- apple-list - University of Manitoba Mailing Lists

INTEREST: (long) InfoWorld on future of iOS, Playbook, Win7Mobile
by billing 05 May '11

05 May '11

...from: http://www.infoworld.com/d/mobile-technology/anatomy-failure-mobile-flops-r… APRIL 22, 2011 Anatomy of failure: Mobile flops from RIM, Microsoft, and Nokia The iPhone and iPad are decimating companies left and right, at a pace even faster than the PC revolution's Print|21 comments Research in Motion's BlackBerry PlayBook is so bad that Verizon Wireless may not bother carrying it -- a spokesperson said so the day after the PlayBook debuted to customers.AT&T won't let BlackBerry users download the essential app (BlackBerry Bridge) that brings email and communications apps to the PlayBook. Carriers are arms dealers, selling weapons to anyone for a price, but even they are drawing the line at the PlayBook. That's a huge fall given that the PlayBook's creator, RIM, is the successful patriarch of the mobile market -- inventing the smartphone category, in fact. And RIM is not alone. Like RIM, after lots and lots of promises leveraging its Windows savvy and market strength, Microsoft produced its own disastrous mobile platform, Windows Phone 7. It's not as bad as the PlayBook, and if you really want one, a carrier will sell you a unit. Dell too jumped on the Android bandwagon and produced a series of awful tablets, after a failed foray into making its own smartphone. (Remember theAxim?) The list goes on. Nokia had to kill its signature Symbian OS after a new CEO forced it to admit that the OS was at end of life after several years of self-denial, and the company's efforts to create a successor had all failed. It then jumped from the frying pan into the fire by adopting Windows Phone 7 and delayed new products until 2012. Then there is the parade of successful, largely Asian PC and display makers (original equipment makers, or OEMs) -- such as Acer, Lenovo, and ViewSonic -- who promise and even sometimes ship sloppy, ill-conceived devices in hopes of getting into a growing market. How enticing! Why are such established technology powerhouses failing so spectacularly in mobile? How can they not see the self-destruction in their approaches? For RIM and Nokia, the failings threaten their medium-term existence. For Microsoft and Dell, the failings prevent them from growing where the market is moving. There are several reasons, and one of them is not Apple. Sure, Apple worked its design magic on first the smartphone and then the tablet, bringing to market the same zeal, elegance, consistency, and ecosystem advantages that have made the Mac the only PC with a growing market share. But Apple had done that with the original Mac, yet was still beaten by others. The fact that Apple's mobile products are truly the best doesn't explain why the competitors' products are generally so bad. The answers have to do with an essential flaw found in most companies: They can't easily change gears because doing so means dropping the focus on what has worked and brings in the money now for an unproven, untested, risky shift. Clayton Christensen captured and described this phenomenon wonderfully in "The Innovator's Dilemma," an often-cited business book most businesspeople don't seem to actually follow. When Apple introduced the iPhone in 2007, it seemed to be a left-field change for the Mac maker, a bet that it could enter and succeed in an alien market. That wager paid off, with Apple now the highest-valued public technology company in the world. But in 1999 or whenever CEO Steve Jobs decided to shift from being a PC maker into a consumer device maker (2001's iPod was the result, which led Apple to the iPhone and now the iPad), that proposition had very long odds. At the time, Apple was in critical condition, so the company had the freedom to take its chances. RIM, Nokia, Microsoft, and Dell haven't been desperate enough to truly think different. When the iPhone came out, they all pooh-poohed it as a toy that would at best appeal to Mac loyalists. (Never mind the example of the iPod.) Today, iPads already outsell Macs 4 to 3 and iPhones outsell Macs 5 to 1 -- that shows why mobile is so important to computer vendors. In addition, iPads are credited with torpedoing the netbook market and shrinking the PC market. Why RIM, Nokia, and Microsoft blew themselves up RIM particularly played up its cozy relationship with security- and control-minded CIOs who would never let such toys into the enterprise. Nokia and Microsoft had the same paternalistic, insular point of view. (Dell's story is more like that of the OEMs -- I'll get to that shortly.) They were talking to the wrong people. CIOs and IT managers are generally conservative, risk-averse, and traditionalist -- especially at large companies and even moreso at regulated ones. In their worldview, change is bad, and so is user freedom. These Neanderthal IT leaders are a lagging indicator of what's really going on. They dismissed the PC, the Internet, and e-commerce, too. But betting on them -- and the large checks they kept writing -- let RIM, Nokia, and Microsoft blindly traipse into irrelevance. Meanwhile, individuals -- whether or not in businesses -- were acting on years of HR advice: They were being self-empowered. Now, they had more and more tools to apply that power. The PC was first, then the Internet, then software as a service (Salesforce.com has created a huge business by explictly seeking out these people and avoiding CIOs). In 2007, Apple added mobile to their arsenal, and they picked it up with a vengeance. Fast-forward three years to 2010, and even CIOs stopped resisting and began embracing iPhones. If RIM, Nokia, and Microsoft had any doubt their world was fast changing and they were soon to be polar bears on shrinking ice floes in a climate-changed world, those questions had to have evaporated last year. However, they had spent so much time resisting the change that they didn't know how to embrace it, and they had almost no time left to figure it out. Nokia simply flailed. Microsoft jettisoned its existing platform (Windows Mobile) and started over again. That could have worked, except the team decided to pretend the previous four years had never happened, so its new mobile operating system covered a fraction of the iPhone's iOS and Google's Android capabilities. It wasn't even a me-too product; it was a "what's an iPhone?" product. RIM followed a similar trajectory, but it had even less of a clue about what an iPad competitor should be -- in fact, it didn't want to even accept the notion that its tablet would compete with the iPad. All this happened in the year that the iPad became the most quickly adopted enterprise technology ever. Microsoft and RIM compounded their poor results of their insular, disconnected thinking by deciding to throw away their previous core mobile markets -- businesses -- and aim for 20-something hipster kids. Clearly, both companies' management teams were going through midlife crises and imposed their cracked view of a hipster on their product planning. Microsoft came out with the "social" Kin, aimed explicitly at kids, who reacted the way all kids do when a 40-something parent tries to act cool: They quietly laughed and went elsewhere. Microsoft then did the same with Windows Phone 7, but with a little less explicit hipster pretension. The result was an elegant UI, but the rest of the product was unusable by its business and adult customers: no security or management capabilities, awkward Office implementations (virtually unchanged from the iffy Windows Mobile 6 version), no copy and paste, no support for HTML5, no multitasking. There was nothing, in other words, that the iPhone platform (followed by Android) hadn't made table stakes two years earlier. RIM was even worse than Microsoft in this regard. The PlayBook has no manageability