View Full Version : infoSync talks Smartphone 2002
Andy Sjostrom
02-20-2002, 06:10 PM
<a href="http://www.infosync.no/show.php?id=1480">http://www.infosync.no/show.php?id=1480</a><br /><br />Jorgen Sundgot, infoSync, has written an interesting article about the Smartphone 2002. One of his comments: "Like with PPC 2002, it's possible for SMP 2002 users to personalize their device with ringtones, color schemes, home screens and profiles. Microsoft has chosen to use WAV files as a standard for ringtones, a solution which might not please operators and manufacturers who are standardizing on formats from which to create revenue - and could possibly bring Microsoft in between a rock and a hard place if the exchange of WAV files with ringtones based on the latest hits becomes popular since no DRM features are in place."<br /><br />I couldn't help laughing when reading that! Yes, the Smartphone 2002 delivers what we all really expect from any device; the features to manage and customize it!<br /><br /><b>All mobile operators and handset makers; pay close attention now!</b> The real mobile Internet is coming to a device near you - very soon, users are taking control over their devices! Instant messaging, backgrounds and ringing tones can no longer drive any multi-million dollar business plans. Want to make money in this market? Here's what you need to do: Innovate!<br /><br /><img src="http://www.pocketpcthoughts.com/images/infosync_smp2002.gif" />
JohnnyFlash
02-20-2002, 07:16 PM
http://www.infosync.no/show.php?id=1480
Jorgen Sundgot, infoSync, has written an interesting article about the Smartphone 2002.
http://www.pocketpcthoughts.com/images/infosync_smp2002.gif
Andy, and what is it with Bluetooth support in Smartphone 2002? I was using Bluetooth with PocketPC and WindowsXP and it is really BIG PAIN IN THE A*S!!! (if somebody wants to have real interconnectivity)
Another important question: will programs written in C# be able to run on all microsoft platforms: Smartphone 2002, PocketPC, and WindowsXP??? (or not all of these platforms are supported for C# runtime?)
:?: :?: :?:
kagayaki1
02-20-2002, 07:18 PM
Andy, simply put: Well said!!! I love it when a company takes a bold move and changes the way we think about business, like Microsoft turning ring tones, etc, into a free item. They realize that they will win customers over by focusing more on the main OS liscences rather than the petty a la carte ring tones.
Amazing how Napster and the Internet changed our perspective.
Like Jason says, nothing is free, but it's just a question of whatthey ultimately charge for. Bravo!
JohnnyFlash
02-20-2002, 07:39 PM
Jorgen Sundgot, infoSync, has written an interesting article about the Smartphone 2002. One of his comments: "Like with PPC 2002, it's possible for SMP 2002 users to personalize their device with ringtones, color schemes, home screens and profiles.
Couldn't agree more.... and let this be a message to application developers also. There's nothing worse than starting a Windows application, written by someone who hasn't considered the fact that people customise their environments, resulting in something like....
http://www.iarchitect.com/images/dialog32.gif
:D Like you, I'm glad I use a customiseable OS on both mobile and desktop environments, colours and WAV event sounds (ringing, FAX, Error) do make a (if somewhat geeky - though people are impressed when a Star Trek communicator or Enterprise whistle sound is heard as an SMS or telephone call arrives :) ) difference.
But it's not enough for the OS to provide customisation, the developers must also learn to take advantage.
All mobile operators and handset makers; pay close attention now! The real mobile Internet is coming to a device near you - very soon, users are taking control over their devices! Instant messaging, backgrounds and ringing tones can no longer drive any multi-million dollar business plans. Want to make money in this market? Here's what you need to do: Innovate!
Unfortunatelly that is wishful thinking. Now that operators are facing uncertain times with expensive 3G network building and license fees, are they going to abandon their only certain source of money? Would they call such a strategy innovative or wise?
One more thing to be taken into account is ringtones. Microsoft will back up their Smartphone OS with extensive software and service support, if they want people to start using devices which are powered by their OS. That will include downloadable ringtones and graphics, but all of them cannot be free. The users will demand for example latest pop tunes as ringtones, but because these tones cannot be offered without paying copyright fees to the artists / record companies, the service isn't going to be free. Of course many users know how to create their own WAV files, but many are illiterate in that regard. Many are simply too lazy to create a tune of their own, if there are reany tunes for them to download. Therefore they'll use Microsoft's Mobile MSN portal, because that's what MS wants anyway.
Either way, the users will end up paying at least for some services, whether the service provider is Microsoft, a handset manufacturer or an operator. I don't like that either, but that's just the way it is.
Andy Sjostrom
02-20-2002, 10:22 PM
The fact that the mobile operators "only certain source of money" today is ringtones, background graphics, SMS and other brain dead products is not my problem. It is their problem, and they have earned that problem all too well. Now, reality is catching up and I have been all over this issue with them the last couple of years. Finally, they can't hide. Run, perhaps, but not hide.
The ringtones-product is an excellent starting point for the discussion that is at the absolute core of the mobile Internet debate:
who should be able to offer services, how to offer them and how to get paid?
