Samsung = next Apple?

[Chris_in_the_UK]

http://techcrunch.com/2012/01/11/why-sa ... ext-apple/

[robt]

Stupid article.

Apple start with an integrated user experience and control the software and the hardware to deliver that user experience. Samsung are just a very large hardware company. These days Apple also controls their supply chain, so they can compete with anyone on price. The fact that Samsung are big does not make them Apple. They didn't get massive overnight: they're not the "next" anything, they are the "current Samsung".

Who cares how many TVs they sell? Apple doesn't sell TVs (yet) and if/when they do, they will sell them to a niche market initially, at a higher profit margin than anyone else in the business and, if they get lucky like they did with the ipod, the niche will expand into worldwide dominance. However they won't compete with the large scale box-shifters on their own terms. Samsung otoh are unlikely to introduce something disruptive into the TV market. If they were geared up for that kind of thing the article would make sense, but they are not. They don't have that kind of R&D & user-experience expertise.

Also, integration with iTunes, plus the content distribution deals they already have in place with the music, film and publishing industries are huge levers for Apple, which Samsung also does not have.

The more likely "next Apple" is Microsoft. They might need to get rid of Ballmer first, but they still manage the occasional success regardless (Kinect for example).

In fact, reversal of the original question would make a lot more sense: "Is Apple the next Samsung". Given how much income Samsung make from TVs, if I were them I'd be very worried about the prospect of Apple entering that market.

[Argee1977]

Apple, Samsung, Sony, etc are all high tech companies looking for the next big thing, i wouldn't say any of them are the next anything, for me it's whoever comes up with the next tech that takes the world by storm that'll win the next battle.

Folk go on about Apple, but they're starting to slow down, others have caught up, or even went ahead of them, i hear far more people praise their Samsung S2 Galaxy than i do from iPhone users, i know two who sold their 4s and bought the galaxy, so the next gen may well take over and cause apple to lose some market percentage, same with the iPad's, the fact is that apple have a lot of competition from across the market, each trying to make something better, cheaper and faster, because a lot of people are starting to query spending hundreds more on apple kit.

[hogthrob]

tl;dr : techcrunch successfully troll Apple fanbois.

[jjgreenwood]

My mate who is into buying the latest iphone etc but doesn't really get all the techy/geeky side made the statement that he was bored of iphone cos apple hadn't changed it. I said "what you going for, the samsung galaxy s2?". "Samsung pffft" - was the reply, "Thats what the girls that hang around in bus shelters use, no I've seen the new nokia my mate has it and thats the next big thing".

So Samsung obviously has an image problem somewhere, with Microsoft launching Windows 8, WP8 and the next Xbox in the last 2 quarters of this year is it possible they will be able to outspend everyone on marketing, get the products talking to each other and make them work properly and make them all desirable at the same time?

[Argee1977]

Sony used to be in the position Apple are now, with their Walkmans, TV's, Videos, etc, everybody had sony stuff if they wanted the standard top of the range (i.e. not specialist), they were overtaken in certain markets, still big with the TV's, but you know it's always going to change in this market, because technology changes, certain things become must haves and companies can go from lower end to mid/top in the space of a year or two if they have the right product.

[europa]

What Apple has now, what Sony didn't, is an Apple 'environment'. That's their usp.

[robt]

The thing a lot of people don't get about Apple though is that they are not all about the overpriced toys for hipsters anymore. That might have been the case years ago, but now they are positioned much more like Microsoft was positioned 20 years ago when the PC was everything. Mass market, dominance, and blocking out the competition by constantly raising the barriers to entry. Apple have also somehow managed to do this while maintaining (and in fact, increasing) their profit margins.

This was part luck, part cleverness, but mainly cut-throat opportunism. The cleverest thing they have done is to use the opportunities that came up to cement a very forward-looking strategy. It's no longer about the PC market or operating systems, and Apple has managed to take a hold over the digital content market. It's mainly about the distribution deals. They used their accidental market dominance (through coolness and novelty) to put these in place a few years ago, so that now nobody can touch them. Seamless integration between devices is also an important part of this strategy. E.g., if you have an iphone you're much more likely to buy an ipad or Apple TV. It's not quite the monopoly Microsoft has on the desktop PC with Windows & Office, but it's getting close.

The iPhone isn't technically better than the top of the line Android phones, and there have been plenty of competitors that could be called cooler, or sexier, but none of them has got any traction. Apple has all the apps. It has iTunes. It has a good enough user experience for 95% of the things that 95% of people want to do, which is actually quite a hard thing to achieve.

Nobody has all of these things and nobody else can have all of these things right now. When Android or Windows 8 really get some traction across all the platforms, and they sort out similar content licencing deals, and they deal with the market fragmentation issues (actually Microsoft partnering with Nokia might be a very smart move to address that; meanwhile Google is busy making the same mistakes Microsoft did with Windows) then maybe they'll be able to compete with Apple. In the meantime, yes people will stop regarding the iphone as cool, but they'll still have one, because it's all about the cool stuff they want (apps, movies, tv, music) and they can only get all of those things from one place right now.

