Multimedia
Aug 31, 01:50 PM
September 12 SteveNote. Well I must have posted that phrase scores of times earlier this year - just didn't think it would be in San Francisco instead of Paris. All the better. Perfect ending to a wonderful Summer 2006.
Lots for him to talk about.
Core 2 Duo will be the star.
End of Core Solo minis.
All new redesigned MacBook Pro.
All new iMac design with Conroe inside.
iTunes Media Store Movie Downloads.
Maybe even "One More Thing"
Lots for him to talk about.
Core 2 Duo will be the star.
End of Core Solo minis.
All new redesigned MacBook Pro.
All new iMac design with Conroe inside.
iTunes Media Store Movie Downloads.
Maybe even "One More Thing"
digitalbiker
Sep 13, 10:46 PM
It would have to be really thin, but I like it! :cool:
However the real innovation that is going to put Apple over the top is the built-in microfibre wiper blade that squeeges the LCD display after every call. This removes all trace of facial oil and keeps the screen beaming with that showroom shine! :eek:
Sorry, I had to sneek that one in.:D
However the real innovation that is going to put Apple over the top is the built-in microfibre wiper blade that squeeges the LCD display after every call. This removes all trace of facial oil and keeps the screen beaming with that showroom shine! :eek:
Sorry, I had to sneek that one in.:D
DelisleBA.info
Apr 25, 01:17 PM
IDK about you all but I would love to see round edges and a bigger keyboard on the 15 and 17 inch models. When I say bigger I mean including the home, end, backspace, crtl key on right and page up and down keys instead of the dust trap speaker grills they have now.
toddybody
Apr 25, 01:09 PM
Black as a color option, please.
OR make them out of carbon fiber.
This. Omg, I'd love a MBP that looked like the silly intel mockup. :eek:
OR make them out of carbon fiber.
This. Omg, I'd love a MBP that looked like the silly intel mockup. :eek:
ethana
May 3, 07:23 PM
Just picked up a 3.4GHz i7 with 8GB of RAM from the Apple Store. I took it home and installed a 256GB SSD to replace the hard drive inside. Installing the OS now. I'll post Geekbench numbers soon.
Ethan
Just ran this. My score was 11810.
Ethan
Just ran this. My score was 11810.
aiqw9182
Apr 16, 10:27 AM
Yes because everyone loves to carry around external breakout boxes with their sleek portable Macbooks.... :rolleyes:
And $10? For Thunderbolt? You are DREAMING. You can't even get a decent USB2 hub for $10.
Yeah because everyone loves to carry around an external hard drive with their sleek portable MacBooks. :rolleyes:
God forbid you carry around an inch long adapter in your laptop bag. Is that too much for you?
Oh and here's some adapter prices for you:
http://www.monoprice.com/products/product.asp?c_id=104&cp_id=10428&cs_id=1042802&p_id=5311
http://www.monoprice.com/products/subdepartment.asp?c_id=104&cp_id=10404
Twice the performance of USB3? That would be Thunderbolt's maximum possible data rate. No single consumer hard drive on earth supports that kind of speed (let alone even USB3's top speed) so I haven't a clue what you're getting at. Why would someone pay MORE to get a drive that is no faster than a USB3 drive? LOL, are you kidding me bro? Do you think USB 3 peaks out at it's max 5 Gbps? YOU are the one dreaming if you believe that. Here's some more evidence for your FUD:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CCz_c_rDAXw
USB 3 would completely choke in that situation let alone in a simply hard drive speed comparison. Give me a break. Here's another example for you to look at for some REAL WORLD USB 3 speeds:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qrtwtSjzjZI
In reality with USB 3 you get about 480 Megabits as opposed to the promised 5 Gpbs meaning Thunderbolt will be even faster than two times.