I firmly believe that Internet is what will drive the wireless connectivity forward, in all aspects. With very, very few exceptions can I accept that a mobile operator shuts out the entire or parts of the Internet from their networks.
Anyone that has a service/product (ringtones, for example) to offer on the Internet should be able to sell it to mobile device users; over the Internet. Support for open content standards in mobile devices, be that Internet standards or multimedia standards, are absolutetly criticial to implement what everyone is talking about and desperately wanting: wireless access to the Internet.
So, I want a free market for ringtones on the Internet. Not a monopoly, owned by the company through which network I happen to connect to the Internet. Would you want your ISP to dictate what sound files to download to your PC?
How to get paid? In this debate it seems as if many believe that it is only the mobile operator that send invoices to their customers regurarly.
Content providers seem to line up at the mobile operator gates to share THEIR revenue with the operator. Strange.
I would like to shock them all now: many other companies send invoices to the content providers potential customers, too: banks, gas companies, power companies, insurance companies etc etc. If an invoicing system is a determining factor, then the mobile operator is not likely to be your best partner. And you know what? An invoicing system on the Internet with customers of your own is an option, too!
From micropayments on the Internet, the VISA/Mastercard partnership for Internet payments, to simple Handango-like sites. There are simply SO many options out there.
I get the feeling that many "content providers" worry more about HOW to get paid, than WHAT they actually have to sell. Market rule: if you have a product to sell that the market wants, then the basic condition for the transaction to occur has been fulfilled. In fact, this is why I believe many mobile operators and their likes are worried today; they don't have a product that the market really wants.
This ends up being a long reply... but one more thing:
addressing copyright issues by trying to avoid the Internet is not going to work in the long run. Napster to Kazaa to Morpheus to ??? will eventually reach mobile devices too. The music industry, and all other content industries, need to start asking themselves: how can we get paid through digital (Internet) means?
Conclusion:
the software in the Smartphone 2002 is one, extremely important innovation in the mobile device market, because it finally opens up the Internet to mobile phone users. Now, the mobile operators have to quickly start thinking about their VALUE ADD, not how to lock in their customers.
I want to freely choose the provider of my ringtones on the Internet or even produce my own. I will never pay a dime on a mobile operator's invoice for braid dead products like that. Soon, no one else will either.
Marc Zimmermann
02-20-2002, 10:33 PM
Instant messaging, backgrounds and ringing tones can no longer drive any multi-million dollar business plans.
People have been paying truckloads of money for those crappy ringtones, pixelated logos, 160 character messages and are apparently very happy with that. Sorry, but I don't agree with you here. People are idiots and the money that the providers of such worthless services are makin is proving it.
Andy Sjostrom
02-20-2002, 10:38 PM
Marc!
People paid truck loads of money for simple mail delivery not too long, as well! Now, they send emails over the Internet for a fraction of what they paid before the Internet. People are smart.
Mobile services/products will also have a "before and after" the Internet.
Marc Zimmermann
02-20-2002, 10:53 PM
Andy, I don't know if Sweden is that much different from Germany, but traditional snail mail is not dead yet, about six years after the Internet went mainstream. It's still here and will continue at least for a couple of years.
I don't see people scrambling to buy these phones for the skins and wav ringtones and service providers go bankrupt soon.
The Smartphone 2002 platform has real advantages over the current standard phone with WAP and monochrome 4-line displays. But at the current price point, Pocket PC 2002 Phone Edition and Smartphone 2002 will be high-end devices and the mainstream will stay with pixel logos and boring ringtones for some time.
It's definitely a cool platform, but I seriously doubt that it's going to cause a mobile revolution overnight.
sgdluu
02-21-2002, 03:52 AM
I'll have to agree with Marc, as cool as the Stinger platfrom is, it's not mainstream. People have a hard enough time with computers let alone PPC. This isn't a knock on Microsoft, people just don't have the cash and patience for a do all device.
For the operator, why would they choose a platform that causes them to lose money? They're still reeling from the money spent on 3G and that's the last thing they need.
I understand Microsoft's position though but unless they start subsidizing the devices, people will stick to their Nokia phone, which may infact eventually run Symbian OS.
Here's what you need to do: Innovate!
No, HERE is what YOU need to do: Every other off-topic post skip licking MicroSh*t a$$ and STFU.
Now really, you need to get a bit of grip and some grain of common sense. Like a plethora of ppl have pointed out before, Stinger platform is NOT mainstream stuff. In other words you won't see any time soon (tm) grandma with a Stinger powered phone, anytime soon (the "less then curtain" -- to put it mildly -- M$ attitude towards OEM being _not_ the smallest factor).
Not that I like Nokia so much better, but compared with Stinger, Symbian is _much_ more mature, proven, and used in gazillion of phones worldwide so it is in much better position than Stinger. Obviously, the 800 lb gorilla (M$), with its deep pockets and "ramming down competitors" attituted has still have some chances to burry it. But Symbian won't go down without a fight, that's for sure. And the fact that Nokia "has seen the light" and is open sourcing their developm. platform is _more_ than welcome. Now _that_ is "innovation".
