431–437 of 437 posts
PDAs were not cellular devices. Cell phones were not PDAs. The iPhone was the first to converge them.
You’re not even wrong, there were quite a few PDA+mobile phones many years before the iPhone. Sony Ericsson’s p800 & p900 series was even referred to as PDA Phones.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> Stagnation. That's what you get when people duplicate ideas instead of leading with their own. Right. So the guy who invented the cell phone shouldn't have "copied" the guy who invented the cordless phone. Oh, and the guy who invented the touch screen phone shouldn't be able to make it because the guy who invented the cell phone (which can't exist because of the guy who made the cordless phone says "No") doesn't wa…
Samsung didn't make just any phone, they copied the iPhone. Microsoft at least managed to try something completely different with Windows Phone, and I think it's a hell of a lot more innovative than what Samsung did.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> Neither of which has really taken off for gaming. I don't know about that. Last I checked, Kinect was doing well. In fact Kinect Adventures is #1 [1] > The Wii wasn't really a success either. Nintendo, until most recently, was the only console manufacturer to actually profit . [1] http://www.vgchartz.com/platform/7/xbox-360/
Nintendo lost almost a billion dollars last year. Kinect Adventures was a pack-in game, so that doesn't really count. So far, there have been only 7 Kinect-required titles in 2012, and except for 1, all are either movie tie-ins or rhythm games. The one exception is Steel Battalion, which managed a whopping 90,000 sales, and a 35/100 Metacritic score. In fact, only 2 Kinect titles have even managed to break an 80 on M…
Its first loss since inception in 1889. Not bad for a company that didn't have any successful consoles.
> Kinect Adventures was a pack-in game, so that doesn't really count.
It does count. For 2 reasons: 1) you got Kinect Adventures because you bought Kinect - which is more money than any single game, and 2) if you decided to buy the Xbox with Kinect, you paid more – and seemed to be okay with it. Not exactly a complete failure.
> In fact, only 2 Kinect titles have even managed to break an 80 on Metacritic, both music games.
You're getting outside of the original point – Kinect is a great, inexpensive technology that is being used in all kinds of applications (i.e. interactive displays, teaching, robotics, etc.).
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Nintendo lost almost a billion dollars last year. Kinect Adventures was a pack-in game, so that doesn't really count. So far, there have been only 7 Kinect-required titles in 2012, and except for 1, all are either movie tie-ins or rhythm games. The one exception is Steel Battalion, which managed a whopping 90,000 sales, and a 35/100 Metacritic score. In fact, only 2 Kinect titles have even managed to break an 80 on M…
> Nintendo lost almost a billion dollars last year. Its first loss since inception in 1889. Not bad for a company that didn't have any successful consoles. > Kinect Adventures was a pack-in game, so that doesn't really count. It does count. For 2 reasons: 1) you got Kinect Adventures because you bought Kinect - which is more money than any single game, and 2) if you decided to buy the Xbox with Kinect, you paid more…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
At the time the iphone was released I had one of the early HTC touch screen + slide out keyboard phones (Tytn or something like that). I recall laughing about the first iphones. Terrible e-mail support, no MMS, my year old phone had twice the capabilities. I couldn't understand why anyone would want such an expensive phone that was so functionally handicapped. What I didn't understand at the time was that the phone w…
>> The iphone wasn't so much a matter of technological inovation as it was one of market building I disagree. I think the iPhone was the first smartphone that worked. The killer app on the phone was that it was the first phone to have a modern mobile browser. It was not a browser that "didn't suck", it was a damned good browser. I had an Eee at the time, and I would pick the tiny-by-comparison screen of the iPhone's…
The Android default browser (granted, appearing after Apple's) is superior on several points, in particular automatically zooming/scaling to the main body text of most web pages.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Only Apple had the supply chain to deliver a product at a reasonable cost.
You can't be serious. Samsung has a far better supply chain than Apple. In fact, Samsung IS PART of Apple's supply chain. But Samsung is not the kind of company that would take risks with a market and they'd rather ride on the coattails of those who are willing to push the innovation into the hands of the consumers, and it's not something specific to their mobile division, it's the same for their digital cameras, hom…
To cite a simple example: the iPod disk drive system was based on exclusive access to Toshiba's then-new hardware. Apple did many, many deals of that nature, including outright acquisitions, to gain a technology advantage. Samsung has done a lot to keep up, but only after watching Apple do it first.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Only Apple had the supply chain to deliver a product at a reasonable cost.
Sorry but I actually laughed when you said this. You couldn't be more wrong if you tried. Apple was in NO way comparable to the likes of Nokia, Samsung, Sony, Motorola etc who had decades of pre-existing relationships in the mobile and component industries. Not to mention those companies were competing for lowest cost in some areas so had plenty of optimisation work already built into their supply chains.