and almost no security capabilities, yet it relies on the user having the most conservative smartphone there is: a BlackBerry. The pairing makes no sense, and it's inconceivable why RIM would throw away its history and come out with a device that is less secure than any competing product. Plus, despite the word "play" in its name, it had nothing truly playful or cool. No apps stand out (despite having hired away much of DataViz's mobile apps team), and a 35-year-old title (Tetris) is its hallmark game. If RIM was comfortable trashing its security history, it didn't seem to know what to bring to the mix instead. The error was even more foolhardy given the "consumerization of IT" trend that CIOs have been talking about all year, in which employees bring in their own devices and apps, requiring those devices and apps to work in both business and personal contexts becausethe line separating the two is rapidly disappearing. In that world, Microsoft and RIM should have kept their business strengths in devices that delivered newfound appeal to personal needs as well. IT conferences and the blogosphere have been replete with this theme -- so how could the people at Microsoft, Nokia, and RIM not aim to satisfy it? Because they often don't accept that the change is even happening, and they don't know how to think that way even if they agree it is happening. RIM is most egregious in this denial: Its executives, from the two CEOs down to product managers, keep saying publicly that apps are a fad, the iPhone is a fad, bring-your-own-device and consumerization trends are fads -- that the world will wake up from its madness and re-embrace the BlackBerry as it was. I've also heard stories of RIM managers saying they can always retreat to Latin America, a RIM stronghold that somehow is immune from the changes in mobile technology. If you don't believe in the future, you can't move into it, much less succeed in it. RIM believes one thing and goes through the motions of another. The result is unsatisfying to everyone. To be fair, I've heard through the grapevine that there are people within RIM really do see the new world and want to succeed in it -- no company is a monolith, but for now, those with their heads in the sand are prevailing. Although these vendors have all brought in outsiders and even bought companies with modern technology, their leadership and their staffs remain immersed in the old way. Breaking out of that box is not easy even for creative, "imagineering" people, and executing outside that box is even harder. It's impossible if you don't honestly try. That's why most companies don't survive fundamental transitions such as the one we're going through now. The PC killed off Digital Equipment, Silicon Graphics, and dozens of other midframe and workstation companies; only IBM and Hewlett-Packard made the shift. IBM wisely sold off its PC business to Lenovo just before the PC market got too commoditized, which is why Dell is in trouble and HP is looking beyond today's Windows PC. E-commerce killed off scores of retailers, such as bookstores. The Internet has been killing off large segments of the music, video, and publishing industries. It's a rare company that can pull off the vision, execution, and timing to thrive in such transition. Apple did it, aided by its desperate circumstances and a peculiar culture that honored and encouraged out-of-the-box thinking. The time for RIM, Microsoft, and Nokia to make a real bet on mobile would have been in 2007 (as Google knew and did), when Apple showed the way but before it set the standard -- not in 2010 and 2011, when Apple has defined the direction and Google has sopped up the rest of the market. That's why any company depending on RIM, Microsoft, or Nokia mobile technology should be working fast and furiously on an exit strategy. Already, large companies are finding it hard to hire young people when a BlackBerry is the only option. I've met several CIOs who've allowed iPhones and iPads in for that very reason, only to find that it was no big risk after all. Websites, cloud services, e-commerce, and games are all clustering on iOS and Android, and the best mobile business apps are also on those platforms. This coalescence threatens to orphan businesses that are based on the "legacy" mobile technologies such as BlackBerry (in North America), Symbian (in Europe), and Windows Mobile (in government). Why Dell, ViewSonic, and the OEM crowd won't matter -- but Motorola may The success of the iPhone got Google to buy Android and put its considerable financial and intellectual muscle behind it. The result is that Android smartphones are now the top-selling devices (depending on which surveys you believe). They're not as good as iPhones, but for users familiar with only regular cell phones, they are revelatory. In any event, only Apple may make iPhones and iPads; it's a one-sheriff town. Android, however, is available to all, so anyone who wants a piece of the mobile pie could at very little cost join in. Many OEMs were already making cell phones, and adapting them to run Android was a fairly small investment -- they jumped in. The problem is that these companies typically have no sense of design or user experience. They don't really think about users, so all they'd do is have some engineers get a Linux booter, an Android version (any would do), and an existing (often Windows Mobile) device in a lab, then make them all work together. These are Frankenphones, but in an industry where the typical cell phone has a sales life of 6 to 12 weeks, Frankenphones were the norm. Dell also got into the Frankenphone business, treating its Streak tablets with the same "make them cheap, make them fast, don't worry about the result" approach that has destroyed its reputation for quality in the PC market. Never mind that Apple made obsolete the Frankenphone model -- when all you make are Frankenphones, there's nothing else. Any OEM who treats Android as an ingredient in a generic stew will fail. They'll announce and even ship products, but they're all about short-term, low-investment opportunities. They'll fool some people, but they won't last because they won't gain loyalty and entusiasm. Google seems to be getting a clue that these OEMs are destructive parasites, not allies, and is rethinking how open it really needs to be. The error was even more foolhardy given the "consumerization of IT" trend that CIOs have been talking about all year, in which employees bring in their own devices and apps, requiring those devices and apps to work in both business and personal contexts becausethe line separating the two is rapidly disappearing. In that world, Microsoft and RIM should have kept their business strengths in devices that delivered newfound appeal to personal needs as well. IT conferences and the blogosphere have been replete with this theme -- so how could the people at Microsoft, Nokia, and RIM not aim to satisfy it? Because they often don't accept that the change is even happening, and they don't know how to think that way even if they agree it is happening. RIM is most egregious in this denial: Its executives, from the two CEOs down to product managers, keep saying publicly that apps are a fad, the iPhone is a fad, bring-your-own-device and consumerization trends are fads -- that the world will wake up from its madness and re-embrace the BlackBerry as it was. I've also heard stories of RIM managers saying they can always retreat to Latin America, a RIM stronghold that somehow is immune from the changes in mobile technology. If you don't believe in the future, you can't move into it, much less succeed in it. RIM believes one thing and goes through the motions of another. The result is unsatisfying to everyone. To be fair, I've heard through the grapevine that there are people within RIM really do see the new world and want to succeed