[darrenw]

Apple's business model is simply better than anyone else's and they understand their customers better than anyone else.

They control digital content and their distribution model is leagues ahead of the competition.

And according to the following article - Apple powers into global PC market top spot...

http://www.channelweb.co.uk/crn-uk/news ... arket-spot

And their shares are at an all time high.

So best not write them off just yet :wink:

[sevvy]

Sony used to be in the position Apple are now, with their Walkmans, TV's, Videos, etc, everybody had sony stuff if they wanted the standard top of the range (i.e. not specialist), they were overtaken in certain markets, still big with the TV's, but you know it's always going to change in this market, because technology changes, certain things become must haves and companies can go from lower end to mid/top in the space of a year or two if they have the right product.

If you read the Steve Jobs book then this is mentioned in there. Jobs was telling one of the Sony execs that they had everything at their fingertips to do what Apple did, but their inability to get divisions within Sony to work together was key in their failings.

There will be no next Apple, just another successful company. My own opinion is that I very much doubt whether anyone will have the impact on the digital/consumer electronics market that Apple has had this last ten years or so.

[Dibergio]

Until another manufacturer can provide an experience better than Apple, there won't be a next Apple.

Tech specs aren't what people, bar geeks care about.

[Omegamanic]

My mate who is into buying the latest iphone etc but doesn't really get all the techy/geeky side made the statement that he was bored of iphone cos apple hadn't changed it. I said "what you going for, the samsung galaxy s2?". "Samsung pffft" - was the reply, "Thats what the girls that hang around in bus shelters use, no I've seen the new nokia my mate has it and thats the next big thing".

So Samsung obviously has an image problem somewhere, with Microsoft launching Windows 8, WP8 and the next Xbox in the last 2 quarters of this year is it possible they will be able to outspend everyone on marketing, get the products talking to each other and make them work properly and make them all desirable at the same time?

Well Samsung have sold something like 27m galaxy phones to iphones 17m, so I guess some people are buying them ;)

Market share 24% to less than 15% and that is just Samsung against Apple, - no doubt all Apple phones are "premium" priced - but there are far far more Android users that IO5 users and that is growing day by day and the App market will soon overtake (if it hasn't already) anything apple has to offer due to the open source nature of the operating system alone.

I like Samsung a lot at the minute and I an a Samsung consumer in the same way that so,me have bought Apple this and Apple that - from Phones/Tv's and computers after researching what I wanted I have gone and bought Samsung. Apple like others design a product and have it built, some are better than others.

Next big thing - I'll wait and see but it doesn't have to come from one of the current players. A new innovator may take us all by surprise.

[doubledee]

Samsung products aren't cool so they're not the next Apple. Whilst I reckon their latest smartphones are probably the best out there and better than my iphone 4S but the rest of their product line up doesn't interest me.

I like my apple products but not the company or the way they want you to use them and you won't find me waxing' lyrical about them like some people do. Largely they work and work well. Pity the battery on my phone is utter kak though.

[guinea]

People vastly overestimate Apple's ability.

Over 2/3 of their profits come from the iPhone which is their main gateway product. They are one or two bad releases away from going right back to where they started from.

The iPhone has already lost its lead in the phone market and that's why its stock price doesn't go stratospheric when they announce record profits. Experts know having the coolest product is generally unsustainable.

However, if they launch a TV you can guarantee they'd sell 10000000 without even telling the public the specs. Even though their previous TV entries are underwhelming they have a loyalty like no other tech company which ensures sales. It will not last forever though.

Unless Apple tie in dome exclusive content deals they will run the risk of being just another tech firm.

[hogthrob]

And according to the following article - Apple powers into global PC market top spot...

http://www.channelweb.co.uk/crn-uk/news ... arket-spot

Not sure I'd have included iPads in 'PC' sales figures - iPad functionality is closer to that of an iPhone than a Mac.

[SinclairS]

Apple, in particular the iphone/ipad is a funny old thing - often wanted by people like my mother who have no idea and no requirement of their capabilities. Samsung can bring out a product that crushes these technically but they won't tap into that market. Ultimately it's still a "cool" brand, or at least perceived by a middle england demographic as "cool" and on the whole they throw out a nice bit of design, which matters. Samsung will struggle to ever be this, to most they're the company that make mediocre televisions. My mother is on her 3rd iphone, she hasn't got a clue how to them and still rings me to google for her when she out and about needing an address, telephone number or directions - she wants an ipad now as well in order that she can not google on that as well I expect. Maddening.

[monogroover]

Apple, Samsung, Sony, etc are all high tech companies looking for the next big thing, i wouldn't say any of them are the next anything, for me it's whoever comes up with the next tech that takes the world by storm that'll win the next battle.

Folk go on about Apple, but they're starting to slow down, others have caught up, or even went ahead of them, i hear far more people praise their Samsung S2 Galaxy than i do from iPhone users, i know two who sold their 4s and bought the galaxy, so the next gen may well take over and cause apple to lose some market percentage, same with the iPad's, the fact is that apple have a lot of competition from across the market, each trying to make something better, cheaper and faster, because a lot of people are starting to query spending hundreds more on apple kit.

