foolish.

If you compare what is available on Android to what is Available on iOS, the vast majority of games worth playing are currently only available on iOS. Again, that has NOTHING to do with handhelds...I'm talking strictly about phones here.

Bob's Game: not for DS (1)

tepples (727027) | more than 3 years ago | (#34268564)

Except Nintendo is not meeting the demand. Micro-ISVs have had a hard time getting their games published on a Nintendo device. See, for example, Bob's Game [wikipedia.org] .

Re:Gaming (1)

cforciea (1926392) | more than 3 years ago | (#34268454)

Given that Android devices are already outselling iOS devices, even if that is an issue, it is eventually going to swing in Android's direction. Developers, as a general rule, are going to go where cost versus return is, and the bigger the sales lead Android gets, the more games you'll see on it.

The hard part was getting enough features and developers that they could outsell iOS. Now they just have to make sure they don't lose their momentum and the 3rd party developer issue solves itself.

Android vs. just iPhone or also iPT? (1)

tepples (727027) | more than 3 years ago | (#34268584)

Given that Android devices are already outselling iOS devices

Are Android phones outselling only iPhone, or are Android phones outselling iPhone and iPod touch together? You have to take into account that Android-based MP3 players such as Archos 43 aren't widely available in U.S. stores.

Take that, Steve! (2, Insightful)

dkleinsc (563838) | more than 3 years ago | (#34268182)

I thought Woz and Jobs got along pretty well even now, but I can't imagine this sort of thing making their relationship any better.

And I hope Woz is wrong, and no company "wins" the phone OS wars, because if somebody wins, then eventually they'll become a monopoly and all the consumers will lose.

Re:Take that, Steve! (1)

uncanny (954868) | more than 3 years ago | (#34268304)

True, however hopefully the continued success of competitors phones will help apple realize (which it seems they are SLOOOOWLY coming around) that they need to give customers what they want, not what apple tells them they want.

Re:Take that, Steve! (1)

Lycestra (16353) | more than 3 years ago | (#34268364)

Not sure about that harming the relationship. Honest opinion sharing is a good thing. When a trusted engineer friend of yours tells you of shortcomings in your product, you listen. Maybe you missed something, or just disagree, but you can use this input to improve your product. Maybe its a design thing, or a culture of development, but identifying the shortcoming is step one. There are things that Apple can do long term in response, and sticking their fingers in their ears and ignoring Woz is one of the least productive.

Re:Take that, Steve! (4, Insightful)

drinkypoo (153816) | more than 3 years ago | (#34268414)

The difference is that if Android wins then the community can assemble a working Android clone from the Android kernel itself and a cobbled-together userspace, because Android is documented and itself assembled from Open technologies (even if there is some debate over how Free they are, which I hope and suspect will turn out to be pure FUD.) But Apple has substantial closed-source componentry above the kernel layer in their operating systems, so while it's probably possible there too it would probably be much more difficult.

Re:Take that, Steve! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34268490)

The userspace is open source too, the only bits that are closed are the Google-specific apps (Gmail, Google Maps, Android Market, etc. etc.).

Features? (3, Insightful)

onion2k (203094) | more than 3 years ago | (#34268230)

Woz is arguing that it's the featureset that will lead Android to victory. I don't agree. Features don't sell the phones. So long as it covers all the most common bases the extra stuff is just nice to have, it's not a key decision point. Any smartphone could become dominant at the moment so long as it has a good interface, looks ok, gives the user access to the software they want and, crucially, is marketed well enough. Even if iOS lags behind on features Apple won't be lagging behind on marketing. It's what they're good at, and ultimately it's what will keep them on top.

A piece of software is its features (0)

tepples (727027) | more than 3 years ago | (#34268644)

Features don't sell the phones. [...] Any smartphone could become dominant at the moment so long as it [...] gives the user access to the software they want

I don't see much of a difference between "software sells phones" and "features sell phones". People use software because they want features provided by the software. Therefore, the features provided by the software sell the phones, and the feature to run such software sells the phones. That's one reason why gaming PCs sell: they have a feature to run video games developed by individuals and smaller companies, be they mods or completely original productions.

maybe he's right... (1)

hype7 (239530) | more than 3 years ago | (#34268244)

but that doesn't mean that Google will dominate, too [hbr.org] .

Such insight! (1)

Thinine (869482) | more than 3 years ago | (#34268260)

Thank you for that startling revelation, Captain Wozvious!

Consider the source .... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34268270)

Consider the source ... thats all Im sayin' ......

Iphone (1)

falldeaf (968657) | more than 3 years ago | (#34268300)

I think it's been said before but it seems like apple phones are taking the same route that their computers do. I don't think anyone could say that Apple isn't doing well in their business so this isn't criticism of their business practices but if their goal is total domination of the phone market why are they going the same route?