in it -- no company is a monolith, but for now, those with their heads in the sand are prevailing. Although these vendors have all brought in outsiders and even bought companies with modern technology, their leadership and their staffs remain immersed in the old way. Breaking out of that box is not easy even for creative, "imagineering" people, and executing outside that box is even harder. It's impossible if you don't honestly try. That's why most companies don't survive fundamental transitions such as the one we're going through now. The PC killed off Digital Equipment, Silicon Graphics, and dozens of other midframe and workstation companies; only IBM and Hewlett-Packard made the shift. IBM wisely sold off its PC business to Lenovo just before the PC market got too commoditized, which is why Dell is in trouble and HP is looking beyond today's Windows PC. E-commerce killed off scores of retailers, such as bookstores. The Internet has been killing off large segments of the music, video, and publishing industries. It's a rare company that can pull off the vision, execution, and timing to thrive in such transition. Apple did it, aided by its desperate circumstances and a peculiar culture that honored and encouraged out-of-the-box thinking. The time for RIM, Microsoft, and Nokia to make a real bet on mobile would have been in 2007 (as Google knew and did), when Apple showed the way but before it set the standard -- not in 2010 and 2011, when Apple has defined the direction and Google has sopped up the rest of the market. That's why any company depending on RIM, Microsoft, or Nokia mobile technology should be working fast and furiously on an exit strategy. Already, large companies are finding it hard to hire young people when a BlackBerry is the only option. I've met several CIOs who've allowed iPhones and iPads in for that very reason, only to find that it was no big risk after all. Websites, cloud services, e-commerce, and games are all clustering on iOS and Android, and the best mobile business apps are also on those platforms. This coalescence threatens to orphan businesses that are based on the "legacy" mobile technologies such as BlackBerry (in North America), Symbian (in Europe), and Windows Mobile (in government). Why Dell, ViewSonic, and the OEM crowd won't matter -- but Motorola may The success of the iPhone got Google to buy Android and put its considerable financial and intellectual muscle behind it. The result is that Android smartphones are now the top-selling devices (depending on which surveys you believe). They're not as good as iPhones, but for users familiar with only regular cell phones, they are revelatory. In any event, only Apple may make iPhones and iPads; it's a one-sheriff town. Android, however, is available to all, so anyone who wants a piece of the mobile pie could at very little cost join in. Many OEMs were already making cell phones, and adapting them to run Android was a fairly small investment -- they jumped in. The problem is that these companies typically have no sense of design or user experience. They don't really think about users, so all they'd do is have some engineers get a Linux booter, an Android version (any would do), and an existing (often Windows Mobile) device in a lab, then make them all work together. These are Frankenphones, but in an industry where the typical cell phone has a sales life of 6 to 12 weeks, Frankenphones were the norm. Dell also got into the Frankenphone business, treating its Streak tablets with the same "make them cheap, make them fast, don't worry about the result" approach that has destroyed its reputation for quality in the PC market. Never mind that Apple made obsolete the Frankenphone model -- when all you make are Frankenphones, there's nothing else. Any OEM who treats Android as an ingredient in a generic stew will fail. They'll announce and even ship products, but they're all about short-term, low-investment opportunities. They'll fool some people, but they won't last because they won't gain loyalty and entusiasm. Google seems to be getting a clue that these OEMs are destructive parasites, not allies, and is rethinking how open it really needs to be. A few OEMs understood the need to add real value as well. Thus, HTC's second Android smartphone, the Droid Eris, had an innovative UI that masked some of that generation of Android's defects. The Eris gave HTC a position in the Android market it never would have enjoyed otherwise. Unfortunately, HTC has't really followed up and has fallen back into the sea of "who cares?" OEMs. Samsung traced a similar path with its Galaxy S smartphone line, which boasted more cutting-edge components and a sleeker design than in competitors' models; it gained a big following last summer. But quality problems began to appear, and it released the Galaxy Tab, a so-so tablet using a nontablet form of the Android OS that ended up looking dowright dowdy compared to an iPad; it also diminished a lot of the company's luster. Then there's Motorola, a company that has had execution and insular vision problems for years. Like Apple in 1999, it has been in serious crisis, recently splitting into two companies. Before that split, it decided to truly bet the farm on Android and to add its own value to the mix rather than just slap Android onto a Razr. Its Droid series has been successful, even with its unloved MotoBlur interface. Motorola also shipped the first (and still only) real Android tablet, the Xoom, which compared decently to the iPad. It's a second-class tablet to be sure, but at least it belongs on the train. The Atrix smartphone and its companion Lapdock are really interesting innovations, the only recent Android developments that show the same kind of direction-defining potential as the first iPhone. But whether Motorola can keep itself together to develop that potential is an open question: Each of its products suffers from inconsistencies that make no sense, given the same company developed them all. These problems suggest insularity and balkanization are still issues at Motorola Mobility. It really is down to Apple, Google, and maybe the WebOS wild card Still, it's possible that Motorola could pull an Apple and be the comeback darling we all celebrate four or five years from now. HP could also be in that position. It's realized that making generic PCs is a dead-end business, as would making generic smartphones. Instead, it bought Palm for its WebOS and now plans to bring WebOS to smartphones, tablets, and PCs, in a bold move to unify the three types of computing devices. It's the kind of move that Microsoft could and probably should have tried. It'll be a stretch for HP, and what HP showed recently for the forthcoming WebOS didn't inspire me, but at least it's taking a run at breaking from the past. Apple is clearly going to be the idea and profit powerhouse in mobile, even if Google has more market share. Google, which seems to be realizing its fully open model could hurt Android, could also be more of a driving force if it figures out how to lead an alliance of strong OEMs (such as Motorola and perhaps Samsung and/or HTC) rather than let the OEMs damage its brand with their "slap it together" mentality. HP may have a shot of being the third engine. The rest are history. RIM, Microsoft, Nokia, and Dell are all toast in the mobile market -- the walking dead who should be looking for burial plots. Mourn them if you must, but it's time to move on. Don't get buried along with them. This article, "Anatomy of failure: Mobile flops from RIM, Microsoft, and Nokia," was originally published at InfoWorld.com. Read more of Galen Gruman's Mobile Edge blogand follow the latest developments in mobile technology at InfoWorld.com. Follow Galen's mobile musings on Twitter at MobileGalen. For the latest business technology news, followInfoWorld.com on Twitter.