Apple are a phenomenally successful and brilliant marketing company. Tehcnologically they've been quite some way behind their competitors for years - especially in the computing sphere.

[Omegamanic]

Apple, in particular the iphone/ipad is a funny old thing - often wanted by people like my mother who have no idea and no requirement of their capabilities. Samsung can bring out a product that crushes these technically but they won't tap into that market. Ultimately it's still a "cool" brand, or at least perceived by a middle england demographic as "cool" and on the whole they throw out a nice bit of design, which matters. Samsung will struggle to ever be this, to most they're the company that make mediocre televisions. My mother is on her 3rd iphone, she hasn't got a clue how to them and still rings me to google for her when she out and about needing an address, telephone number or directions - she wants an ipad now as well in order that she can not google on that as well I expect. Maddening.

Samsung tablet is far ahead of the ipad and looks better (that is why Apple wanted it banned - because it just simply bettered every spec of the ipad2). My Series 9 "ultrabook" type thing is much nicer than an macbook air- . Mediocre tv's? - at least for the last two years they have been about on top and for the home user their current offerings rate higher in both style and function compared to the opposition - unless you want to go truly high-end.

I agree - they were a just another company that made electronics - but these days Samsung are a true power house in both technology and products - only time will tell if they can stay on top!

[SinclairS]

Mediocre tv's? - at least for the last two years they have been about on top and for the home user their current offerings rate higher in both style and function compared to the opposition - unless you want to go truly high-end.

I agree - they were a just another company that made electronics - but these days Samsung are a true power house in both technology and products - only time will tell if they can stay on top!

That's the problem, good products now but they are having to work against deepset preconceptions - samsung products only a few years ago were maybe considered one step up from ownbrands like Matsui, I can't help thinking that to most, and particularly brand concious ipad/iphone buyers, that has and will continue to stick. In some ways they would have been better launching a new separate premium brand - Toyota/Lexus.

[Omegamanic]

Interesting thought - a luxury sub brand would no doubt have some added kink - however, I think their sales are speaking for themselves anyway. Their tv's are branded by series, so you can easily tell that a 4 series tv is lower down the scale and cheaper than a 9 series for example - similar with their computers, which follow the same logic - the phones are a different matter.

In theory, I should be a typical Apple consumer - but I'm not. So I am not sure they have a problem, I know a lot of people who choose their products over other brands now. Just like a lot of people used to turn to Sony as their preferred electronics company in fact.

I will still buy what I consider to be quality and functionality - but looks count too and just now I think they have it right - a nice looking phone range, nice looking computer range and the best looking tv range under £4k-£5k imo.

[Chabsy]

Apple products function ok but form is the main reason they sell.

15 years ago all Apple had was home computers that didnt do that much apart from DTP. Then they found I.

[gibbon]

I really dont think so, not a great article either.

[thattallchap]

Apple products function ok but form is the main reason they sell.

15 years ago all Apple had was home computers that didnt do that much apart from DTP. Then they found I.

Wrong, the only reason Apple products sell is ease of use.

The fact that it's wrapped in a pretty outer case is a bonus. The simple fact of the matter is that OSX is light years ahead of anything in terms of access and usability, and yes read carefully as I didn't say functionality. It's a mass market, premium (possibly aspirational) home product that works out of the box, it's made even more complete with the Mac Apps store and iLife as standard. For most users, they don't need anything more

[gentlemenpreferhats]

Apple products function ok but form is the main reason they sell.

15 years ago all Apple had was home computers that didnt do that much apart from DTP. Then they found I.

Wrong, the only reason Apple products sell is ease of use.

The fact that it's wrapped in a pretty outer case is a bonus. The simple fact of the matter is that OSX is light years ahead of anything in terms of access and usability, and yes read carefully as I didn't say functionality. It's a mass market, premium (possibly aspirational) home product that works out of the box, it's made even more complete with the Mac Apps store and iLife as standard. For most users, they don't need anything more

Thats a good summary of how they have become successful but i'm not sure it explains wether they will continue to be. Like most "mass premium" companies they are getting attacked by other players who can do "nearly as good as" for slightly cheaper. Hence Apple's various IP cases vs Samsung & hence why Apple allegedly routinely buys up all global production of key components wether they need them or not (touchscreens and batteries for example). The OP article, like many posts above, assume Apple want to continue being in the business of selling boxes. I'm not so sure.
In the short term I'll continue to bet on Apple, even though I don't own any Apple products. In the long term I would still bet on Google.

[thattallchap]

Apple products function ok but form is the main reason they sell.

15 years ago all Apple had was home computers that didnt do that much apart from DTP. Then they found I.

Wrong, the only reason Apple products sell is ease of use.