They would almost certainly have to as demand determines price/availability and there is nearly zero demand for TB devices at this point in time while USB3 are backwards compatible with the vast majority of the computers on the planet. My sales figures are based on the relative cost of drives with Firewire interfaces (the closest example that already exists to Thunderbolt in terms of technology versus low demand) against drives that only support USB2 and/or USB3. There is always a large premium for a drive with a FW interface, even today when a fair amount of computers exist with FW interfaces (i.e. SOME demand). So you are just ASSUMING that they will cost $250 more than USB 3 drives. OK, let's make that clear. You have no evidence to support that your $250 price difference has any validity other than the fact that FireWire drives were more expensive when it's already been explained twice and back why Thunderbolt won't be as 'exclusive' as FireWire. It's going to be on every Ivy Bridge chipset just like USB 3.0 is. Everyone's going to be using it, it's another checkmark for them to list. Why do you think PC manufactures still sell machines with eSata?
Therefore TB compatible drives will likely cost considerably more money than USB3 drives for the SAME underlying drive. You will pay a premium for the interface just like Firewire to offset the higher costs of low production numbers created by little demand compared to USB3/2 interfaces. There will be no speed advantage on a consumer drive because no consumer drive even comes CLOSE to the limits of either interface. So unlike YOUR $10 scenario, I didn't just make a number up out of thin air. Furthermore, the scenario is hardly half-baked given USB drives are already common at places like Best Buy (I personally already own TWO 3TB USB3 drives) so the unlikely 'friend' in the stated scenario would be more likely to already own a USB3 drive than a currently non-existent TB drive that will undoubtedly cost MORE when it does finally arrive.LOL, words can't describe how wrong you are. You think HDD speeds cap out at 480 Mbps? Maybe in your 'practical world' where you enjoy using inferior technology because it's 'what you're used to' that's the case. But for everyone else Thunderbolt will be a massive performance gain. Let alone when external SSD's really start hitting the market. USB 3 will really be proven for the piece of trash that it is and get wasted on all bandwidth comparisons. USB 3 is capped at a theoretical transfer rate of 5 Gbps. Thunderbolt is currently at 10 Gbps and can scale up to 100 Gbps in the future.
TB is more suited to high-end professional use where maximum overall data throughput (probably across multiple banks of drives per interface) and low overhead is desired (e.g. professional video, future high-speed server banks, live audio, etc.) The average consumer doesn't want to pay $50-100 more for FW800 drive interface over USB2 today (nor is their computer even likely to have FW if it's not a Mac) even if does have a benefit over USB2. They certainly aren't going to want to pay a potentially larger premium to get the same relative performance (perhaps with a bit of CPU overhead differences) versus USB3 with today's drives that don't come near USB3 levels, let alone Thunderbolt.Same relative performance? LMAO
Thunderbolt is suited for the future of high data transfer speeds that SSD's are capable of. Who wants the bottleneck to be the port on their computer? Because that's all USB 3 is going to be.
Be my guest and continue to insult and rant and dream big of TB heaven where USB doesn't exist. I live in a more practical and logical world.
Your 'practical world' when you were just talking about how no one will pay a premium for USB 3. Well the reason why no one's going to pay a premium for USB 3 is because it's a garbage update over USB 2.0. Thunderbolt will scale to the future. USB 3 is going to be trapped in limbo no matter what new peripherals come out down the road and given that it took them 8 years to release it a couple of years down the road when Thunderbolt is scaling even faster than USB 3. The only thing USB 3 is going to be used for down the road is nothing that USB 2 couldn't handle.
And $10? For Thunderbolt? You are DREAMING. You can't even get a decent USB2 hub for $10.
Yeah because everyone loves to carry around an external hard drive with their sleek portable MacBooks. :rolleyes:
God forbid you carry around an inch long adapter in your laptop bag. Is that too much for you?