1 0

INTEREST: iPhone "GPS" explained
by billing 02 May '11

02 May '11

In the wake of the hullabaloo about iPhone ('n such) knowing the whereabouts of their owners (http://www.apple.com/pr/library/2011/04/27location_qa.html), here's an article that explains how those devices and the "crowd-source" databases, the main focus of the hullabaloo, actually work.... ...from: http://www.macworld.com/article/159528/2011/04/how_iphone_location_works.ht… How the iPhone knows where you are Apple uses GPS, Wi-Fi, and cell towers to get (and map) location data by Glenn Fleishman, Macworld.com Apr 28, 2011 9:00 am iPhone users' experience with GPS is so quick, so instant-on, that Apple's Wednesday response about location tracking on iOS might almost seem baffling: Calculating a phone’s location using just GPS satellite data can take up to several minutes. iPhone can reduce this time to just a few seconds by using Wi-Fi hotspot and cell tower data to quickly find GPS satellites. Several minutes? Doesn't my iPhone take just seconds to figure out where I am? Well, yes… but only when it engages in a set of tricks to avoid a lengthy process that was de rigueur when GPS receivers first appeared. In simplifying matters, Apple’s not being entirely accurate about how this all works and what it's doing. So let me explain where Wi-Fi and cell phone towers fit into the equation. 12.5 minutes to locate Early GPS receivers took 12.5 minutes from a cold start to obtain a lock; later locks in the same region could still take minutes. If you turned a GPS receiver off for a few weeks or moved it more than a few hundred miles, a cold start might be required again. GPS relies on two factors to create a set of accurate coordinates for where you’re standing: time and space. GPS satellites broadcast precise time signals using a built-in atomic clock along with their current location. They also broadcast the location of all other satellites in the sky, called the almanac. Every 30 seconds, a GPS satellite broadcasts a time stamp, its current location and some less precise location information for other GPS satellites. It takes 25 of these broadcasts (thus, 12.5 minutes) to obtain the full list of satellite locations. This information has to be decoded for a receiver to then properly interpret signals from the satellites that are within range. If you know the position of four satellites and the time at which each sent their position information, you—or, rather, your GPS receiver—can calculate to within 10 meters the latitude, longitude, and elevation of your current location along with the exact current time. With three satellites, you lose elevation, but a device can still track movement fairly accurately. Standalone GPS receivers can lock in simultaneously on multiple satellites, and track more than four. Other techniques can improve accuracy, too. But, heck, I don’t have 12.5 minutes. I’m a busy man! Give me that location faster! Giving GPS an assist So GPS chip and gear makers came up with a host of ways to shorten the wait, called Assisted GPS (AGPS). Instead of relying on live downloads of position data from satellites, future locations can be estimated accurately enough to figure out rough satellite positions, and get a fix at which point even more up-to-date information is retrieved. These estimates can be downloaded via a network connection in seconds or even calculated right on a device. The current time can also be used as a clue. With a precise current time, fragmentary satellite data can be decoded to gain a faster lock or figure out the appropriate information to use. In CDMA networks, such as that used by Verizon, GPS-synchronized atomic time is required for the network’s basic operations, making it a simple matter to have such information available. (In fact, CDMA cell towers have GPS units built in to maintain better atomic time synchronization.) You can see your iOS device get a location fix when you open Maps.These extras are what makes GPS into AGPS. Though a lot of people misunderstand AGPS and think it’s some faux GPS system, that’s not the case: AGPS requires a GPS receiver to work. Apple’s iPhone and 3G iPad models include AGPS, as do nearly all competing devices with GPS chips, notably Android phones. (AGPS allows the use of much cheaper and simpler GPS circuits in phones, reducing cost and battery drain.) This is where Apple’s statement on Wednesday deviates from full accuracy. Apple uses AGPS for native GPS-lock improvements, and Wi-Fi network and cell tower locations are additional factors in providing a fast initial connection along with improving GPS accuracy. Cellular carriers have extremely precise GPS measurements of the locations of all their towers. With a database of such towers, you can take measurements of the signal strength of those within range—which may be dozens—and trilaterate to find an area that overlaps among them. (Trilateration involves overlapping regions to find an intersecting area; triangulation uses the measurement of angles to find a center point.) But cell towers are too far away from one another to provide GPS-like precision, and they don’t work well in less-populated areas, even suburbs, where less coverage is necessary than in an urban environment. Looking for Wi-Fi Apple, Google, and others turn to Wi-Fi positioning for that. Wi-Fi positioning, originated by Skyhook Wireless, originally required specially equipped trucks with Wi-Fi antennas and highly sensitive GPS receivers that drove around cities to capture network identifiers (the unique hardware address broadcast by Wi-Fi base stations) and relative signal strengths at billions of points. As with cell towers, if you have enough networks and enough signal strength information, you can approximate a position. It’s trivial for a networked device like a smartphone to take a snapshot of nearby Wi-Fi and cellular sources and pass it to a server that replies with an approximate set of coordinates. According to Apple’s Q&A, the company takes it a step further by caching subsets of data about nearby networks and towers to reduce network activity and speed up such lookups. This also shifts some computation to the phone or tablet and away from location services. And it means if there’s no cell or Wi-Fi connection available, such location information can still be useful. (This explains a mystery I’ve seen in which a Wi-Fi-only iPad or an iPod touch can seemingly calculate a fix when it’s off the network.) Apple first unveiled Wi-Fi and cell-tower positioning with the original iPhone in an update to iPhone OS in early 2008. This was Apple’s sop to the fact that the original iPhone lacked a GPS receiver, which didn’t debut until the iPhone 3G. You can see either or both of these in action whenever you bring up the Maps app. Typically, you see a large blue circle appear nearly instantly, a result of what must be a consultation of the local database. The circle becomes smaller as more information is used, still from cellular and Wi-Fi sources, to create a better trilateration. This data is also used to provide more clues into decoding the best GPS satellite information, allowing the use of quite small fragments of data or even raw signals to get a better lock. Finally, the circle becomes a single dot when iOS is confident it has a solid GPS lock. Out of the trucks, into the cloud Apple switched from using Skyhook Wireless as a data supplier starting in iOS 4.0 for the iPhone and iPod touch, and with the iPad-only 3.2 release. There’s a reason for that. When your iOS device uses Wi-Fi positioning, it sends a snapshot of the current signal landscape to Apple, which says in the Q&A that this information is used anonymously to crowdsource better data. But this is incredibly useful market intelligence, too, about how often users are relying on location updates, and where those users are clustered. It can be used for ad targeting and other purposes beyond those in apps that look for location data. Of course, the Apple Q&A makes it clear that not every Wi-Fi snapshot is sent to Apple; clearly some algorithm drives which are sent to improve the database. By crowdsourcing, Apple avoids having to send trucks around. Google has apparently engaged the same approach, using its Street View trucks to supplement Android-based crowdsourcing. (It’s gotten in trouble two ways about this. First, for apparently accidentally recording unencrypted Wi-Fi network data, which resulted in fines, settlements, and halting such scanning in many countries. Second, for allegedly strongarming two major handset makers into changing their deals to rely on Google’s data.) GPS is, in fact, rocket science at many levels. But the way in which Apple combines and supplements information from multiple sources to create a fast and accurate lock explains why to us as users it’s all “GPS” and just works. [Glenn Fleishman is a senior contributor to Macworld, and writes regularly about wireless data. His latest book is Take Control of iPhone and iPod touch Networking & Security for iOS 4 (Take Control books).]

1 0

INTEREST: How Apple devices saved me thousands on my new car
by billing 02 May '11

02 May '11

Naturally, there are other brands of devices which would do this kind of thing...... ...from: http://www.macworld.com/article/159494/2011/04/apple_versus_auto_dealer.htm… How Apple devices saved me thousands on my new car by Jason Snell, Macworld.com Apr 27, 2011 1:00 pm Late last year we bought a new car. And in doing so, I realized that the auto industry is undoubtedly one of the industries that has been severely disrupted by Apple in the past decade. HandBrake 0.9.4 Complete Coverage » 4.5 out of 5 Mice Mar 2, 2010 Best current price: $0.00 NAVIGON MobileNavigator USA Complete Coverage » 4.0 out of 5 Mice Jan 14, 2011 Latest Price: $34.99 Get it Yes, every new car in existence seems to offer a USB port with iPod connectivity, and my family’s new minivan is no exception. I plugged in my old hard-drive-based iPod and all of a sudden, our car has my entire music collection on tap. It’s got Bluetooth, too, so I can answer my iPhone from the dashboard and talk over built-in speakers and microphones, and even listen to music streamed wirelessly from the iPhone in my pocket. (This car is basically the shuttlecraft from the USS Enterprise. Especially when compared to our other car, a 1994 Honda Civic.) But the changes Apple has wrought had their biggest impact when it came time to decide if we wanted to pony up for the add-on navigation and in-car entertainment systems. As you might expect, automakers charge huge amounts of money for items such as these. As I recall, the entertainment option cost $1500. For a single fold-down video screen and a DVD player! We don't have this. (Image courtesy Honda.)For a few years, I dreamed of buying a car with a snazzy nav and movie-playing system. But when it came time for us to buy, we didn’t get either the navigation system or the entertainment system. And Apple was the reason. My wife and I both have iPhone 4’s, and we own a copy of Navigon’s MobileNavigator GPS app. Rather than spend hundreds of dollars for in-car navigation, we bought Kensington’s $30 Windshield/Vent Car Mount for Smartphones and stuck it on the center passenger-side air vent. When we go on a trip that requires navigation, we plug in an iPhone and let it talk to us. Problem solved. When it came to entertainment, we also opted out. Yes, we want our kids to be entertained on long trips. But there are already two iPads in our family, and during those trips we adults are happy to cede them to the small people who ride in the rear of the compartment. Each of our children can choose what they want to watch, view it on a bright 10-inch screen that's right in front of them (rather than mounted on the ceiling), and listen to it on a set of headphones so as not to disturb anyone else in the car. They can also opt to get a bit more interactive and play games or even use educational apps. (During Spring Break, I was amazed to look back while riding through the California desert and discover my kids were busy playing Math Bingo.) There’s another benefit, too. One of our neighbors has a minivan with an in-car DVD player. Their kids demand videos whenever they’re in the car, even for a short ride. It’s maddening. We only stock those iPads when we’re going to be trapped in the car for five-plus hours. Our kids never beg for a TV show on a short drive because it’s simply not an option. I’m not going to argue the merits of kids using iPads on long car trips—I’m in favor of it, obviously, but I understand if you’re opposed. But if you’re going to choose between a couple of iPads and a factory-installed in-car entertainment system, I’m not sure why any tech-savvy person would choose the latter. (I admit lots of people have DVD collections and don’t know how to use HandBrake… though they should.) The iPads offer more control, more variety, and are cheaper. And thus, my local car dealership missed out on a couple thousand bucks in extras, because Apple’s technology simply does more, is cheaper, and our family’s already got it.