The fact that it's wrapped in a pretty outer case is a bonus. The simple fact of the matter is that OSX is light years ahead of anything in terms of access and usability, and yes read carefully as I didn't say functionality. It's a mass market, premium (possibly aspirational) home product that works out of the box, it's made even more complete with the Mac Apps store and iLife as standard. For most users, they don't need anything more

Thats a good summary of how they have become successful but i'm not sure it explains wether they will continue to be. Like most "mass premium" companies they are getting attacked by other players who can do "nearly as good as" for slightly cheaper. Hence Apple's various IP cases vs Samsung & hence why Apple allegedly routinely buys up all global production of key components wether they need them or not (touchscreens and batteries for example). The OP article, like many posts above, assume Apple want to continue being in the business of selling boxes. I'm not so sure.
In the short term I'll continue to bet on Apple, even though I don't own any Apple products. In the long term I would still bet on Google.

I have never agreed with the noise made around Apples business strategy being based on shifting boxes. The fact that iTunes and the various App stores generate huge amounts of revenue, for little effort, shouldn't be ignored.

Apple have some very clever people at the heart of their business, and basing a core business on the supporting applications such as those mentioned above, would be a better boardroom discussion than how do we shift more boxes

[jjgreenwood]

Apple products function ok but form is the main reason they sell.

15 years ago all Apple had was home computers that didnt do that much apart from DTP. Then they found I.

Wrong, the only reason Apple products sell is ease of use.

The fact that it's wrapped in a pretty outer case is a bonus. The simple fact of the matter is that OSX is light years ahead of anything in terms of access and usability, and yes read carefully as I didn't say functionality. It's a mass market, premium (possibly aspirational) home product that works out of the box, it's made even more complete with the Mac Apps store and iLife as standard. For most users, they don't need anything more

Not anymore windows 7 does the job just as well, if not better. The problem is everyone remembers what windows used to be like as we had 20 odd years of that.

Mind you it took them long enough to realise how simple OSX/IOS was so god knows how long it'll take Joe public to realise windows is now sorted.

Incidentally Andriod reminds me of Windows for Workgroups 3.11, the more I think about it the more obvious the similarities are.

[Omegamanic]

Not familiar with workgroups - or maybe I have just forgotten it ;)

I think Apple have the ability to be the new Apple, if they re-invent themselves just a little and ensure that they package their products right they should maintain their position. After all they are, like most luxury goods manufacturers, increasingly penetrating the markets in Brazil, Russia, India and China - provided they don't completely mess up, or get left behind I'm sure we will see continued support and growth.

[thattallchap]

Apple products function ok but form is the main reason they sell.

15 years ago all Apple had was home computers that didnt do that much apart from DTP. Then they found I.

Wrong, the only reason Apple products sell is ease of use.

The fact that it's wrapped in a pretty outer case is a bonus. The simple fact of the matter is that OSX is light years ahead of anything in terms of access and usability, and yes read carefully as I didn't say functionality. It's a mass market, premium (possibly aspirational) home product that works out of the box, it's made even more complete with the Mac Apps store and iLife as standard. For most users, they don't need anything more

Not anymore windows 7 does the job just as well, if not better. The problem is everyone remembers what windows used to be like as we had 20 odd years of that.

Mind you it took them long enough to realise how simple OSX/IOS was so god knows how long it'll take Joe public to realise windows is now sorted.

Incidentally Andriod reminds me of Windows for Workgroups 3.11, the more I think about it the more obvious the similarities are.

I'm sorry, but Windows7 isn't even close to Leopard, let alone Lion in terms of usability, and in short I never will be unless it's redesignedIfrom the ground up and the removal of DOS is engineered and a limited amount of hardware is supported.

MS biggest problem, and the main reason why it wont ever touch OSX, is that Windows has to work with as much hardware as possible and as such it dilutes the performance of the base OS, coupled with the plethora of badly written garbage software that Windows has to cope it will never be able to match the usability and performance of any OSX product.

OS performance and usability is an agument that will never be won by Windows, due to these reasons. However I concur that OSX will never be able to match the functionality of Windows as its designed to work with everything.

So you pay your money and take our choice, it really is that simple.

[guinea]

Why to people argue about usability?

If you do usability testing (and I have, many times) users do not find OSX easier to use than Windows. There no productivity gains resulted from using Macs. If there was, they'd ben in every office.

People who repeat the mantra about usability based on the fact that it looks pretty or their nan can use it are missing the real big picture. Usability can be measured empirically by how long it takes to do work, learn new things and guess functionality in advance of an action. Macs are not better when held up to these numbers.

I've run every version of windows and mac since 1993. I've also used every solaris version from 4 and countless lunix flavours. They are all fine. I would never choose to develop on windows or a mac, but I never play games on unix or mac. I just don't get these conversations.

Picking a home computer based on its OS makes you a retard. You decide what software you want to run and then pick the OS. I need office, picture editing and games at home. PC kicks the Mac's ass at these. The only piece of software that would temp to to Apple is Aperture, but it's not enough.

[gentlemenpreferhats]

[Glamdring]

I'm sorry, but Windows7 isn't even close to Leopard, let alone Lion in terms of usability, and in short I never will be unless it's redesignedIfrom the ground up and the removal of DOS is engineered and a limited amount of hardware is supported.