Ah, and a last note: FYI, more than3 yrs ago, a phone based on a Symbian platform (i.e. Nokia 9110) could use custom WAVs as ringing signals (and it was darn cool, I had one for 3 yrs). But, given the "high end" target of those phones it didn't quite "catch" to lower end phones. And I really doubt it ever will. This segment is what (I guess) Jorgen was talking about (standardizing phone ringing signals) and this is what "got you laughing". And make you post an utterly stupid off-topic subject.
I dont see the inclusion of WAV as anythign great. Its certainly not new. The 9210 supports both ringiong tones (as we think of 'em) and WAV files. They'll still be a market for people wanting to customise and who are prepared to pay for a given wav file.
Rafe
SwitchBlade
02-21-2002, 06:20 PM
Let's be honest here, people have been able to record and use wav/mp3 ringtones on their *cheap* mobiles for the past year, and combining the different kinds of customisation isn't M$ innovating it's them copying what the opposition is already doing. Perhaps it would help to look at the mobile phone market before making statements that are unfounded about it.
Here's what you need to do: Innovate!
No, HERE is what YOU need to do: Every other off-topic post skip licking MicroSh*t a$$ and STFU.
Now really, you need to get a bit of grip and some grain of common sense. Like a plethora of ppl have pointed out before, Stinger platform is NOT mainstream stuff. In other words you won't see any time soon (tm) grandma with a Stinger powered phone, anytime soon (the "less then curtain" -- to put it mildly -- M$ attitude towards OEM being _not_ the smallest factor).
Not that I like Nokia so much better, but compared with Stinger, Symbian is _much_ more mature, proven, and used in gazillion of phones worldwide so it is in much better position than Stinger. Obviously, the 800 lb gorilla (M$), with its deep pockets and "ramming down competitors" attituted has still have some chances to burry it. But Symbian won't go down without a fight, that's for sure. And the fact that Nokia "has seen the light" and is open sourcing their developm. platform is _more_ than welcome. Now _that_ is "innovation".
Ah, and a last note: FYI, more than3 yrs ago, a phone based on a Symbian platform (i.e. Nokia 9110) could use custom WAVs as ringing signals (and it was darn cool, I had one for 3 yrs). But, given the "high end" target of those phones it didn't quite "catch" to lower end phones. And I really doubt it ever will. This segment is what (I guess) Jorgen was talking about (standardizing phone ringing signals) and this is what "got you laughing". And make you post an utterly stupid off-topic subject.
Sounds to me like you have some unresolved anger that you need to work out. No matter.
But just because Symbian has been around, you almost make it sound as if you think that no one else has a right to enter the market. You say `compared with Stinger, Symbian is much more mature, proven, and used in gazillions of phones worldwide`. Well, yeah, this is pretty obvious. But I wonder why? Could it be that Smartphone hasnt COME OUT YET?
Then you say `so *Symbian* is in a much better position than Stinger`. Why do you think this? Because of the reason you gave above? Just because a phone or technology has been around awhile doesnt automatically make it the best choice to be the reigning technology. Better technologies come along all the time. Give Smartphone a chance. It hasnt even arrived yet. You may end up liking it.
You also said `you won't see any time soon grandma with a Stinger powered phone`. So what? And exactly what age group of grandparents are you talking about here? Ive seen grandparents in their forties, if you want to get technical about it. If youre talking about someone so old they cant tie their own shoes anymore, then I would doubt youd find someone like that with any cell phone in the first place. Dont assume that because someone is in their sixties, that their minds are gone. If someone knows how to operate a cell phone period, chances are, they could operate a Smartphone. It certainly wouldnt be harder to operate than the advanced features of a lot of the current phones on the market, with their crappy DOS like WAP interfaces, that are anything but intuitive. How many grandparents do you see using those features? But from the looks of things, it would be a lot easier to navigate through the menus and features of a Smartphone, then the current crap thats out there now. But even if the older generations found this difficult, again I say, so what? No phone is meant for everybody. But its certainly a much better alternative, in terms of ease of use, to all the other garbage that exists today. Just look at the screen shots. Honestly, just how hard could a Smartphone be to use? The bottom line is, technology is going to advance whether we like it or not. Its not going to stay the way it currently is whether we like it or not. New alternatives are going to arrive whether we like it or not. Thats reality. Thats life.
You say `Stinger platform is NOT mainstream stuff`. Oh really? If the pending deal between Microsoft and SonyEricsson goes through, this phone is going to be as mainstream as any other. And what about the younger generations? Do you think theyre going to say, `ooooh, yuk, this Smartphone is so boring and stupid`, or do you think that theyre going to like the 16 bit color screen, chat, email, MP3, internet, high quality ringtone and sound effects, and gaming features better than the other crap currently on the market, which either doesnt have these things or doesnt have them implemented as nicely? Think about it. This kind of an interface and these features, whether its Microsoft or not, is the future. Not Nokia WAP crap.