1 0

iPhone (iOS) Location Tracking ...
by Doug Hamilton 02 May '11

02 May '11

iPhone (iOS) Location Tracking You may have recently read articles about Apple tracking you via your iPhone, this is patently false. Some researchers discovered on their iPhones, a file containing GPS locations of where an iPhone they had been; or so they had thought. The locations were of the cellular towers and WiFi hotspot in their vicinity and not the phone tracking them personally. All cellular phones cache these files to improve network performance. What is of a minor concern is that this file wasn't encrypted. This issue will be resolved in a soon to be related iOS update. Here is a link to Apple's Press Release. http://www.apple.com/pr/library/2011/04/27location_qa.html Regards ------------- Doug Hamilton, BA, MA, ASP Senior Apple Computer Consultant Computers-on-Campus; Univ. of Manitoba 204-474-6196 (Ph.) 204-474-7556 (Fax) http://www.umanitoba.ca/bookstore/

1 0

INTEREST: AssociatedPress: Apple juggernaut sends ripples through tech world
by billing 30 Apr '11

30 Apr '11

...from: http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/stories/U/US_TEC_APPLES_RIPPLES?SITE=CARIE&TEM… Apr 29, 3:55 PM EDT Apple juggernaut sends ripples through tech world By PETER SVENSSON AP Technology Writer AP Photo/Kin Cheung NEW YORK (AP) -- Consumer technology companies reporting financial results this week are looking like rowboats bobbing in the wake of Apple Inc.'s supertanker. Close to oblivion in 1997, Apple is now the world's second-most valuable company, after Exxon Mobil Corp. On April 20, it reported net income of $5.99 billion for the January-to-March period, nearly double that of a year ago. It shipped a record 18.65 million iPhones during the quarter. Its iPad tablet computers are so popular, the company couldn't make enough. Apple's ascendancy has produced many losers and a few winners, as underscored over the past two weeks: - Microsoft Corp.: loser. Apple dethroned Microsoft as the world's most valuable technology company a year ago. In its mid-fall report, it surpassed Microsoft in quarterly revenue. In the January-March period this year, it surpassed Microsoft in net income, too. On Thursday, Microsoft reported that revenue from the Windows operating system declined for the second straight quarter because people are buying fewer Windows computers. Some prospective buyers are going to Macs instead - Apple reported that it sold 28 percent more units. Others are going to iPads. Goldman Sachs now believes that more than 30 percent of iPads sold may be replacing PC sales. In the 90s, the trend was the opposite, as Windows PCs were crowding out Macs. - Nokia Corp.: loser. Nokia said this week that it will slash 7,000 jobs through layoffs and outsourcing. It still sells more phones than anyone else, but it's losing share to Apple, especially when it comes to smartphones. Research firm Strategy Analytics also said revenue from Apple's iPhone sales surpassed that of Nokia's phones in the January-to-March period, as iPhones are much more expensive than the average Nokia phone. That makes Apple the world's largest phone maker by revenue. To better compete with the iPhone, Nokia is ditching its old Symbian software and adopting Microsoft's Windows Phone 7. But the transition will take time; the first Windows-powered Nokia phones aren't expected until late 2011 or early 2012. - Research In Motion Ltd.: loser. The maker of the BlackBerry is in a predicament that's similar to Nokia's. RIM warned Thursday that net income, revenue and unit sales for the quarter ending in May will come in below its previous forecast. The company's high-end phones are looking old compared with the iPhone and ones running Google Inc.'s Android software. They aren't selling as well as the company expected. RIM promised investors that new phones with revamped software will bring sales roaring back in the latter half of the year, but investors are skeptical, sending RIM's stock down Friday. - HTC Corp., Samsung Electronics Co. and Motorola Mobility Holdings Inc.: winners, indirectly. Although all three companies compete with Apple's iPhone, they are doing well. Unlike Nokia and RIM, the three are betting on Google's Android system, which comes the closest to mimicking the look, feel and functions of the iPhone. Motorola Mobility is a shadow of the old Motorola, once the world's second-largest maker of phones. But its focus on Android-powered smartphones is showing signs of success. It reported on Thursday a near-doubling of smartphone sales in the first quarter. HTC of Taiwan has been making smartphones for a decade, and sales are really taking off with the help of Android. On Friday, it reported selling 9.7 million in the first quarter. For South Korea's Samsung, smartphone sales were a bright spot in the first quarter as overall phone sales declined and other electronics were weak. The company is embroiled in patent litigation with Apple. - Verizon Wireless: winner. The No. 1 U.S. cellphone carrier posted a jump in new contract-signing customers - the more profitable kind - after it introduced its version of the iPhone on Feb. 10, which ended AT&T Inc.'s exclusive grip on the device in the U.S. (Verizon Wireless is a joint venture of Verizon Communications Inc. of New York and Vodafone Group PLC of Britain.) - AT&T and Sprint Nextel Corp: mixed. Verizon's new subscribers came at the expense of AT&T and Sprint Nextel Corp. But neither carrier saw signs of current customers moving to Verizon for the sake of the iPhone. Rather, it seems customers weighing between carriers were more likely to go to Verizon because of the iPhone. AT&T appeared to be splitting new iPhone customers evenly with Verizon Wireless. Sprint lost lucrative contract customers in the quarter, but continued its long turnaround by signing up a record number of people on cheaper, contract-free plans.