I'm not sure what that means. Windows hasn't had DOS since Vista though it does have a command line interface for some of the nerds. Much legacy software will now not run on W7, even in XP Mode in Windows Professional.
Again, elaborate, if you will, on limited hardware support.

[SinclairS]

Picking a home computer based on its OS makes you a retard.

Stop sitting on fence, say what you really mean :lol:

[thattallchap]

Why to people argue about usability?

If you do usability testing (and I have, many times) users do not find OSX easier to use than Windows. There no productivity gains resulted from using Macs. If there was, they'd ben in every office.

People who repeat the mantra about usability based on the fact that it looks pretty or their nan can use it are missing the real big picture. Usability can be measured empirically by how long it takes to do work, learn new things and guess functionality in advance of an action. Macs are not better when held up to these numbers.

I've run every version of windows and mac since 1993. I've also used every solaris version from 4 and countless lunix flavours. They are all fine. I would never choose to develop on windows or a mac, but I never play games on unix or mac. I just don't get these conversations.

Picking a home computer based on its OS makes you a retard. You decide what software you want to run and then pick the OS. I need office, picture editing and games at home. PC kicks the Mac's ass at these. The only piece of software that would temp to to Apple is Aperture, but it's not enough.

This is an extremely confusing argument. Usability has nothing to do with what software you run. Also the reason Mac's aren't used in the majority of offices is two fold. First is cost, even though the actual ROI is better on Mac hardware due to the hardware's low depreciation value. Second, as stated Mac's functionality is limited because it's built to make the best use of the limited hardware that Mac's are built from and thus are less functional than a PC.

Your juvenile argument of you'd have to be a retard to pick a home PC based on OS, is fundamentally flawed. The Mac is a better Home machine due to its limitations, and this is being born out of people moving to Mac's over the years. The PC will always better a Mac at Games, due to the wider computability of hardware (i have stated this many time) but this is functionality not usability. But the PC Gamer is falling by the way side as the continued growth of the purpose built console strides ever forward. I know - I've been a gamer for more years than i can remember, and I fondly remember PC gaming, but it has just died a death - especially since Xbox Live was born.

Office packages again are functional based and while Office for Mac is much better to use than the Windows version IMO and MS have openly used idea's from the Mac versions of office to make 2007 and 2010 (Office Ribbon Bar came from Mac 2004) Mac's doesn't have the depth of applications - Visio for example - again, this is a functional argument. Not usability.

Finally, if the Mac is so useless at picture, video or media manipulation in general, why are they used throughout the creative and publishing industry . Could it be that they are actually very good at this, due to the speed and usability of the system - quite probably!

[Seabadger]

Office Ribbon Bar came from Mac 2004

I didn't know that - it's the most loathsome thing in the world.

[thattallchap]

I'm sorry, but Windows7 isn't even close to Leopard, let alone Lion in terms of usability, and in short I never will be unless it's redesignedIfrom the ground up and the removal of DOS is engineered and a limited amount of hardware is supported.

I'm not sure what that means. Windows hasn't had DOS since Vista though it does have a command line interface for some of the nerds. Much legacy software will now not run on W7, even in XP Mode in Windows Professional.
Again, elaborate, if you will, on limited hardware support.

Squire, Windows is still a 32bit OS designed to run on an x86 platform, yes it has very many flavours (including a 64bit version) but it is still design to be compatible with applications which are also based on an x86 platform. MS won't ever change this as it will severely impact there market share - Christ they still run the MS Paint application from 3.11!! This is why performance is always compromised.

The point around Limited hardware support is obvious - to extract the very best performance from anything (and I mean anything) the supporting parts need to be optimised and measured for reliability. You would never suggest a steering rack from a Metro would give you the best feel when place in a high performance sports car. The same principle can be applied to computers.

Windows has its place as does Mac - Windows 7 is a fine OS, but it has its problems and its limitations, as does OSX.

[Glamdring]

I fondly remember PC gaming, but it has just died a death - especially since Xbox Live was born.

No it hasn't. The tech in new PC games rigs is breathtaking, the graphics is way better than console graphics and the PC market remains healthy, though I do recognise that consoles provide a faster buck for games developers.

The point around Limited hardware support is obvious - to extract the very best performance from anything (and I mean anything) the supporting parts need to be optimised and measured for reliability. You would never suggest a steering rack from a Metro would give you the best feel when place in a high performance sports car. The same principle can be applied to computers.

I must be missing something here. Hardware support means to me that the OS supports, and is supported by hardware. The hardware avaiable to run on PCs is exponentially greater than for Macs simply because, as shown in a table earlier, it accounts for less than 9% of computers sold.

[guinea]

The Mac is a better Home machine due to its limitations

I could pick every poorly thought out point you made, but you wrote that, so there's no point.

Seriously?

You do realise that one of Apple's biggest drivers pre-iPhone was that it adopted BSD so techies could actually use the thing properly.

Apple were toast without OSX/BSD.

[jjgreenwood]

I'm sorry, but Windows7 isn't even close to Leopard, let alone Lion in terms of usability, and in short I never will be unless it's redesignedIfrom the ground up and the removal of DOS is engineered and a limited amount of hardware is supported.