Oh and here's some adapter prices for you:
http://www.monoprice.com/products/product.asp?c_id=104&cp_id=10428&cs_id=1042802&p_id=5311
http://www.monoprice.com/products/subdepartment.asp?c_id=104&cp_id=10404
Twice the performance of USB3? That would be Thunderbolt's maximum possible data rate. No single consumer hard drive on earth supports that kind of speed (let alone even USB3's top speed) so I haven't a clue what you're getting at. Why would someone pay MORE to get a drive that is no faster than a USB3 drive? LOL, are you kidding me bro? Do you think USB 3 peaks out at it's max 5 Gbps? YOU are the one dreaming if you believe that. Here's some more evidence for your FUD:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CCz_c_rDAXw
USB 3 would completely choke in that situation let alone in a simply hard drive speed comparison. Give me a break. Here's another example for you to look at for some REAL WORLD USB 3 speeds:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qrtwtSjzjZI
In reality with USB 3 you get about 480 Megabits as opposed to the promised 5 Gpbs meaning Thunderbolt will be even faster than two times.
They would almost certainly have to as demand determines price/availability and there is nearly zero demand for TB devices at this point in time while USB3 are backwards compatible with the vast majority of the computers on the planet. My sales figures are based on the relative cost of drives with Firewire interfaces (the closest example that already exists to Thunderbolt in terms of technology versus low demand) against drives that only support USB2 and/or USB3. There is always a large premium for a drive with a FW interface, even today when a fair amount of computers exist with FW interfaces (i.e. SOME demand). So you are just ASSUMING that they will cost $250 more than USB 3 drives. OK, let's make that clear. You have no evidence to support that your $250 price difference has any validity other than the fact that FireWire drives were more expensive when it's already been explained twice and back why Thunderbolt won't be as 'exclusive' as FireWire. It's going to be on every Ivy Bridge chipset just like USB 3.0 is. Everyone's going to be using it, it's another checkmark for them to list. Why do you think PC manufactures still sell machines with eSata?
Therefore TB compatible drives will likely cost considerably more money than USB3 drives for the SAME underlying drive. You will pay a premium for the interface just like Firewire to offset the higher costs of low production numbers created by little demand compared to USB3/2 interfaces. There will be no speed advantage on a consumer drive because no consumer drive even comes CLOSE to the limits of either interface. So unlike YOUR $10 scenario, I didn't just make a number up out of thin air. Furthermore, the scenario is hardly half-baked given USB drives are already common at places like Best Buy (I personally already own TWO 3TB USB3 drives) so the unlikely 'friend' in the stated scenario would be more likely to already own a USB3 drive than a currently non-existent TB drive that will undoubtedly cost MORE when it does finally arrive.LOL, words can't describe how wrong you are. You think HDD speeds cap out at 480 Mbps? Maybe in your 'practical world' where you enjoy using inferior technology because it's 'what you're used to' that's the case. But for everyone else Thunderbolt will be a massive performance gain. Let alone when external SSD's really start hitting the market. USB 3 will really be proven for the piece of trash that it is and get wasted on all bandwidth comparisons. USB 3 is capped at a theoretical transfer rate of 5 Gbps. Thunderbolt is currently at 10 Gbps and can scale up to 100 Gbps in the future.
TB is more suited to high-end professional use where maximum overall data throughput (probably across multiple banks of drives per interface) and low overhead is desired (e.g. professional video, future high-speed server banks, live audio, etc.) The average consumer doesn't want to pay $50-100 more for FW800 drive interface over USB2 today (nor is their computer even likely to have FW if it's not a Mac) even if does have a benefit over USB2. They certainly aren't going to want to pay a potentially larger premium to get the same relative performance (perhaps with a bit of CPU overhead differences) versus USB3 with today's drives that don't come near USB3 levels, let alone Thunderbolt.Same relative performance? LMAO
Thunderbolt is suited for the future of high data transfer speeds that SSD's are capable of. Who wants the bottleneck to be the port on their computer? Because that's all USB 3 is going to be.
Be my guest and continue to insult and rant and dream big of TB heaven where USB doesn't exist. I live in a more practical and logical world.