Maybe these Smartphones will be more expensive when they first come out, but this would be no different than any other type of technology. Give it time, prices will drop, and everybody will choose one of these over those dreadfully boring Nokias, Motorolas, and other brands, anyday.
Microsoft entering the market with this phone will breathe some life into the industry. It certainly will put a fire under Nokias and these other manufacturers` lazy butts, especially in the States. I welcome competition. It forces companies to innovate, to create more or better features in their products. But Ill add one other thing... If what Nokia currently offers, was their vision for the future, then I welcome Microsoft to kick their butt.
Im buying a Smartphone when they arrive. Just dont come crying to me when you decide you want one.
JohnnyFlash
02-21-2002, 06:46 PM
But just because Symbian has been around, you almost make it sound as if you think that no one else has a right to enter the market.
Funny you should say that. It reminds me of a story I heard where a company was striking deals with PC Manufacturers to create a dual boot system which would offer Window$ by default but also an option to load a new OS called BeOS.
Now, the funny thing was, the company that made Window$ told the computer manufacturers that this was not allowed, "Windows or Nothing" the manufacturers were told. Why could that be? Could it be that nobody has the right to enter the OS market?
It must be something I've eaten, but I'm suddenly visions! Visions of pots and kettles!
As for buying a M$ phone..... Oh, you make me giggle!
Oh really? If the pending deal between Microsoft and SonyEricsson goes through, this phone is going to be as mainstream as any other.
Actually I think your find that this is partly unfounded rumour. Ericsson aren't getting into bed with MS despite the various rumours floating around. They are just as committed to Symbian as ever as is shown by their statements in the press release for Symbian 7 and UIQ, but then I doubt you have read that. Ericsson are actually developing two Symbian smartphones, one Pearl 9ish) based and one on UIQ.
Rafe
Rafe,
I was saying, IF it goes through. Who knows who exactly will make this phone. Someone will, though. None of us really know or can be sure until its officially announced. Ive seen the new Nokia, but it wont be offered in the States. At least my understanding is that there are no plans to, anyway. I cant say I like the design all that much, to be quite honest. Based on those things, Smartphones look really good to me.
Chubbergott,
Well, Im glad I can make you laugh here and there, thats cool. :lol: But I must say, Im not defending Microsofts actions with other things. Thats hardly my responsibility, and if theyve done things that arent right in the past, those things have no bearing on the points I was trying to make.
But for logic sake, not Microsofts, I feel I must point out in reference to your example, even though Microsoft doesnt build pc hardware, expecting them to agree to having another competing OS ship with the same computers Windows ships with, is like expecting Nokia to ship its phones with both an MS OS and Symbian. Or to expect Apple to ship its computers with both the Apple OS and Windows. Microsoft isnt required to agree to allowing additional OS`s to ship with Windows, just for the sake of being nice. Its business. Youre not going to give your competitors a pass. Besides, it didnt prevent BeOS from entering the market, or prevent users from installing the OS, anyway. If a company has a way of beating out the competition, then thats just business. Sometimes, standards arent such a bad thing. But the bottom line is, competitors still come out with their products. And users can still use them.
*sigh*...let me sort out some things for you, briefly.
- As it appears that you're not familiar with the techie language: "Grandma" has nothing to do with age/gener/color/race or anything of sorts. It's just techie slang for technology impared and/or complete ignorant. Like for example the average Win$ user :twisted: )
- (Some) reasons behind my "Symbian is in a much better position" statement: 1) They sucessfully incorporated Epoc ( _very_ respectable embeeded RTOS) 2) "They been around many years" i.e. they have _many_ heavy/experienced phone manufacturers that used their platform. In case you're not familiar w/ soft. developm (especially embeeded soft) this is something no money can buy. Really. You get this kind of stuff only by sorting out many, MANY (and i really mean..MANY) bugs, debugging lines of code, software development cycles, etc...In a single word in plain english: EXPERIENCE.
- SonyEricsson and Stinger...Now _I_ start laughing. Ask your dear Andy about the local (i.e. swedish) jokes Ericsson was targeted with when they went into joint venture with M$ (aprox 4 or 5 yrs ago). The result of that partnership (this is first hand information): The use of Microsoft Exchange "as a strategic product" at several Ericsson company as mail server !!! :D. *lol* And everybody ROFL-ing and pointing the finger at them when they got massively CodRed-ed and whole Ericsson companies could not even send corporate mail for days in a row. End products ? None. Mutual partnership experience: Yeah rite...Anyway, it was so bad that even the completely dumass Ericsson management took the decision to shoot down that partnership. So, SonyEricsson with Stinger ? Now THAT is the joke of the day. Really, more seasoned ppl. here already pointed out that SonyEricsson is _really_ heavy behind Symbian.
- Personal side note about /me wanting M$ powered phone. I have to (somehow shamefully) admit that I'm using for various task some M$ crap (like the InternetExploder I'm using rite now for wasting my time and continuing this flame; Or the PPC02 I'm playing with every once in a while). But using it for _work_ or really important stuff, now that will take a VERY,VERY long time. Double that, and you'll get the time until I'll buy a Stinger phone.