He's wrong (3, Insightful)

commodore64_love (1445365) | more than 3 years ago | (#34268310)

Windows didn't dominate because of random events. It piggy-backed on the popularity of the hardware, specifically the IBM PC. When the PC won, so too did MS-DOS and its overlay called windows. If the PC had died, so too would have DOS and windows.

Android doesn't have the advantage of sitting on the #1 piece of hardware like windows had.

Re:He's wrong (1)

drinkypoo (153816) | more than 3 years ago | (#34268442)

Android doesn't have the advantage of sitting on the #1 piece of hardware like windows had.

Last I checked, Android ran on dramatically more devices than does iOS, whether you count the number of devices or the number of different types of device. Even if Apple added all intel Macintoshes to the list of candidates Android would probably still outnumber iOS when all was said and done.

Re:He's wrong (1)

ElectricTurtle (1171201) | more than 3 years ago | (#34268546)

What won was an architecture. IBM produced a really nice architecture, but it was too expensive for most people, so companies made 'IBM PC compatible' hardware. It was the lower cost competitive market of clones that was the attractive platform. People liked having options to work with different companies without getting locked into a hardware channel that if they ever left would need to be wholly junked. Windows won the PC market vs. other competitors like BE and OS/2 because it supported the most hardware, so people could keep more options open.

Re:He's wrong (1)

commodore64_love (1445365) | more than 3 years ago | (#34268628)

>>>Windows won the PC market vs. other competitors like BE and OS/2 because...

BE and OS/2 won't run the MS-DOS or windows apps that people were used to using. Fixed that for you. ;-)

I'm right in the middle of switching at the moment (2, Interesting)

AbRASiON (589899) | more than 3 years ago | (#34268314)

I have owned an iphone 3g, 3gs and an iphone 4.
Recently the attitude from apple, in my opinion has been worse than Microsoft, some may claim otherwise but the 'our way or the highway' and general attitude specifically from Jobs himself in emails to people (on the occassions they leak out) is just awful.

The overall lock in bugged me a little but overall I was generally quite happy with my iphone, the itunes aspect I detested mind you.
Every now and then something would bug me, for example - at work when supporting my clients, I can backup and /selectively/ restore what I want to their BlackBerries - the iphone however is an utter nightmare for anyone with any real technical knowledge and wantign to do something even slightly out of the box. The lack of SMS tone changing (finally here, christ!) was ridiculous.
I also feel the lack buttons is holding the iphone back, despite what 'focus groups' claim about the buttons, you simply end up wasting screen real estate with onscreen buttons. I don't think the iphone needs 12 buttons mind you but even just THREE might be nice on the device - people are dumb but not that dumb.

So anyhow, I decide I might try Android out, I copied a guy at work and purchased a HTC HD2 (Leo) - which is a Windows Mobile 6.5 phone which can have Android hacked on to it if you fiddle about.
I have done so and been most impressed, there's a few small niggly issues some of which may be from using a non native Android phone, some are just design issues but overall I'm substantially more impressed than I expected to be.

There's an app called Appbrain http://www.appbrain.com/ [appbrain.com] which is kind of like an all in one sync tool, once installed it catalogues all you have installs and ties it to an account (in my case my google sign in) - I can add and remove applications from that website, anywhere in the world and sync entirely over 3g. It handles the updating of apps, it provides a better search interfact than the stock market and feedback too. It's really nice.
Someone showed me http://www.appbrain.com/wallpaper [appbrain.com] that today and I thought 'oh how cute, it's going to queue up a new background to download next time I open the application and run a sync' - only not, I clicked a button on the website, picked up my phone about 2 seconds later and it had pushed the picture down and set it as my background already. - incredible
I can take a photo of a Qcode (qrcode?) image and it too can queue up the installation of an application just like that.

I can add widgets to the desktop and while many are a complete waste of memory and cpu time, there are some genuinely useful weather / data usage / stock information I can drop on the home screen or a few screens off it.
I can set the tones I like, I can share my device as a wifi access point - the list goes on.

It's not without it's flaws, sadly I don't know if the small niggles I've had have been due to being non native or not but I hope to learn over the coming days. Also the way they handle podcasts boggles my mind, I do really just wish the music app searched in /podcast/ for podcasts /music/ for music and so on - nothing comes close to apples music player unfortunately. Fortunately for me I don't listen to much anyhow.
Email client searching actually works for gmail and the vast majority of my apps are on the device - tweetdeck, email, facebook, rdp clients, shazam, ebay, skype - it's all there and in 4.3" on this model, not 3.5" - honestly at 32, with my eyes - that's a bloody godsend.
We use these things more and more, I think 3.5 is really holding back the iphone, resolution or not (as I said, I own a 4, I know how pretty it is, it's just too small)

I could go on for ages, I'm really pretty happy overall though and the hippy open source fanboy in me says it's only going to get better with time, let's hope I'm right.