Your 'practical world' when you were just talking about how no one will pay a premium for USB 3. Well the reason why no one's going to pay a premium for USB 3 is because it's a garbage update over USB 2.0. Thunderbolt will scale to the future. USB 3 is going to be trapped in limbo no matter what new peripherals come out down the road and given that it took them 8 years to release it a couple of years down the road when Thunderbolt is scaling even faster than USB 3. The only thing USB 3 is going to be used for down the road is nothing that USB 2 couldn't handle.
iMeowbot
Sep 14, 09:47 PM
I see your points, but it would seem more natural to write on the screen (hand eye coordination) or to edit a photo, enlarge it, get rid of red eye, etc. If there was no adversed interaction with the stylus. Moving my hand while watching the cursor move far from the hand gets some getting used to. Using a stylus right on the screen would (in my mind) seem more natural. But you are the Pro, so I will defer to you.
There's no need to defer, I'm sure this will all boil down to personal preferences :) All I know is that I was seriously annoyed by the Palm and Pocket PC interfaces, and a Cintiq I borrowed for a while was the same way. For now, a regular tablet seems to do the trick.
I may feel differently about the interface some day when software is a little better about addressing lag (through better use of threading and so on). Faster hardware helps, but programs still like to wander off and do other things that leave the pointer ahead of the display. It's a little less unnerving if you can't quite see it happening :)
There's no need to defer, I'm sure this will all boil down to personal preferences :) All I know is that I was seriously annoyed by the Palm and Pocket PC interfaces, and a Cintiq I borrowed for a while was the same way. For now, a regular tablet seems to do the trick.
I may feel differently about the interface some day when software is a little better about addressing lag (through better use of threading and so on). Faster hardware helps, but programs still like to wander off and do other things that leave the pointer ahead of the display. It's a little less unnerving if you can't quite see it happening :)
Dmac77
Apr 25, 12:57 AM
I think the point is that traffic laws were made to prevent stuff like this in the first place. Had you been obeying the law, there would be no issue, other than maybe a slight annoyance for a couple minutes driving a little slow.
If I'm reading this correctly, neither the woman nor you had a right to drive like that. Just because someone pulls something like a brake check, doesn't give you or anyone else the right to act dangerously. Aggressive driving is what gets people hurt or killed.
The simple fact is that I should not have to obey a 70mph speed limit if I don't want to. Why would I even bother driving a car that can hit 186mph (with the speed governor removed, with the governor top speed is 155mph) at 70 mph? A Ford Fiesta can hit those speeds, what's the point of fast cars if you're going to follow the speed limit in them?
EDIT: @ Rodimus - Had she hit me when I slammed on the brakes, she would have been at fault. All I have to do is tell the cop that I thought I saw an animal run across the road. She is supposed to keep enough distance to be able to stop if I slam on the brakes. Doesn't matter than I cut her off, she has to prove that I did, and she also has to prove that I slammed on the breaks with malice.
-Don
If I'm reading this correctly, neither the woman nor you had a right to drive like that. Just because someone pulls something like a brake check, doesn't give you or anyone else the right to act dangerously. Aggressive driving is what gets people hurt or killed.
The simple fact is that I should not have to obey a 70mph speed limit if I don't want to. Why would I even bother driving a car that can hit 186mph (with the speed governor removed, with the governor top speed is 155mph) at 70 mph? A Ford Fiesta can hit those speeds, what's the point of fast cars if you're going to follow the speed limit in them?
EDIT: @ Rodimus - Had she hit me when I slammed on the brakes, she would have been at fault. All I have to do is tell the cop that I thought I saw an animal run across the road. She is supposed to keep enough distance to be able to stop if I slam on the brakes. Doesn't matter than I cut her off, she has to prove that I did, and she also has to prove that I slammed on the breaks with malice.