1 0

INTEREST: Apple outlook: iPad2, iPhone, Android, Steve, Japan
by billing 27 Apr '11

27 Apr '11

...from: http://www.macworld.com/article/159366/2011/04/tim_cook_apple_android_japan… Tim Cook speaks! Apple's COO on Android, Japan, iPad 2 by Macworld Staff, Macworld.com Apr 20, 2011 6:20 pm [Editors’ note: When Apple releases its quarterly earnings report, it holds a conference-call with financial analysts. Some of the more interesting tidbits about how Apple views the world take place in this call, when Apple Chief Operating Officer Tim Cook answers analyst questions. Here’s an edited transcript of what Cook said on Wednesday’s call.] Apple COO Tim Cook at the Verizon iPhone 4 launch. iPad 2 Demand on iPad 2 has been staggering. We’re still amazed that we are still heavily backlogged, not only at the end of the quarter but also up to date. However, I can tell you that I’m extremely pleased with the progress of the manufacturing ramp and we were so confident that we rolled out 25 additional countries at the end of last month, and we are shipping to an additional 13 countries next week, and we’re planning to add even more countries through the quarter. So I’m very confident that we can produce a very large number of iPads for the quarter. Whether that will be enough to meet demand, I don’t know. Demand has been staggering and I’m not going to predict when supply and demand will come into balance. I can only be confident on supply side. By the end of the quarter, we were in supply/demand balance [for the iPhone] in almost all of our major markets. And I would say, as of today, we’re in supply/demand balance [for the iPhone] virtually everywhere. The Mac is in supply/demand balance, and the iPod is in supply/demand balance, and the iPad has the mother of all backlogs that we’re working very, very hard to get out to customers as quickly as we can. Product transitions are never simple, and as you can probably appreciate, we are in a position that we have to call them for many, many weeks in advance, in terms of how many of the current product we want to produce and the dates at which we will announce the new product. We drew the channel down on the original iPad by 570,000 units during the quarter, and we added at the end of the quarter 170,000 of the new iPad 2s, although most of that was in transit at the end of the quarter. And so the net reduction was 400,000 and so our sell through was above five million for the quarter. And again, this has to be planned quite a ways in the future. Just to remind you, we sent out an invitation to the [iPad 2 launch] event toward the end of February, we had the event in early March, we placed the unit on sale in the United States on March 11, and our quarter ended about 2 weeks thereafter. So, there was some expectation of a new product, and we would have obviously factored that into our thinking about the product transition, as we planned the number of the original unit to build. So I think the key point here is that I’m extremely pleased with the progress we’ve been making on the manufacturing ramp. We have gotten off to a materially better start and produced a lot more units than we did on the original ramp of the first iPad, and we’re so confident with our ability to supply that we’ve already put on 25 additional countries at the end of March, and we’ll be placing on 13 more next week, and we’ll do even more as we step through the quarter. [Can you compare iPad 1 sales to iPad 2 sales?] We purposely aren’t giving that because we don’t want to help out any of our competition. But I would tell you, I wish we could have produced a lot more iPad 2s, because there were certainly a lot of people waiting for them. [What about offering an iPad subsidized by a wireless carrier?] The iPad today is subsidized in a few markets. It’s subsidized in Korea if people sign a 24-month contract, it’s subsidized in Japan with a 24-month contract, and a couple of European countries. But the vast majority of people that are using the iPad on 3G are doing so on a pay-as-you-go plan, a no-commitment plan. And so yes, carriers can do that, but I think many customers prefer the pay-as-you-go plan. [What about the iPad in education?] K-12 is sort of even more conservative than enterprise on adopting new technology. And last quarter, we were about a 1:1 ratio of iPads to Macs, which is, I think, amazing given the short life of the iPad. And really demonstrates what kind of opportunity there probably is there. iPhone In terms of iPhone, we did actually very well everywhere. I’d call out two places where it was just off the charts. The U.S. grew 155 percent year over year. Obviously adding Verizon and beginning to offer iPhone to their enormous customer base was key in that. However, as you heard from AT&T’s announcement this morning, AT&T did extremely well during the quarter. So the U.S. as a geography grew at 155 percent, and that’s about three times IDC’s forecast of growth for the smartphone market, which was about 48 percent. Also, we continued to be on a tear in China. Greater China saw iPhone sales being up over three times. Almost 250 percent. This catapulted revenue for first fiscal half in Greater China to just under $5 billion, which is up almost four times year over year. So we’re extremely happy with how we’re doing in China. [What about launching a 4G/LTE iPhone?] I was asked this question, or a similar question, when we launched the iPhone with Verizon. What I said then, and I still see it as being the case today, and I think you can see this in the products that have been shipped, is that the first generation of LTE chipsets force a lot of design compromises with the handset, and some of those we are just not willing to make. And so we are extremely happy with the iPhone 4 and iPhone 3GS. Hitting 18.6 million units was something much larger than we thought we could do this quarter, and we’re happy to have gotten it out to three more large carriers. [Can you talk about future CDMA carrier partners outside the U.S.?] On the carrier side, I don’t want to get into specifics about CDMA (or GSM for that matter). But we are constantly looking at where we should bring on incremental partners. As we said earlier, we brought on three large ones this quarter, with Verizon, STT and Saudi Telecom. That’s on top of the ones that we brought on in December, where we added O2 and Vodafone in Germany. And so we are constantly looking and adding where it makes sense, and you can keep confidence that we’ll continue to do that. [What about moving the iPhone into the prepaid market?] Our focus has very much been on China. We wanted to understand that market and understand the levers there. iPhone sales were up over three times during the quarter, and in the first half we did just slightly under $5 billion in greater China in revenue, which is about 10 percent of Apple, to put it in perspective. And it wasn’t but a couple years ago that that number would have been less than two. And so it’s a sea change. That’s certainly not what I would call a classic postpaid market by any means of imagination. And so we have some ideas about other countries as well. I’m not in a position that I want to share those today. We purposefully put the bulk of our emphasis from an emerging markets point of view, in China, to really learn, and then we’re going to take that learning to other markets. Considerably more [than half of China is pre-paid wireless]… I think the first digit would start with a 9. Mac growth The growth on the Mac has been enormous in Asia. The last quarter we were up 76 percent in Asia Pacific, this is many multiples of the growth that region is seeing for the market. I believe the IDC forecast is around six percent. And so we’re seeing enormous growth in the Mac there. Japan also did quite well on the Mac for the quarter and the U.S. had a surprisingly strong quarter for the Mac, Americas is up 25 percent, the U.S. was up just slightly higher than that. Our market share is obviously less outside the U.S. in most places than it is in the U.S., and so I think it speaks very, very well for the opportunity that the Mac has. We’ve now hit 20 quarters in a row where we’ve outgrown the PC market, and the momentum is still there. We seem to be the only guys that are really focused on building innovative products in that space. There are several of the international countries that are extremely portable-focused, and you can see that we had enormous growth in our portables for the quarter. However, part of that is that we had a launch of the new MacBook Pro line. But honestly I see popularity in both the iMac and the portable [form] factor and believe there is a great future for both. [The iPad] clearly seems to be creating a halo effect for the Mac. And I think that’s one reason we see the growth that we are seeing on the Mac. You know, it’s amazing when you see the 28 percent year over year versus the worldwide market in PCs contracting by 3 points. It’s an astonishing delta. Android vs. iOS I just saw yesterday… the ComScore data released yesterday reported that the iOS platform outreaches Android by 59 percent in the U.S. And so this is an enormous percentage. On a worldwide basis, we just did 18.6 million iPhones, which is up 113 percent, which is materially faster than the market rate of growth. And we launched the iPad 2 and sold every one of ‘em that we could make. As we said before, we’re gaining traction in enterprise on both iPhone and iPad with astonishing 88 percent and 75 percent respectively of the Fortune 500 companies deploying or testing these. We’ve got the largest App Store with over 350,000 apps for iPhone and 65,000 iPad-specific apps on iOS. Versus what appears to be fewer than a hundred on Android. And so we feel very, very good about where we are and we feel great about our future product plan. We’ve also paid over $2 billion to developers and we’ve had well over 10 billion applications downloaded. And so our business proposition is very, very strong. And as we’ve said before, we continue to believe—and even more and more every day—that iPhone’s integrated approach is materially better than Android’s fragmented approach, where you have multiple OSes on multiple devices with different screen resolutions and multiple app stores with different rules, payment methods, and update strategies. I think the user appreciates that Apple can take full responsibility for their experience, whereas the fragmented approach turns the customer into a systems integrator, and few customers that I know want to be a systems integrator. Steve Jobs He is still on medical leave, but we do see him on a regular basis. And as we previously said, he continues to be involved in major strategic decisions. I know he wants to be back full-time as soon as he can. Samsung We are Samsung’s largest customer. And Samsung is a very valued component supplier to us, and I expect that strong relationship will continue. Separately from this, we felt the mobile communication division of Samsung had crossed the line, and after trying for some time to work the issue, we decided we needed to rely on the courts. On Japan and Apple's supply chain Let me sort of step back and talk about Japan in general. First of all, this is an incredible tragedy and our hearts go out to everyone involved. Apple as a company has a very long history and has many strong ties to people in Japan, and we’re very, very saddened by the situation, and we’ve undertaken various actions to assist in the relief effort. The economic impact that we’ll address today pales in comparison to the human impact. Regarding our business in Japan, we had some revenue impact in Q2, but it was not material to Apple’s consolidated results. We believe revenues will be approximately $200 million less in Q3, and this has been factored into the guidance [we] provided you earlier. Regarding our global supply chain, as a result of outstanding teamwork and unprecedented resilience of our partners, we did not have any supply or cost impact in our fiscal Q2 as a result as the tragedy, and we currently do not anticipate any material supply or cost impact in our fiscal Q3. To provide a bit more color on this, we source literally hundreds of items from Japan, and they range from components such as LCDs, optical drives, NAND flash and DRAM to base materials such as resins, coatings, and foils that are part of the production process that are several layers back in the supply chain. The earthquake and subsequent tsunami and the associated nuclear crisis caused disruption for many of these suppliers. And many unaffected suppliers have been impacted by power interruptions. But since the disaster, Apple employees have literally been working around the clock with our supply partners in Japan and have been able to implement a number of contingency plans. Our preference from the beginning of this tragedy has been to remain with our long-term partners in Japan, and I have to say, they have displayed an incredible resilience that I’ve personally never seen before in the aftermath of this disaster. So while we do not currently anticipate any material impact to our component supply or cost in our fiscal Q3, we do need to caution everyone that the situation remains unpredictable, given recent aftershocks, the uncertainty about the nuclear plant, and potential power interruptions. Further, there are some supply risks that are beyond the current quarter, and although we know of no issue today that we view as unsolvable, the situation is still uncertain and there’s obviously no guarantee. For this reason it’s difficult to predict whether the issues created by the tragedy would impact revenues beyond Q3. However, I’ll be happy to address Q4 on our next call in July. As of today we currently do not anticipate any material supply (or cost impact as far as that goes) in our fiscal Q3. That’s the quarter that we’re in now, that ends in June. Beyond June, there are risks, but there’s no issue that we’re aware of today that we view as unsolveable. However, new things could happen. I’m sure you’ve been paying attention to the news: there’s aftershocks, there’s still uncertainty about the nuclear plant, there’s power interruptions. If that stays at the level that it is today, I’m not as worried. I would worry if something happened and took a turn for the worst, and obviously I can’t predict that and certainly hope that it does not occur.