All in all my gut feeling (and my best bet) is that Stinger will be another "long-sighted" and "free of any ulterior motives" attempt from M$ to "INNOVATE" the mobile phone market as it was when M$ tried to use MSN to "innovate" the Internet :wink:
Well its clear you dont like anything Microsoft, and thats alright. Everybody is entitled to their opinion. And as I said before, no one knows who will manufacture this Smartphone. As far as this is concerned, we can only go by what we read or hear from other sources. The bottom line is, none of us truly know what is going on behind the scenes. Some things are obvious, other things we can only speculate about. With some of these things, we just have to agree to disagree. Time will tell all.
Oh, and uh, excuse uh me for taking the grandma thing a bit too literal. I understand the slang, but sometimes the way others infer things isnt always perfectly clear in written form. :lol:
Rafe,
I was saying, IF it goes through. Who knows who exactly will make this phone. Someone will, though. None of us really know or can be sure until its officially announced.
But for logic sake, not Microsofts, I feel I must point out in reference to your example, even though Microsoft doesnt build pc hardware, expecting them to agree to having another competing OS ship with the same computers Windows ships with, is like expecting Nokia to ship its phones with both an MS OS and Symbian. Or to expect Apple to ship its computers with both the Apple OS and Windows. Microsoft isnt required to agree to allowing additional OS`s to ship with Windows, just for the sake of being nice.
I think the point being made was that MS was saying to someone else we wont let use Windows if you install BeOS as an option. Forcing another company not to do something doesn't seem right to me.
You alternative about Nokia doesn't make sense. It would be like Symbian saying to Nokia you cant use Symbian if you also use MS). i.e. its an OS provider imposing terms of use on manufacturers and obviously this is anti-competitive. Yes it is for business reasons, but its not right. It be like a tyre company saying to a car manufacturer you can only use our brands of tyre.
Oh yeah and I think the major thing about ericsson thing - well yes someone will make an MS phone, but if its not a big mobile phone player it got a much smaller chance of sucess.
Rafe
I know we`re getting completely off topic from this thread with all of this, but thats one of the reasons I love this place. :)
And I do understand your example. I was saying the same thing you are, but only from a different angle. But this is about understanding business. I was trying to point out how unlikely it was to see two competing OS`s ship on the same machine or device. Do you really think that Symbian would agree to Nokias request that their OS be bundled with the Smartphone 2k2 OS, if Nokia were to actually request such a thing? Although Apple builds its own hardware, is it anti competitive that they dont allow Windows or Linux to ship on its machines? Hardware manufacturers dont have to say yes to MS, they can do what they like. Just because a certain OS doesnt ship on a computer, what would prevent someone from buying and installing any OS they want later on? Besides, the vast percentage of users and companies arent going to want or need two operating systems to be productive. And most want Windows, anyway. So its not as though any manufacturer is really losing out by using Windows only. Thats where all the money is. Not to mention, not having to support yet another operating system reduces tech support costs for the manufacturer. So even from those standpoints, its a bit of a ridiculous request for any manufacturer to make in the first place. And on top of it all, anybody sitting in a garage can code an OS and sell it. Nobody and nothing is stopping him or her from entering the marketplace.
If a pc manufacturer wants to have two competing OS`s on the same system, here is another example that points out how ridiculous that request is... Could you imagine seeing one building with two competing movie rental stores inside? Say Blockbuster Video on one side of the store, and Hollywood Video on the other, for example? Could you imagine the landlord asking Blockbuster Video if it were ok if Hollywood Video shared the same space with them? This is ridiculous to say the least, and would never happen. Would it be anti competitive for Blockbuster to say no to this? Rather, it would be stupid for them to say yes, and would not be smart business! Is it reasonable, then, for anyone to expect MS to agree to allow its competitors to share the same hard drive, especially if they dont have to?
These things are hardly anti competitive. This IS competitiveness. The words anti competitive are for whiners, the weak, and for those who are sore losers. Microsoft started out as a two man company and built itself up from there just like all these other companies. Whats kept these other companies from doing the same thing? Should MS be blamed for being successful, and using their strength in the marketplace to their own advantage? Hardly. I know of no other industry or competitors in the world who behave any different. Its not Microsofts responsibility to `help` its competitors just for sake of consumer choice. Microsofts competitors are responsible for themselves. Theyre big boys and girls, they can figure things out on their own. This is not an issue of ethics. Its business. But then again, I dont see anything ethically wrong with being a smart business man. Besides, as long as we can go out and buy an alternative OS at a store or online or wherever, which we can, then MS is hardly keeping others from entering the marketplace. You have to keep in mind, that when manufacturers say yes to MS`s requests, and if you want to engage in finger pointing, you have to point your finger at the manufacturers, too. And keeping in mind that manufacturers can do what they want, why do you think that they always finally say yes to MS instead of going with an alternative OS? Because maybe Windows is whats going to maximize their sales, because thats what most users want, and thats where the money is? This reveals the true nature of business... Its money. The bottom line. Its not ultimately about variety, or feelings, or the love of technology, or the sporting aspect of competition, or bla bla bla. Its about money.
