IPad is Steve Jobs’ final victory over Steve Wozniak • Hacker News Board

Re: IPad is Steve Jobs’ final victory over Steve Wozniak

#91

Post by houseabsolute » Thu, Apr 08, 2010, 2:30 AM UTC

copenja wrote: post #90

houseabsolute wrote: post #35

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Android is neither as easy to use or as sexy as the iPhone. The dismal sales of the nexus one despite it's superior spec sheet and androidness are proof of this. But I do agree with you, most people buy things out of which they get the most utility, and ease of use an sexiness are a big part of that. But the person I was responding to mad the claim that people won't buy the ipad because it is closed. It would only be…

Sales don't prove sexiness or ease of use. Consider sales of the Droid. In it's first 74 days it sold more units than the original iPhone did in it's first 74 days. http://mashable.com/2010/03/16/nexus-one-sales-poor/ But I'm not going to say that proves that the Droid is sexier than the iPhone. Hell, there both great phones.

You should especially not say that since the comparison is not really fair, considering the iPhone OS was an unknown quantity, and iPhone lacked an app store, was on a smaller carrier, and was not launched during the holiday season.

Sales are not complete proof of sexiness, but they are evidence. It strikes me that if the iPhone on a single carrier can win out against an entire ecosystem of phones on many carriers, it probably has something they do not.

Re: IPad is Steve Jobs’ final victory over Steve Wozniak

#92

Post by [deleted] » Thu, Apr 08, 2010, 3:07 AM UTC

Daishiman wrote: post #83

houseabsolute wrote: post #47

Earlier quoted context omitted.

In all likelihood both will continue to be part of the mobile ecosystem for some time, or until Google gets tired of throwing money at the problem. But as I said to another responder, the iPhone is one device on one carrier per country, and Android is many devices on all carriers. They are hardly on equal footing for a purely numerical battle for superiority, but still iPhone is winning.

Google is making real money with Android, and even if it's a loss leader it's just another medium to expand their search business. They can afford to lose the millions in Android develoment and they still come out winning.

[deleted]

Re: IPad is Steve Jobs’ final victory over Steve Wozniak

#93

Post by houseabsolute » Thu, Apr 08, 2010, 3:08 AM UTC

Daishiman wrote: post #83

houseabsolute wrote: post #47

Earlier quoted context omitted.

In all likelihood both will continue to be part of the mobile ecosystem for some time, or until Google gets tired of throwing money at the problem. But as I said to another responder, the iPhone is one device on one carrier per country, and Android is many devices on all carriers. They are hardly on equal footing for a purely numerical battle for superiority, but still iPhone is winning.

Google is making real money with Android, and even if it's a loss leader it's just another medium to expand their search business. They can afford to lose the millions in Android develoment and they still come out winning.

What money do you suppose they are making? It's probably cheaper to pay Apple to maintain Google as the default search engine on the phone than to make their own. It's unlikely that a whole lot more internet searches are happening because of Android that wouldn't have happened in any other arrangement of the ecosystem, so I still don't see how Google benefits.

Re: IPad is Steve Jobs’ final victory over Steve Wozniak

#94

Post by GeneralMaximus » Thu, Apr 08, 2010, 4:43 AM UTC

pyre wrote: post #76

whatusername wrote: post #74

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You lost me at ringtone. My 3210 (10 years ago!) you were able to program your own ringtones (in the little beeps that it could produce) Most other nokia's (my 6110) - to use a ringtone it was a case of put an mp3 file on the phone - then select the mp3 as the ringtone. Do you know what you have to do to get a ringtone on the iPhone?

A lot of carrier-branded phones have features like that disabled in favor of only allowing the user to purchase ringtones from the carrier's marketplace where you pay upwards of $3-$4 per ringtone (i.e. ringtones, at 30s or less, cost more than buying the entire song on iTunes). It is/was vendor lock-in at it's worst: create a captive audience, and then price gouge them because they don't know any better (i.e. "My ol…

A lot of carrier-branded phones have features like that disabled in favor of only allowing the user to purchase ringtones from the carrier's marketplace where you pay upwards of $3-$4 per ringtone (i.e. ringtones, at 30s or less, cost more than buying the entire song on iTunes).

I would like to point out this is an American phenomenon. At least in India, the mobile market is completely open.

Re: IPad is Steve Jobs’ final victory over Steve Wozniak

#95

Post by GeneralMaximus » Thu, Apr 08, 2010, 4:46 AM UTC

houseabsolute wrote: post #93

Daishiman wrote: post #83

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Google is making real money with Android, and even if it's a loss leader it's just another medium to expand their search business. They can afford to lose the millions in Android develoment and they still come out winning.