I'm not sure what that means. Windows hasn't had DOS since Vista though it does have a command line interface for some of the nerds. Much legacy software will now not run on W7, even in XP Mode in Windows Professional.
Again, elaborate, if you will, on limited hardware support.

Squire, Windows is still a 32bit OS designed to run on an x86 platform, yes it has very many flavours (including a 64bit version) but it is still design to be compatible with applications which are also based on an x86 platform. MS won't ever change this as it will severely impact there market share - Christ they still run the MS Paint application from 3.11!! This is why performance is always compromised.

The point around Limited hardware support is obvious - to extract the very best performance from anything (and I mean anything) the supporting parts need to be optimised and measured for reliability. You would never suggest a steering rack from a Metro would give you the best feel when place in a high performance sports car. The same principle can be applied to computers.

Windows has its place as does Mac - Windows 7 is a fine OS, but it has its problems and its limitations, as does OSX.

I believe the issue is your first statement is incompatatble with the statement in bold. Windows and OSX are equals in every sphere apart from games support which windows wins. I don't accept legacy argument as modern hardware is so powerful that it makes legacy a moot point.

Usability is a personal opinion rather than anything fact based, but I think you'll find it hard to find anyone who finds one easy to use and the other difficult, something that has changed since 95, XP, Vista etc.

[thattallchap]

I fondly remember PC gaming, but it has just died a death - especially since Xbox Live was born.

No it hasn't. The tech in new PC games rigs is breathtaking, the graphics is way better than console graphics and the PC market remains healthy, though I do recognise that consoles provide a faster buck for games developers.

[quote:2ds569vy]The point around Limited hardware support is obvious - to extract the very best performance from anything (and I mean anything) the supporting parts need to be optimised and measured for reliability. You would never suggest a steering rack from a Metro would give you the best feel when place in a high performance sports car. The same principle can be applied to computers.

I must be missing something here. Hardware support means to me that the OS supports, and is supported by hardware. The hardware avaiable to run on PCs is exponentially greater than for Macs simply because, as shown in a table earlier, it accounts for less than 9% of computers sold.[/quote:2ds569vy]
I know this and I have acknowledge as such, The point is that if Windows was more limited on the hardware it was compatible with, it would be a more optimised platform and possibly better for it.

On the PC gaming front, nobody, who games at least, can tell me that the gaming market is bigger than it was pre mainstream console launch, also just because the current gaming platforms are breathtaking it doesn't mean it's market share has grown. Surely you can't argue against that.... Which was the point I was trying to make.

[thattallchap]

The Mac is a better Home machine due to its limitations

I could pick every poorly thought out point you made, but you wrote that, so there's no point.

Seriously?

You do realise that one of Apple's biggest drivers pre-iPhone was that it adopted BSD so techies could actually use the thing properly.

Apple were toast without OSX/BSD.

Christ on a bike. Have you read the other threads? BSD has nothing to do with the functional and hardware limitations of the OSX platform.

The Mac platform has limitations in both hardware support and software functionality. This is a fact, and something well known by Apple. I don't see it as a problem, and neither do Apple.

[thattallchap]

I'm sorry, but Windows7 isn't even close to Leopard, let alone Lion in terms of usability, and in short I never will be unless it's redesignedIfrom the ground up and the removal of DOS is engineered and a limited amount of hardware is supported.

I'm not sure what that means. Windows hasn't had DOS since Vista though it does have a command line interface for some of the nerds. Much legacy software will now not run on W7, even in XP Mode in Windows Professional.
Again, elaborate, if you will, on limited hardware support.

Squire, Windows is still a 32bit OS designed to run on an x86 platform, yes it has very many flavours (including a 64bit version) but it is still design to be compatible with applications which are also based on an x86 platform. MS won't ever change this as it will severely impact there market share - Christ they still run the MS Paint application from 3.11!! This is why performance is always compromised.

The point around Limited hardware support is obvious - to extract the very best performance from anything (and I mean anything) the supporting parts need to be optimised and measured for reliability. You would never suggest a steering rack from a Metro would give you the best feel when place in a high performance sports car. The same principle can be applied to computers.

Windows has its place as does Mac - Windows 7 is a fine OS, but it has its problems and its limitations, as does OSX.

I believe the issue is your first statement is incompatatble with the statement in bold. Windows and OSX are equals in every sphere apart from games support which windows wins. I don't accept legacy argument as modern hardware is so powerful that it makes legacy a moot point.

Usability is a personal opinion rather than anything fact based, but I think you'll find it hard to find anyone who finds one easy to use and the other difficult, something that has changed since 95, XP, Vista etc.

Is that has or hasn't changed?