1 0

INTEREST: AT&T: smartphone data facing huge growth
by billing 22 Apr '11

22 Apr '11

...from: http://www.tuaw.com/2011/04/22/atandt-filing-shows-that-smartphone-data-is-… AT&T filing shows that smartphone data is facing huge growth by Mike Schramm (RSS feed) on Apr 22nd 2011 at 6:00PM AT&T has submitted a document to the FCC in the process of trying to get that T-Mobile mergerapproved, and it reveals that AT&T was overwhelmed by the amount of smartphone data traffic it had to push through with the arrival of the iPhone. 2010 saw an 8000% jump in data rates over 2007, according to the document, which adds that "a smartphone generates 24 times the mobile data traffic of a conventional wireless phone, and the explosively popular iPad and similar tablet devices can generate traffic comparable to or even greater than a smartphone." The total apparently went up to 10 petabytes of data per month in 2010. Because of all that data, AT&T is trying to suggest that it "faces network capacity constraints more severe than those of any other wireless provider." And while AT&T says that connecting with T-Mobile will help both companies be better able to handle their data issues, things aren't going to get easier. The company expects to deliver the same amount of data it served in 2010 in just the first five weeks of 2015. Lest the FCC start feeling bad for AT&T and its predicament, don't forget that by connecting with Apple for the iPhone in the first place, AT&T gladly took the bullet for all of that data. But yes, AT&T and other data providers have quite a goal in front of them, considering how fast consumer data consumption is growing thanks to Apple's devices.

1 0

INTEREST: iPhone: IDC prognosis through 2015
by billing 19 Apr '11

19 Apr '11

...from: http://www.macworld.com/article/158892/2011/03/windowsphone_iphone.html#lsr… IDC (www.idc.com): Windows Phone to surpass iPhone by 2015 Posted on Mar 29, 2011 10:35 am by Matt Hamblen, Computerworld Editor’s Note: This story is excerpted from Computerworld. For more Mac coverage, visitComputerworld’s Macintosh Knowledge Center. IDC made a bold prediction Tuesday, forecasting that Windows Phone will surge ahead to become the No. 2 smartphone operating system by 2015 behind Android in the top spot. That forecast would push Apple’s iPhone to third position, followed by BlackBerry in fourth in 2015, the market research firm said. Windows Phone will grow, IDC said, because of the alliance forged between the world’s largest mobile phone maker, Nokia, and software powerhouse Microsoft. “The new alliance brings together Nokia’s hardware capabilities and Windows Phone’s differentiated platform,” said Ramon Llamas, an IDC analyst. Many analyst firms, including IDC and Gartner, had predicted last year that Windows Phone without Nokia would only reach 5 to 10 percent market share in coming years. IDC expects the first devices from the new Nokia/Microsoft alliance to launch in 2012. “By 2015, IDC expects Windows Phone to be the number 2 operating system worldwide behind Android,” Llamas said in a statement. In 2011, IDC expects Android to secure the top spot for all 12 months of the year, after pushing into top territory late in 2010. Android will secure nearly 40 percent of the smartphone operating system market in 2011, IDC predicted, and then move to 45 percent in 2015. Symbian, Nokia’s current OS, will retreat to second place with nearly 21 percent in 2011, to zero by 2015, since Symbian phones will no longer be produced sometime after 2012. Apple’s iOS will be in third position globally for all of 2011, with nearly 15.7 percent of the market, falling to 15.3 percent of the market in 2015. Apple will still sell 19 percent more smartphones each year, however, as the smartphone market expands. BlackBerry, the smartphone from Research in Motion, will be in fourth position for all of 2011 with 14.9 percent share of the market, dropping to 13.7 percent share in 2015. BlackBerry will still grow by 17 percent each year. Windows Phone 7 and WindowsMobile, the older Microsoft OS, will take 5.5 percent of the market in 2011, but Windows Phone will surge to nearly 21 percent in 2015, an annual growth rate of 67 percent, IDC said. Overall, smartphones won’t grow quite as fast in 2011 as in 2010, IDC noted. Growth in smartphones globally will be 49.2 percent, IDC said. Vendors will ship more than 450 million smartphones in 2011, compared with 303.4 million shipped in 2010, IDC added. Part of the reason for the fast growth in 2010 was that buyers held off mobile phone purchases during the 2009 economic downturn, said Kevin Restivo, also an IDC analyst. “The expected market growth for 2011, while still notable, will taper off somewhat from what we saw in 2010,” Restivo added.