-Don
![call of duty modern warfare. [Dv8] Call of Duty 4: Modern](https://lh3.googleusercontent.com/blogger_img_proxy/AEn0k_t7HmqbjNaKl0U0K5xaPkVeDnzXIzqHX3VOphRkVyTA9KwzFaCGoQQjbZwKHUE3hpTsUfjQG14YNer-9ZNINmOjGsREXfGvDIB933qHoSd00g=s0-d "[Dv8] Call of Duty 4: Modern")
DaveN
Apr 22, 01:43 PM
My five year old MacBook is beginning to get screen flicker and dimming so this may be the update for me. I've been debating between the souped-up 15 inch MacBook Pro and an air but depending on the new Air specs, I may go that route. I don't need a backlit keyboard. I've been touch typing for thirty years and know where everything is based on the bumps on the f and j keys.
DeaconGraves
Mar 23, 04:50 PM
1) If you can pull up an app about where DUI checkpoints are, recognize where one might be, and craft a proper route around the checkpoint, then you probably aren't above the legal limit. I would almost want to use this app when I am sober to avoid any obnoxious stops on the way home.
2) Gizmodo brought up a good point. What's the difference between this app and people tweeting about DUI checkpoints?
3) In connection with point #1, I'm not understanding the arguments that the app should be pulled because the app would be essentially pointless. When have apps been pulled because they are pointless?
2) Gizmodo brought up a good point. What's the difference between this app and people tweeting about DUI checkpoints?
3) In connection with point #1, I'm not understanding the arguments that the app should be pulled because the app would be essentially pointless. When have apps been pulled because they are pointless?
jpjandrade
Mar 22, 01:20 PM
Filled under "No ****, Sherlock"
xUKHCx
Sep 10, 04:34 PM
I have the oringal iMac G5 bought on the very day they were announced. (well i dont have it as it is in for another replacement midplane - total worth of applecare to me so far is about the £1400 mark). It is feeling rather old and very slow for my tasks. I am now wishing i had that display so i could connect it to the mini or a mid range tower. I long for upgradable graphics as a not so proud owner of the geforce 5200 or whatever it is in my mac so such a pitiful perfonace it is not listed as Aperture capable. It really is a shocking video card. I have upgraded the harddrive that was a snap in the iMac, i have even replaced the logic board 30 mins no fuss. THings i liked about the original iMac ease of replacement parts. Things i didnt like: the non upgradable parts - processor and graphics.
I truely long for the Mid range tower.
double height Pci graphics slot ala Mac Pro with the X1900.
Space for two harddrives for Time Machine mostly.
Pretty beefy processor, preferably with some sort of upgrade path
Option to purchase a bundle display 17" really cheap option.
1 gb ram - 8 gb provided by 4 ram slots
Cost: £700
Cost: £850 with the 17 inch mointor
Cost: £1000 with the 20 inch mointor
I truely long for the Mid range tower.
double height Pci graphics slot ala Mac Pro with the X1900.
Space for two harddrives for Time Machine mostly.
Pretty beefy processor, preferably with some sort of upgrade path
Option to purchase a bundle display 17" really cheap option.
1 gb ram - 8 gb provided by 4 ram slots
Cost: £700
Cost: £850 with the 17 inch mointor
Cost: £1000 with the 20 inch mointor
AidenShaw
Sep 9, 01:06 PM
http://guides.macrumors.com/Merom
You are correct it is a rushed quad core. At least we get more cores out a little faster.
The biggest advantage is that you get quad cores without having to pay for Xeon chipsets and memory.
It's also big for the Windows/Linux side of the world. Much of the software is licensed per socket.
- XP Home - 1 socket
- XP Pro - 2 sockets
- Win2k3 Server - 4 sockets
With a quad core, you can run an 8 CPU XP Pro system without forking over the bucks for Windows Server. Add to that per-socket licensing for many software packages, and it's a huge cost savings.
Though it's not the best implementation.
Careful here - it's almost as good as the current Mac Pro quad configuration. There you have two dies communicating over the FSB and Northbridge...
You are correct it is a rushed quad core. At least we get more cores out a little faster.
The biggest advantage is that you get quad cores without having to pay for Xeon chipsets and memory.