[Chris_in_the_UK]

I knew I should not have posted the original message the second I hit 'submit'

[jmarchitect]

I knew I should not have posted the original message the second I hit 'submit'

Yeah. See what you gone and done? 8)

The debate has been raging since Gates and Jobs had their simultaneous epiphanies and will rage on for many many years yet. I was in at the beginning with macs, running CAD software on very early mac classics, in the late eighties, over twenty years ago. The range of software available on them at that time was limited, agreed, but they had a real creative industry focus. Simply put, the engineer students used pcs and the architect and graphics students used macs. That approach has never really changed to this day. All of the practices I have worked at used macs, even though they were more expensive than a comparable pc and all of my creative industry contacts use macs.

Stepping over the myriad arguments about operating systems (yawn) and comparisons on the stability of them (double yawn) Apple have successively built on their platforms and packaging and have added to them with their apps to place bloody useful programs in the palms and on the desktops of any man, woman or child who sees fit to download them. 'We have an app for that' was a typical Steve Jobs piece of genius, leading on from his early ideas of placing a well designed piece of gadgetry within reach of all which also happened to have a very human interface. In an age when none of us have job certainty, the knowledge that one can almost run an office out of their iPhone or iPad is very attractive. The double bonus is that the object you are working with looks and feels gorgeous.

I don't believe Samsung are the next Apple, mostly for the reasons already outlined above. Mainly though, they don't come as a complete 'package', even though the latest handset I have just handled felt fantastic. It was a much larger version of an earlier iPhone-like and seems to be aiming at a niche somewhere between an iPad and an iPhone. I suspect the Apple approach is rather like comparing a supermarket to a high street. Everything is in one place- lovely package, great system, apps, tunes, coolness. 8)

[Glamdring]

suspect the Apple approach is rather like comparing a supermarket to a high street. Everything is in one place- homogenised. 8)

Fixed. ;)

[Grandiloquence]

I knew I should not have posted the original message the second I hit 'submit'

Yeah. See what you gone and done? 8)

The debate has been raging since Gates and Jobs had their simultaneous epiphanies and will rage on for many many years yet. I was in at the beginning with macs, running CAD software on very early mac classics, in the late eighties, over twenty years ago. The range of software available on them at that time was limited, agreed, but they had a real creative industry focus. Simply put, the engineer students used pcs and the architect and graphics students used macs. That approach has never really changed to this day. All of the practices I have worked at used macs, even though they were more expensive than a comparable pc and all of my creative industry contacts use macs.

Stepping over the myriad arguments about operating systems (yawn) and comparisons on the stability of them (double yawn) Apple have successively built on their platforms and packaging and have added to them with their apps to place bloody useful programs in the palms and on the desktops of any man, woman or child who sees fit to download them. 'We have an app for that' was a typical Steve Jobs piece of genius, leading on from his early ideas of placing a well designed piece of gadgetry within reach of all which also happened to have a very human interface. In an age when none of us have job certainty, the knowledge that one can almost run an office out of their iPhone or iPad is very attractive. The double bonus is that the object you are working with looks and feels gorgeous.

I don't believe Samsung are the next Apple, mostly for the reasons already outlined above. Mainly though, they don't come as a complete 'package', even though the latest handset I have just handled felt fantastic. It was a much larger version of an earlier iPhone-like and seems to be aiming at a niche somewhere between an iPad and an iPhone. I suspect the Apple approach is rather like comparing a supermarket to a high street. Everything is in one place- lovely package, great system, apps, tunes, coolness. 8)

Wait a minute - you think supermarkets are cool??

[jjgreenwood]

I'm sorry, but Windows7 isn't even close to Leopard, let alone Lion in terms of usability, and in short I never will be unless it's redesignedIfrom the ground up and the removal of DOS is engineered and a limited amount of hardware is supported.

I'm not sure what that means. Windows hasn't had DOS since Vista though it does have a command line interface for some of the nerds. Much legacy software will now not run on W7, even in XP Mode in Windows Professional.
Again, elaborate, if you will, on limited hardware support.

Squire, Windows is still a 32bit OS designed to run on an x86 platform, yes it has very many flavours (including a 64bit version) but it is still design to be compatible with applications which are also based on an x86 platform. MS won't ever change this as it will severely impact there market share - Christ they still run the MS Paint application from 3.11!! This is why performance is always compromised.

The point around Limited hardware support is obvious - to extract the very best performance from anything (and I mean anything) the supporting parts need to be optimised and measured for reliability. You would never suggest a steering rack from a Metro would give you the best feel when place in a high performance sports car. The same principle can be applied to computers.

Windows has its place as does Mac - Windows 7 is a fine OS, but it has its problems and its limitations, as does OSX.

I believe the issue is your first statement is incompatatble with the statement in bold. Windows and OSX are equals in every sphere apart from games support which windows wins. I don't accept legacy argument as modern hardware is so powerful that it makes legacy a moot point.

Usability is a personal opinion rather than anything fact based, but I think you'll find it hard to find anyone who finds one easy to use and the other difficult, something that has changed since 95, XP, Vista etc.

Is that has or hasn't changed?

Windows is much more usable for the average Joe in windows 7. Its as stable as OSX and Microsoft AV sorts out the virus scare problem.