Meego? (1)

gmuslera (3436) | more than 3 years ago | (#34268330)

Could be more players in the near future to take into account. Even if don't win, having a visible 3rd choice, maybe even more open than Android, could be good for all.

Evidence? (1)

pociaskn (1942496) | more than 3 years ago | (#34268336)

I know the Android phones are gaining popularity because they allow third party development, but Apple still has a hugely loyal fan base. Does Woz have any major evidence to support his claim?

Attention HTC, Mot - stop making garbage plz (1)

xtal (49134) | more than 3 years ago | (#34268352)

If someone makes a phone with the hardware quality and features the iphone has - not plasticy feeling junk - and gets Android on there, you're cooking with gas.

For the record, MS dominated because there was ONE common platform. This included sound and video standards. Remember IRQ conflicts? EMM?

DirectX ended that and opened the door to dominance for Windows on the desktop for entertainment.

Right now the iphone continues to make the competition feel like junk.. and it has a solid, consistent API feature set.

My money is still on Apple for the time being. They're busy working on iphone 5. Everyone else is playing catchup to make the knockoff, cheapie version of 4.

There's room for both (3, Insightful)

symbolset (646467) | more than 3 years ago | (#34268368)

As long as both platforms keep making their customers happy I don't see why they won't both continue to do well. If neither knocks the other to irrelevance it's not "dominant".

Apple does great holding the line on the "premium" phone, making lots of money for their shareholders. Android does great at providing a vast array of choices at varying levels of cost.

The concern with domination is that a dominant player will crush all opposition and bring progress to a halt to protect its monopoly. I don't see that happening with either of these players. The player in the field that plays that way is having a hard time getting his game on.

So, Apple is the loser? (3, Insightful)

Eponymous Coward (6097) | more than 3 years ago | (#34268380)

It's hard for me to look at Apple as a loser in this battle. They may not win the marketshare battle, but they are very profitable and influential. People generally love their products.

Not bad for coming in second place.

Re:So, Apple is the loser? (1)

FooAtWFU (699187) | more than 3 years ago | (#34268474)

They might lose out on significant potential revenues if all the mobile Developers Developers Developers start coding for Android by default, instead of jumping through App Store hoops... either through apps, or by the phone becoming marginally less popular.

Not doom and gloom, sure, but less than ideal for Apple.

Re:So, Apple is the loser? (1)

HikingStick (878216) | more than 3 years ago | (#34268602)

I couldn't agree more. Unlike some companies, Apple does not see (or, perhaps more correctly, no longer sees) its future tied to one specific device, though it is glad to ride the successes it has had with the iPod, iPhone, and the iPad. As best I can tell, it views itself broadly as a consumer electronics company, with a focus on delivering innovative and/or stylish products with a reputation (only mildly marred by the recent antenna fiasco) for quality and stability.

By not pinning all their hopes on one device or one market segment, and by seeking to continually improve and innovate, they position themselves well to remain a player in the years to come. This advantage is theirs to keep, or to lose, and only time will tell which way it will be.

cool !!! cool!!! cool!!! (1)

bridesrussian (1937750) | more than 3 years ago | (#34268390)

cool !!! cool!!! cool!!!

Woz -The Cool Steve (1)

bertoelcon (1557907) | more than 3 years ago | (#34268434)

The title says it all.

bool IsGoogleEvil(); //declaration. (1)

140Mandak262Jamuna (970587) | more than 3 years ago | (#34268458)

//Implementation

bool IsGoogleEvil(){

if ( facebook.com has mysterious bugs and compatibility issues in some future upgrade of Android) {

return true;

}

return false;

}

More hardware than open source software (4, Insightful)

adosch (1397357) | more than 3 years ago | (#34268464)

I think hardware architecture has a lot to do with this, too. Any good embedded engineering focus company can design their hardware and work with it with Android. Why? Because everyone knows the OS capabilities of the Linux kernel and how portable it is, that makes it easy. Woz has a point, but just a small one, Windows was dominant because it worked across the multitude of PC platforms and wasn't tied to specific hardware (al la RISC and Apple) Although Apple did have it's selling points, anything that's more encompassing that doesn't lock a consumer down is going to get tried and, more times than none, chosen over the competitor that doesn't.