What if Be was the reigning OS in the world and MS was struggling to be known and used? Does anybody really think they would give poor little MS a chance? Hardly.
If youre the underdog like Be, you always have be more flexible, i.e., `Sure, we`ll share the same hard drive space with MS!` Because, as the underdog, sacrifices are necessary to get anywhere in the marketplace. But if youre the KING of the marketplace, you dont have to be flexible. And its unreasonable to expect MS to unseat itself from the throne it sits on to help a competitor by walking arm in arm with them. MS agreeing to have BeOS ship on the same hard drive, would effectively result in MS assisting Be`s marketing campaign and bottom line, while shooting holes in its own bottom line by saying, `Hey customers, look at Be... for some of you this is a MUCH better alternative to Windows! So if you try it and like it, then buy it from now on and forget us!` There is nothing keeping users from going out and buying Be on their own, installing it, and coming to the conclusion that Be IS better for them, but we cant expect MS to agree to conditions that would facilitate this process. Such is not the nature of business or competition. Would it be reasonable to expect to see brand new Mercedes` and brand new Lexus` selling on the same lot? Then why is it reasonable to some, to see competing OS`s shipping on the same hard drive? Not gonna happen. Microsoft isnt forcing anyone to do anything. There arent any guns to anybodys heads. Manufacturers can use what they want. MS setting conditions is not called force, its called leverage.
**********************************
As far as the Smartphone 2k2 is concerned, and it having a smaller chance for success if its not manufactured by a major player, I cant say I agree with this. I suppose anything is possible, but we have to ask ourselves how Ericsson and Nokia themselves, got so big in the first place. They started out as nobodys. Nobody knew who they were when they first came to market. They ultimately succeeded because over time they built up brand name recognition. Microsoft has this already, which is a huge advantage. If they can build a good solid phone, there is no reason they wouldnt succeed just the same. Without a major player, this would take more time than it otherwise would. But look at what theyve done in the gaming market with the XBox in such a short time. Look at what theyve done in the handheld market. MS`s products have been getting better, and if they can really put out a good phone, there really isnt a whole lot that will stop them. I dont doubt Microsoft knows who theyre up against, but that doesnt mean theyre intimidated.
Looking at MS`s behavior in the past, I dont think they worry about how long it might take to grab a piece of a market. I think they just ask themselves how can we enter this market, how fast can we do it, and then just steadily plug along until theyve done it, taking advantage of every opportunity along the way. When they target a market, they never worry they wont get a chunk of it, because eventually, they always do. This is why we never hear of them being intimidated, and Im sure this is why Nokia doesnt intimidate them. In terms of market share, to MS its most often a question of when, not if. Like Ive said many times before, time will tell.
JohnnyFlash
02-22-2002, 09:18 PM
Phew! That must have taken ages to type and it's a lot to take in!
Although Apple builds its own hardware, is it anti competitive that they dont allow Windows or Linux to ship on its machines?
Don't allow is a bit strong if M$ has never asked (and Apple do run M$ software on their machines).
Just because a certain OS doesnt ship on a computer, what would prevent someone from buying and installing any OS they want later on?
It would seem so, or M$ wouldn't insist on having Windoze on every spinning disk.
Besides, the vast percentage of users and companies arent going to want or need two operating systems to be productive.
I don't need two Operating Systems, but I like to choose one.
So its not as though any manufacturer is really losing out by using Windows only
So why the M$ threats? :?: Are you saying that Micro$oft is wasting money by insisting on having it's OS on these machines? I agree that today, it makes little difference. However, when there was competition, not long ago, it made a world of difference. Manufacturers were willing to provide the choice... why not let the market decide this was a bad move and not Micro$oft?
Nobody and nothing is stopping him or her from entering the marketplace
With respect, you haven't been listening have you?
Could you imagine seeing one building with two competing movie rental stores inside? Say Blockbuster Video on one side of the store, and Hollywood Video on the other, for example? Could you imagine the landlord asking Blockbuster Video if it were ok if Hollywood Video shared the same space with them?
Actually, yes. I've seen Blockbusters and other video stores under the same roof. Much like the way you can find HMV, Virgin and Our Price in the same shopping centgre (mall).
These things are hardly anti competitive. This IS competitiveness.
So, if we both had similar products, even though your was better, you'd accept it as good competition if I had the welly to bully and bribe companies into telling you to get lost and only to use my product?
Its not Microsofts responsibility to `help` its competitors
I agree. But there's a difference between helping someone and giving them a kick in the goolies before whipping the casrpet from under their feet.
And keeping in mind that manufacturers can do what they want
But they can't. You say it is business. They know that they need to have Windoze installed to get their PC to sell with the competitors. It's like having a race where some of the athletes aren't allowed on the track until the others have already got into their pace.
What if Be was the reigning OS in the world and MS was struggling to be known and used? Does anybody really think they would give poor little MS a chance? Hardly.
I agree with you. Be would prbably do the same. But it doesn't make it right. I still want choice.