What money do you suppose they are making? It's probably cheaper to pay Apple to maintain Google as the default search engine on the phone than to make their own. It's unlikely that a whole lot more internet searches are happening because of Android that wouldn't have happened in any other arrangement of the ecosystem, so I still don't see how Google benefits.

Yes, that's an option. But consider this: the iPhone becomes the number one smartphone out there -> Mobile Safari has the highest mobile marketshare of any web browser -> Apple controls the mobile web. What Google ultimately want is an open web so they keep making money from AdSense/AdWords.

Re: IPad is Steve Jobs’ final victory over Steve Wozniak

#96

Post by GeneralMaximus » Thu, Apr 08, 2010, 4:50 AM UTC

plinkplonk wrote: post #4

"Wozniak's design was open and decentralized in ways that still define those concepts in the computing industries. The original Apple had a hood, and as with a car, the owner could open it up and get at the guts of the machine. Although it was a fully assembled device, not a kit like earlier PC products, Apple owners were encouraged to tinker with the innards of Wozniak's machine—to soup it up, make it faster, add fe…

The Notion Ink Adam is everything the iPad should have been. http://notionink.in

Re: IPad is Steve Jobs’ final victory over Steve Wozniak

#97

Post by hernan7 » Thu, Apr 08, 2010, 5:17 AM UTC

whyenot wrote: post #51

rbanffy wrote: post #37

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The 64 appeared much later.

True, but the Commodore PET was released in 1977. No assembly required. Another example is the Tandy TRS-80 Model I, also released in 1977.

Also, let's not forget the grand-daddy of the out-of-the-box-experience computer appliance -- the Atari 2600. Came out in 1977 too.

Re: IPad is Steve Jobs’ final victory over Steve Wozniak

#98

Post by blackguardx » Thu, Apr 08, 2010, 6:00 AM UTC

thought_alarm wrote: post #16

It's funny how so many people are suddenly mischaracterizing the Apple II or the nature of early personal computers. The very first personal computers, like the Apple II, were sold as development kits to developers/hobbyists because these were the only people who would even think to buy a personal computer in 1976 and 1977. These development kits contain all of the information one would need to create software and ha…

They came with schematics because all expensive electronic equipment back then did. This was back in an era when electronics broke down frequently. Schematics were needed to fix things when they broke. If the owner didn't fix it, then an electronics repairman did.

You don't get schematics with anything today because you throw it out if it breaks rather than pay someone $100/hr (what auto mechanics charge) to fix it for you.

Intellectual property is also a bigger concern today that it was back then. By not giving you the schematics, they force you to do the tedious (but easy) task of reverse engineering their product.

Re: IPad is Steve Jobs’ final victory over Steve Wozniak

#99

Post by netcan » Thu, Apr 08, 2010, 6:14 AM UTC

david927 wrote: post #26

Woz has always about being open and modular and extensible. Jobs has always been about the opposite -- and for good reason; the early Macs were typically more stable and functioned better simply because of that lock-in. But history has played this over and over again, and Woz always wins. Vendors work out standards; the user experience consolidates. If you give people the freedom and trust them, they'll work it out.…

I want both. People are getting anxious about the iphone/pad but overall, look at recent history. It's good to have several approaches gong at once. Linux/OSX/Windows is a good example. Go back in time and remove any of those from the game and you get a less good present.

I think Apple is largely less capable then MS of holding a problematic monopoly for long (at least with their current m.o.). That would require being every thing for every person to plug all potential competition holes. That comes with hairy compromises that Apple probably won't want to make.

So far, Apple hasn't done any net damage. They are getting things done and moving things along fast. It will take either a real slow down in their innovation or some serious damage to flip that balance.

Re: IPad is Steve Jobs’ final victory over Steve Wozniak

#100

Post by netcan » Thu, Apr 08, 2010, 6:15 AM UTC

rjurney wrote: post #78

xiaoma wrote: post #65

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The iPhone is really open and functional compared to the phones that preceded it. Just downloading a ringtone for most prior phones was more expensive than full-fledged games on the iPhone. The app store is far from perfect, but it's a very open market compared to anything I've seen out of Nokia or any of the Japanese handset makers.

Its funny how easily people forget this - Apple created the first MARKET for mobile apps. Thats openness. Before the iPhone the mobile game was one big scam, with someone reaching into your pocket at each and every step in a long chain.

Compared to the various carriers, Apple's a peach.