It's also big for the Windows/Linux side of the world. Much of the software is licensed per socket.
- XP Home - 1 socket
- XP Pro - 2 sockets
- Win2k3 Server - 4 sockets
With a quad core, you can run an 8 CPU XP Pro system without forking over the bucks for Windows Server. Add to that per-socket licensing for many software packages, and it's a huge cost savings.
Though it's not the best implementation.
Careful here - it's almost as good as the current Mac Pro quad configuration. There you have two dies communicating over the FSB and Northbridge...
HecubusPro
Aug 28, 09:35 PM
yeah... and what about the past years when they have run the promotion and not added newly released product to the rebate? thats what i was referring to.
And this is why I say it can go either way. The release of the C2D mac systems are not dependent upon the rebate IMO. It might happen or it might not. My guess is that Apple is not releasing their new computers based upon when the rebate ends. They'll simply release them, and if they happen to fall within the rebate period, that's not necessarily by design. But it is our good fortune. :)
And this is why I say it can go either way. The release of the C2D mac systems are not dependent upon the rebate IMO. It might happen or it might not. My guess is that Apple is not releasing their new computers based upon when the rebate ends. They'll simply release them, and if they happen to fall within the rebate period, that's not necessarily by design. But it is our good fortune. :)
enklined
Mar 23, 04:41 PM
I got into a spat with a friend of a friend on Facebook about this. My buddy posted "Hey watch out for a DUI check point [insert location here." To which his friend said "Wow, good job helping drunk drivers get away free. Thats dumb."
Isn't it possible that the heads up provided up this app (and friends, newspapers, etc) may make people who know they will be drinking later in the evening re-think their mode of transportation? Could be saving a life or two.
Isn't it possible that the heads up provided up this app (and friends, newspapers, etc) may make people who know they will be drinking later in the evening re-think their mode of transportation? Could be saving a life or two.
suneohair
Sep 14, 06:42 PM
Seriously though. What are the chances of new display? I plan on buying one soon. If I did buy it next week, and they released new ones on the 25th could I return my old one?
Is there a restocking fee? Thanks.
Is there a restocking fee? Thanks.
maflynn
Mar 23, 04:32 PM
The seemingly only purpose of this app is to avoid the checkpoints could be dangerous to those of us who don't drink and drive. They should pull any app.
AppleScruff1
Apr 29, 01:48 AM
They did. And boy, does it show! Part of the reason Apple has done so remarkably well for years now.
Apple has done extremely well with mobile devices, but I don't know what Microsoft has to do with that. As far as I know, Windows still has about 90% of the market, and Apple still has a very small share. It looks to me like Apple isn't a huge player in the pc market, but they are the dominant one in the mobile market. Let's not forget that 50% of that $5.99 billion profit came from the iPhone and iPad.
Part of the reason Apple has done so remarkably well for years now? Sure. However it is also mostly the reason Apple still only had 5% of that market.
Very true.
Apple has done extremely well with mobile devices, but I don't know what Microsoft has to do with that. As far as I know, Windows still has about 90% of the market, and Apple still has a very small share. It looks to me like Apple isn't a huge player in the pc market, but they are the dominant one in the mobile market. Let's not forget that 50% of that $5.99 billion profit came from the iPhone and iPad.
Part of the reason Apple has done so remarkably well for years now? Sure. However it is also mostly the reason Apple still only had 5% of that market.
Very true.
Cjm1
Apr 25, 06:08 PM
Yes. Time for a new change in the design. I am a small majority who really hate the current design due to high prices in repairs. Carbon fiber would be a good addition instead of the aluminium :apple:
dazzer21
May 3, 11:36 AM
...that if each Thunderbolt port can support six daisy chained pieces of kit, if each one of those was a TB-equipped 30" monitor, we could have a 27" iMac with a 13-screen setup and 387" of screen real-estate?!! I need to buy a bigger house!!!!