[RoyalVilla]

I'm not sure if I really get the article as it's not quite comparing apples with oranges (excuse the terrible pun) unless you look at Apple as purely a hardware manufacturer (which Samsung is).
My 2p
Putting brand loyalty aside for a moment, of course when you buy into Apple you're not just investing in a piece of hardware with associated software, you're investing in an ecosystem. A place where all products talk to each other and everything 'just works'. Investment (apps, hardware, software, all paid for but trapped in the walled garden) in the ecosystem is powerful and leads to a strong link between brand and self identity. It's a greater investment than simply choosing a piece of hardware - the hardware is like a gateway drug ;)
On the other hand, Samsung is simply a hardware manufacturer. There isn't a Samsung ecosystem as such, hence less of a personal investment in the brand. The ecosystem is Android from a phone / tablet perspective, but of course you're not tied to a single manufacturer.

Apple clearly makes desirable hardware, but up until now my premise has been that Apple's busness model strength is it's ecosystem, but let’s take a look at it's revenues
http://9to5mac.com/2011/01/18/ios-devic ... s-revenue/
Assuming those are right, most of its revenues are hardware related and about 2/3 IOS devices.

Apple's strength (ecosystem - things 'just work') for some is it's weakness for others (those who don't want to be trapped in a walled garden and tied to a single manufacturer).

I think this is important. Apple has grown without a serious competitor to IOS, but that is now changing with Android offering significant competition. More and more Android is 'just working' so the key points of differentiation become no walled garden and hardware choice (both increased consumer freedom). If Android / Android Market is as good as iOS / AppStore, then the battleground is hardware, which has a short lifecycle (profitably so for Apple)

So can Samsung become the new Apple? No, because they have different models. Can they become bigger than Apple? Yes, but they and others have to have better hardware which persuades people to divest in Apple and migrate to Android.

I personally have had many Apple products (in fact I think Nike+ is probably my favourite company collaboration products ever - now obsolete to me though - I was well bought into that ecosystem!!) but I'd never buy another Apple product as i don't want to be trapped in the closed ecosystem and want hardware choice. I have a Samsung Galaxy S2 and would be totally gutted if I had to trade it for an iPhone as iPhones are just not as good. I've recently bought a Motoraloa Xoom as a relatively cheap intro to Android Tabs. My phone and tablet work together but are made by different manufactures.
In the long term I would not back Apple, because with Android it’s essentially every other manufactures hardware vs them. I can’t see where they can successfully differentiate enough to be anything other than niche (unless they’ve got something pretty clever up their sleeve).

[gentlemenpreferhats]

Apple clearly makes desirable hardware, but up until now my premise has been that Apple's busness model strength is it's ecosystem, but let’s take a look at it's revenues
http://9to5mac.com/2011/01/18/ios-devic ... s-revenue/
Assuming those are right, most of its revenues are hardware related and about 2/3 IOS devices.

Its not just about revenue. For example Apple has less than 5% global mobile handset share but about 50% of Operating Income "share". The ecosystem is important because it protects its "mass premium" positioning. Samsung are too open to price competition.

[rfrazier]

I think I have a Debian (linux) ecosystem sprouting up around me. :)

I have a cheapo rowing machine in my college rooms. I thought that I would like to watch films when using it. So, last week I looked around at home and found an old IBM TP T20 (700 MHz PIII CPU, 256 RAM, and 11GB disk). It had XP on it, but I don't like XP. So, I got a a copy of the very most recent nightly build of Debian (testing). The hard disk was noisy, so I replaced it with an IDE to Compact Flash device and put in a 4GB CF card (10 quid total). I installed this very latest version of Debian on it, and was off to the races, as it were. The CF is quiet, and 1.5x faster than the disk was and much, much quicker seeking.

This got me thinking about all the devices I have with Debian on them. 2 x 64bit Atom based machines (workstation/server). 1 x 64bit Core i3 machine (workstation). 1x ARM CPU (server). 1 x eee pc (netbook). And now 1 x IBM TP (laptop). Then I thought of the other machines I have with something linux based. 1 x router (ARM). 2 x ereaders (ARM). 3 x Nokia small tablets (ARM). And, I believe, 1 x ewriter (ARM).

All are linux. Most of them "just work". In addition, they will jump through interesting hoops, if they are treated nicely. Quite an ecosystem.

Best wishes,
Bob

PS
I would like a tablet, or tablet/phone which can run Debian. :)
RLF

[robt]

PS
I would like a tablet, or tablet/phone which can run Debian. :)

Disclaimer: I have not tried this:

http://liliputing.com/2011/08/how-to-in ... chpad.html

TBH though, using a tablet is quite different to using a PC with a keyboard and mouse, and unless the applications have a tablet UI, they might be a bit clunky (although if you're used to the UIs on Linux then you're already used to clunky anyway :)). Interacting with web-pages can be fiddly at times, when links are made too small to hit accurately and you end up tapping the wrong thing. At least you can zoom in on a web page though, you can't zoom in on a native app. Canonical have been talking about an official Ubuntu tablet edition for a while though.

There are also SSH clients for iOS, Android and WebOS, but I'm not sure they all work 100%. If that's something you want, it's worth investigating the differences properly.