Today, however, Apple makes some pretty bad-ass and inferior products that 'wow' you on functionality and usability from a UI perspective. I myself own a few device with iOS on them and their UI experience alone is worth the product. Android OS is just too portable not to use and it's using the Linux kernel; that alone gets you over the barrier and into competition because anyone can slap it on whatever hardware they want with for less reason and stand up a working product.

Dominate? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34268476)

Nokia sells umpteen as many phones as all Android and iOS phones combined, yet they are pretty irrelevant on the cell phone scene nowdays and can hardly be described as dominant. Android might very well dominate the scene in the future but market share is not the way to measure dominance. Hell, Apple dominated the smart phone market since before they even shipped any, and have pretty much dominated it ever since.

This isn't a race... (2, Insightful)

hahn (101816) | more than 3 years ago | (#34268528)

because there's no finish line. One can only hope to dominate for as long as possible. I agree that Android will probably become the most dominant mobile OS in the next few years, but that hardly means iOS is going to become insignificant. Windows dominates still, but as everyone can see Apple's hardly hurting financially with OS X. There's plenty of room in the market for two mobile OS's.

No difference to apple (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34268568)

Does apple really care when they are printing money with the iphone and other ios devices? So android devices may become dominant, but that would be spread throughout a variety of hardware manufacturers and cell providers... The Google wouldn't be seeing as much pure profit as Apple does by controlling the hardware as well as the software, and I don't think too many iphone users will jump ship to Android just because it provides an open environment.

Woz was never the business genius (4, Insightful)

PolygamousRanchKid (1290638) | more than 3 years ago | (#34268614)

He is a techie. Jobs is the business genius. Apple does not need to dominate to make a tidy profit. It's like that saying, "You can fool some of the people all of the time, or all of the people some of the time, but you can't fool all of the people all of the time." Microsoft does all of the people some of the time. Apple does some of the people all of the time.

Microsoft dominates the desktop. Does Apple care? Not as long as some folks are still willing to pay a premium for their desktop products. Nokia dominates cell phones. Apple says, "So, what?", as long as some folks make them a profit. If Android dominates smart phones, Apple will not care for the same reason. Why do some folks pay exorbitant prices for a Harley Davidson when compared to a rice burner?

And no, I'm not an Apple FanBoy, but I live with an Apple FanGrrrl. I only bought her an iPhone when I could get it re-imported, unlocked. And the UK uses some crazy-ass plugs on their electrical devices.

It was obvious from the get-go (2, Insightful)

tlhIngan (30335) | more than 3 years ago | (#34268710)

Android will win by marketshare, which is percentage of phones running the OS. Of course, Apple doesn't feel threatened - and it makes sense when you think about it. Apple has 2 models of iPhones out there now - iPhone 4, and iPhone 3GS. Android devices - well, Samsung, Sony-Ericsson, Motorola, HTC, they seem to easily have a dozen different models each. Plus all the other no-name brands out there releasing Android phones without Google (or pirating it). So you probably have over 50+ models of Android phones out there, compared to 2 from Apple. Of course Android phones will outsell the iPHone.

Now, should Apple worry? Probably not, because they're raking in the money. Profit wise, Apple commands a huge chunk (nearly half) of total mobile phone industry profits (including dumbphones), while RIM, Nokia, Samsung and LG dominate the remaining chunk. By handsets sold, Nokia, RIM, Samsung and LG dominate the charts, while Apple just has a tiny sliver. It doesn't matter that Apple is in #3 or #4 (after Symbian, RIM and Android) - as long as they're raking in the cash.

And I'm talking phones only - ignoring Android running tablets and multimedia players, and iPod Touches and iPads. The numbers that way are too vague.

Also, carriers LOVE Android. Face it - Sprint loves putting its NASCAR apps preloaded, Verizon loves its V-cast stuff, etc - all the "value-added" software to make carriers more money. Carriers hate the iPhone - what sane control-hungry corporation wants to give up complete control of the handset (hardware AND software) to Apple, and not only that, pay Apple for the priviledge of carrying the iPhone? When instead they can carry Android phones, and tell HTC, Samsung, and Motorola to shove it until they cripple certain features, preload crapware, and all the other stuff?

P.S. - I use an iPhone because it's free of carrier control. I want an Android phone, but giving up 3G isn't an option, and I want straight-from-Google updates. Hoping the Nexus Two will satisfy.

Apple Tea Party (0, Troll)

RazzleFrog (537054) | more than 3 years ago | (#34268718)

Apple will always appeal to people the same way that tea party appeals to people. They overwhelm the lesser knowledgeable with nifty phrases and false promises so that they overlook the significant flaws and inherent weaknesses. The problem, of course, is that Americans are even more tech illiterate than they are politically illiterate.

It's one of the reasons I try to talk all of my friends off the Apple ledge.

Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?