1 0

INTEREST: iPad: Gartner prognosis through 2015
by billing 18 Apr '11

18 Apr '11

...from: http://www.macworld.com/article/159154/2011/04/tablet_forecast.html#lsrc.mo… Gartner: Apple will dominate tablet market through 2015 Posted on Apr 11, 2011 2:20 pm by Gregg Keizer, Computerworld Editor’s Note: This story is excerpted from Computerworld. For more Mac coverage, visitComputerworld’s Macintosh Knowledge Center. Apple’s iOS will dominate the tablet market through the middle of the decade, Gartner analysts said Monday. But as already is the case in the smartphone market, Apple will face its most heated competition from Google’s Android. iOS will retain a market majority through 2014, then slip under the 50 percent bar the following year, said Gartner analysts Carolina Milanesi and Roberta Cozza, who cited Apple’s reinvention of the tablet as key to the company’s success. In 2011, Gartner is forecasting iPad sales of 48 million, compared to 13.9 million tablets running Google’s Android, giving Apple’s iOS a 68.7 percent share of the tablet market. In 2012, however, Apple’s share will slip to 63.5 percent—even though it will sell over 68 million iPads—as sales of Android-based tablets surge to 26 million to account for nearly a quarter of all devices. By 2014, Apple’s share will have dropped to 51.8 percent on sales of 115 million tablets, while Android sales will have climbed to 76 million, representing 34.2 percent of the market. According to Gartner’s forecast, iOS will fall under the 50 percent mark for the first time in early 2015, even as it sells a record 138 million iPads throughout that year. Apple’s dominance would have been threatened even earlier but for Google’s decision to not open Android 3.0—dubbed “Honeycomb”—to third parties, as it has with earlier versions of the operating system. Google’s change was a reaction to criticism over the Android smartphone market’s fragmentation—and that the tablet market would suffer from the same—said Gartner’s analysts. But the move will probably mean that prices won’t drop as fast as they otherwise would—tablet makers won’t be able to decide what’s in and what’s not in their implementations of Honeycomb—and that Android may find a ceiling on market share. “The new licensing model Google has introduced with Honeycomb enables Google to drive more control, allowing only optimal tablet implementations that don’t compromise quality of experience,” said Gartner’s Cozza in a statement. “This might mean that prices will drop at a slower pace than what we have seen in the smartphone market.” Gartner’s take on rivals to iOS and Android was bleak: By 2015, RIM’s QNX—the operating system destined for the not-yet-released PlayBook—will have just 10 percent of the tablet market, while others, like Hewlett Packard’s WebOS and Nokia’s MeeGo, will still be in the single digits. Even as its market share slips, Apple’s iOS and iPad will remain the benchmarks to beat, said the Gartner analysts. “Many [tablet vendors] are making the same mistake that was made in the first response wave to the iPhone, as they are prioritizing hardware features over applications, services and overall user experience,” said Milanesi. “Tablets will be much more dependent on the latter than smartphones have been, and the sooner vendors realize that, the better chance they have to compete head-to-head with Apple.” Apple’s iOS will dominate the tablet market through 2015 even as rivals catch up.

1 0

INTEREST: iPad: Gartner prognosis through 2015
by billing 18 Apr '11

18 Apr '11

...from: http://www.macworld.com/article/159154/gartner_apple_will_dominate_tablet_m… Gartner: Apple will dominate tablet market through 2015 Posted on Apr 11, 2011 2:20 pm by Gregg Keizer, Computerworld Editor’s Note: This story is excerpted from Computerworld. For more Mac coverage, visitComputerworld’s Macintosh Knowledge Center. Apple’s iOS will dominate the tablet market through the middle of the decade, Gartner analysts said Monday. But as already is the case in the smartphone market, Apple will face its most heated competition from Google’s Android. iOS will retain a market majority through 2014, then slip under the 50 percent bar the following year, said Gartner analysts Carolina Milanesi and Roberta Cozza, who cited Apple’s reinvention of the tablet as key to the company’s success. In 2011, Gartner is forecasting iPad sales of 48 million, compared to 13.9 million tablets running Google’s Android, giving Apple’s iOS a 68.7 percent share of the tablet market. In 2012, however, Apple’s share will slip to 63.5 percent—even though it will sell over 68 million iPads—as sales of Android-based tablets surge to 26 million to account for nearly a quarter of all devices. By 2014, Apple’s share will have dropped to 51.8 percent on sales of 115 million tablets, while Android sales will have climbed to 76 million, representing 34.2 percent of the market. According to Gartner’s forecast, iOS will fall under the 50 percent mark for the first time in early 2015, even as it sells a record 138 million iPads throughout that year. Apple’s dominance would have been threatened even earlier but for Google’s decision to not open Android 3.0—dubbed “Honeycomb”—to third parties, as it has with earlier versions of the operating system. Google’s change was a reaction to criticism over the Android smartphone market’s fragmentation—and that the tablet market would suffer from the same—said Gartner’s analysts. But the move will probably mean that prices won’t drop as fast as they otherwise would—tablet makers won’t be able to decide what’s in and what’s not in their implementations of Honeycomb—and that Android may find a ceiling on market share. “The new licensing model Google has introduced with Honeycomb enables Google to drive more control, allowing only optimal tablet implementations that don’t compromise quality of experience,” said Gartner’s Cozza in a statement. “This might mean that prices will drop at a slower pace than what we have seen in the smartphone market.” Gartner’s take on rivals to iOS and Android was bleak: By 2015, RIM’s QNX—the operating system destined for the not-yet-released PlayBook—will have just 10 percent of the tablet market, while others, like Hewlett Packard’s WebOS and Nokia’s MeeGo, will still be in the single digits. Even as its market share slips, Apple’s iOS and iPad will remain the benchmarks to beat, said the Gartner analysts. “Many [tablet vendors] are making the same mistake that was made in the first response wave to the iPhone, as they are prioritizing hardware features over applications, services and overall user experience,” said Milanesi. “Tablets will be much more dependent on the latter than smartphones have been, and the sooner vendors realize that, the better chance they have to compete head-to-head with Apple.” Apple’s iOS will dominate the tablet market through 2015 even as rivals catch up.

1 0