If youre the underdog like Be, you always have be more flexible, i.e., `Sure, we`ll share the same hard drive space with MS!` Because, as the underdog, sacrifices are necessary to get anywhere in the marketplace. But if youre the KING of the marketplace, you dont have to be flexible. And its unreasonable to expect MS to unseat itself from the throne it sits on to help a competitor by walking arm in arm with them. MS agreeing to have BeOS ship on the same hard drive, would effectively result in MS assisting Be`s marketing campaign and bottom line
No! No! No! Nobody expects M$ to get off their throne to help Be. I would consder the correct action for Micro$oft to be to do nothing. Don't help, but don't hinder. Micro$oft went out of their way to stop the manufacturers from inlcuding Be. :?: If manufacturers are truly independent (as you suggest), why should Micro$oft get involved if all?
Not that I like Nokia so much better, but compared with Stinger, Symbian is _much_ more mature, proven, and used in gazillion of phones worldwide
Excuse me? All the European surveys published in PDA sites that you are well familiar with show that Nokia has something like 4%-5% of the PDA market and Symbian has 7%-9% as whole. So please back you numbers.
I do prefer a platform that lets me connect to the *real* internet and choose my applications, services and downloads and not pay money for every *word* that I type as Part of SMS or email I send, no to mention to charge me for ring-tones.
This post would have cost me pennies with MS, but like $3 with Nokia phone.
.
JohnnyFlash
02-23-2002, 01:27 AM
This post would have cost me pennies with MS, but like $3 with Nokia phone.
:? What the flippin' blink are you on about!?
I sent a couple of e-mails this afternoon and browsed this site on my Nokia device this evening and I know that I was charged by the second (which is not that bad with HSCSD).
Please explain what you mean.... I'm all ears!
This post would have cost me pennies with MS, but like $3 with Nokia phone.
:? What the flippin' blink are you on about!?
I sent a couple of e-mails this afternoon and browsed this site on my Nokia device this evening and I know that I was charged by the second (which is not that bad with HSCSD).
Please explain what you mean.... I'm all ears!
Sure.
When you use a PC or a PPC, you get connected to the Internet as you describe. You get a pipe to the Internet. The phone company is relegated to charging for connection time. I am free to totally control my OS, choose applications and service providers such as email, instant messaging, web and freqing whatever. I am free to download any file and application I want. Nothing that I do or use costs me extra beyond connection time. I am free to choose companies who are competing for my attention and money in an open and universal system. I connect to the *real* web.
Now I live in Canada (and what I say refers to the US too) and use a cell phone. In order to extract additional money from me, the cell phone companies offer additional services like SMS Web and email. But those services are closed and proprietary. I can only use the application the phone company offers me and use it under their closed system. I cannot interface with the *real* internet, and worse of all, they make me pay for these things by the nose. They literally make you pay extra for the pathetic surfing inside their closed system; they make me pay for every byte of email I download; and they make me pay for every word I type on SMS. Those things add up like snowball, without even commenting on their usefulness.
If you get a wireless connection for $40 a months for a PPC, it literally costs you pennies to do those things, while dollars to do similar things using the business model of the cell phone companies.
What part of CLOSED PROPRIETARY AND RIP-OFF didn't you understand?
_________________________________________
foan campanys aaareee reeeepiiinng youuu aaauooffff aannnddd
nnnaaaaato MMMIccrosooft
JohnnyFlash
02-23-2002, 10:16 AM
:? Ok, now I'm not the brightest candle on the tree so you'll have to bare with me a little......
When you use a PC or a PPC, you get connected to the Internet as you describe. You get a pipe to the Internet. The phone company is relegated to charging for connection time. I am free to totally control my OS, choose applications and service providers such as email, instant messaging, web and freqing whatever. I am free to download any file and application I want. Nothing that I do or use costs me extra beyond connection time. I am free to choose companies who are competing for my attention and money in an open and universal system. I connect to the *real* web.
These seem like basic rights that I've enjoyed since my Psion Series5 (Before PPC)..... I think this shows just how brainwashed you are into Micro$oft thinking. You seem to consider it impossible that;
I connect to the internet via my Nokia device (though I used Ericsson with my Psion). I can connect via Orange (the network operator), IC24, Tiscali.... in fact, anybody that provides a dial up service that I can access via my PC (even AOL - but I'd need a medical procedure before I could do something that stupid).
When I connect to the internet, I can browse anything I like. This site, that site, news sites, games sites, sites with pictures, sites without pictures, sites in English, sites in Welsh, sites in French (though I wouldn't understand that), sites for PocketPC technology, sites for cutting edge technology, sites that sell paper and scissors, sites that sell rubber bands, sites that sell rubber dolls (though may I take this opportunity to say that I have no need of use sites), sites that sell software, sites that buy hardware, my bank, my own site....... in fact, :?: NAME ME A SITE THAT I CAN'T VISIT VIA A NORMAL ISP!? (on a 640x200 screen - nice and wide)
I too can download any file I like, I can even download applications straight to my Communicator and install them without the need for a PC (that's handy, actually). I can download documents, sounds, pictures, applications (as I said)..... JUST LIKE YOO-HOO-HOO!