Actually, I think I'll just jump back in and say that it's a flippant remark, before someone flames me by saying that the graphics card won't be up to it...
Actually, I think I'll just jump back in and say that it's a flippant remark, before someone flames me by saying that the graphics card won't be up to it...
miles01110
Mar 23, 04:17 PM
Personally I find it hard to believe that so drunk as to warrant avoiding a checkpoint will be collected enough to use the app effectively in the first place.
7on
Sep 8, 09:12 AM
Ok so in other words you DON'T need a Core 2 Duo to run Leopard, right?
Right.
Leopard will at the very least run on 2004 era macs and most likely all the way back to 2001.
Right.
Leopard will at the very least run on 2004 era macs and most likely all the way back to 2001.
CalBoy
Mar 29, 01:01 PM
I think they need to learn how to do math. How can you have an 18.8% cumulative annual growth rate when your market share goes down from 15.7% to 15.3%?
iOS will not grow as fast as the rest of the market, so as a portion of the whole, it will shrink slightly.
The only trouble I have with this prediction is that it assumes Nokia will be able to maintain its lead with handset marketshare as phones continue to evolve.
Nokia hasn't done well with smartphones, and neither has Windows Mobile (at least compared to Android, Blackberry, and iOS). IDC is predicting that current Nokia owners will move to Nokia smartphones as time goes on. However, I don't think this is a realistic assumption.
Android and iOS are already seen as the avant-garde of smartphones, and if customers can afford to update their handsets, they're going to want the best, not the mediocre. IDC's predictions would make sense if the transition were to happen instantaneously, but that's not how the world works. People in China, India, and Brazil who find themselves able to afford smartphones in increasing numbers are going to want what is widely perceived as the best or most superior device. For most people, that's either Android or iOS, or possibly Blackberry as a distant third.
There's also HP's acquisition of Palm to consider. If HP launches a new line of phones and does something to provide a robust series of apps, it would be yet another option that could fork Nokia's current marketshare. If tablets become even more significant to mobile os development, then there is another advantage to iOS and Android (and to a lesser extent RIM).
I think what's more probable is that Windows Mobile will capture a certain share of current Nokia users, but not all of them. Nokia's strength historically was to produce cheap, reliable, simple phones for billions of people. That's not how the smartphone market is playing out, and both Nokia and Microsoft have never been very good in markets where lowest common denominator didn't win.
iOS will not grow as fast as the rest of the market, so as a portion of the whole, it will shrink slightly.
The only trouble I have with this prediction is that it assumes Nokia will be able to maintain its lead with handset marketshare as phones continue to evolve.
Nokia hasn't done well with smartphones, and neither has Windows Mobile (at least compared to Android, Blackberry, and iOS). IDC is predicting that current Nokia owners will move to Nokia smartphones as time goes on. However, I don't think this is a realistic assumption.
Android and iOS are already seen as the avant-garde of smartphones, and if customers can afford to update their handsets, they're going to want the best, not the mediocre. IDC's predictions would make sense if the transition were to happen instantaneously, but that's not how the world works. People in China, India, and Brazil who find themselves able to afford smartphones in increasing numbers are going to want what is widely perceived as the best or most superior device. For most people, that's either Android or iOS, or possibly Blackberry as a distant third.
There's also HP's acquisition of Palm to consider. If HP launches a new line of phones and does something to provide a robust series of apps, it would be yet another option that could fork Nokia's current marketshare. If tablets become even more significant to mobile os development, then there is another advantage to iOS and Android (and to a lesser extent RIM).
I think what's more probable is that Windows Mobile will capture a certain share of current Nokia users, but not all of them. Nokia's strength historically was to produce cheap, reliable, simple phones for billions of people. That's not how the smartphone market is playing out, and both Nokia and Microsoft have never been very good in markets where lowest common denominator didn't win.
RKpro
Apr 28, 03:52 PM
Wow, Apple is pretty much unstoppable now. And if anyone tries to get in their way, they've got a $60b war chest.