When I connect to the internet, Orange charge me by the second for that connection. They don't give a flying fop-fangled-matoid where I go on the internet (I could visit Vodafone, BTCellnet and Genie if I wanted).
We don't have SMS web and e-mail in the UK (I don't think so anyway) and to be honest, I don't think I'd touch it with a bargepole attached to another bargepoles on a day when the minimum length for bargepoles has been officially doubled. It would seem to me that the service you're on about is not available to me..... which kind of makes me ask;
Are you aware that devices other than PPCs and PCs are able to make connections to the internet via a normal ISP?
I don't mean to teach my granny to suck eggs, but it sounds to me like you reckon Nokia tie people into a subset of the internet (like WAP). I can tell you now, based on the paragraphs above, this is patently not true and I prove this every day (either that, or I imagine surfing the internet).
So, who told you all that claptrap about being locked into 'another internet' if you don't use a Micro$oft product? Whoever it was..... they lied!
PS. If you don't believe me, I'll post screenshots just to that I deceive you not.
If you get a wireless connection for $40 a months for a PPC, it literally costs you pennies to do those things, while dollars to do similar things using the business model of the cell phone companies
:roll: There just is no helping some people!
SwitchBlade
02-23-2002, 04:32 PM
Ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha! :D :D :D
Ok I think I've calmed down a little now. Thank you for informing me that I cannot access the web without an M$ device, I forgot that M$ "innovated" the web from nowhere and that it can be accessed on Acorn/Amiga/Apple/Atari machines (these aren't IBM compat "Oh no!!!!"), or on a PC running BeOS (how I post), M$, Linux, Unix, QNX. Then we can also use WebTVs, palmtops, mobile phones....
You seem to have the opinion that once you buy a phone they are set up for one ISP and that you are treated as if you were using AO(hel)L, I have an ISP account with freeserve that I use with my 9210, I can view sites with javascript/java/flash/etc I am not limited apart from by the width of the screen, which is still a mile wider than an M$ device. Previous to this I used my laptop with my Nokia 6210 for similar net access.
Now I don't know how things are done in your country but the way you describe the way you are charged for net access on a landline is *EXACTLY* the same method that is used for landlines and mobile phones in the uk. In some cases the mobile phone is *FREE* due to use of free minutes with your tarriff. you seem to have a very stange idea about how mobile phone companies and networks go about things... Maybe that just shows how far ahead Europe and Asia are with their business models for the devices. Move to Europe to enjoy beautiful easy to use handsets, and online freedom :)
'nuff said
SwitchBlade
Chubbergott,
Yes, it did take a while to write up. :) And I could respond to some of the things you said, but then we`d be here all week :lol: So I think Im gonna take a break from this thread!
JohnnyFlash
02-24-2002, 02:54 AM
Chubbergott,
Yes, it did take a while to write up. :) And I could respond to some of the things you said, but then we`d be here all week :lol: So I think Im gonna take a break from this thread!
Good move because I was beginning to think that I was dreaming when I accessed the internet using a connection that charged me by the second.
However, just in case there is still some confusion, I'll describe the tarif I'm on and how I connect to the internet with my Smartphone and will then also abandon this thread.
:arrow: I bought a Smartphone
:arrow: It is connected to a network called Orange
:arrow: Orange grant me 50 free off-peak minutes a day, for 50p a day. Any calls made bayond those 50 minutes, or at peak time are charged by the second
:arrow: A call can be a voice conversation, a FAX or a data connection to any ISP I choose
:arrow: When I have finished doing whatever it is I want to do, I disconnect
:!: Think of it in the same way as you connect your PC to the internet. You'r choice of ISP is not necessarily determined by your modem's or PC's manufacturer. You choose your ISP, connect, transfer and disconnect.
I hope this has clarified any misunderstanding about how you think we connect to the internet when we don't use a Microsoft product.
If you are still reading this topic, I really would be interested in knowing what this SMS based Web and E-Mail is all about since I've never heard of it.
Thank you.
You guys are killing me. Please read the topic of this discussion. Does SMARTPHONE ring a bell. It's has somethng do with an device called "cell phone" and not PDA, revo and what's not. So let's talk about phones, smartphones, web/SMS connected cell phones that are used by 99% of the population. And I mean *regular* population not some geeks that spend all their times and money connecting with their NON-PHONES, (dead) revos, communicators etc. Any normal person who buys a phone gets milked by cell phone companies (and there is no reason to think British and European phone companies are any less greedy, they are actually more expensive).
And I was not referring to MS specifically, but to the model they represent. The ability to access and use the *real* Internet, currently not available to most cell-phone users. And I don’t care with what (really bad for you that 99% of this is handled by MS software, but, again, it's irrelevant. Hey let's ignore that, we don't know what is MS, they don’t exist).
You geeks simply do not realize that you don't represent normal users who buy a $100 phone and *do* get charged by the nose. You can go back now to your wet dreams about (dead) revos and the 0.0005% market share communicator.
vBulletin® v3.8.9, Copyright ©2000-2019, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.