Its Amazing I Helped Me Very Much In MY Project.
Who So Ever Posted It A Thank You From My Side.
citizen , 15 Sep 2015an excellent resumen
This was very beneficial to my project on Operating Systems. Thanks a lot to whoever wrote this for supplying me with the perfect information!
Also, I like that you put a lot of pictures/graphics, it made it look good and colorful good job.
an impressive history, this man had one vision different from others without a doubt
lg user, 14 Sep 2015ill tell u something my friend if we talk about numbers then android wins this battle hands do... moreseams you know little about computing power, why do you think apple move to intel, because every other computer company was beating them. They don't do this on the mobile because they sell on brand only.
AnonD-152638, 14 Sep 2015The only reason Apple doesn't talk about specs, is that they are too far behind in terms of sh... moreill tell u something my friend if we talk about numbers then android wins this battle hands down...why well because they started camera battles with big numbers of pixels ,too many cores and a lot of ram memories that currently are useless and ill tell u why...apple provides smooth and userfriendly experince on a phone....their software is well done works fast fantastic..even with low memory u wont experince a lag....it doesnt matter how many pixels you achieve over 300 ppi ..from this point a screen will look sharp anyway... it is not anly pixels we need colors and good viewing angles...excellent materias for a premiun feeling....camera department ..well until now just with a 8 mpx camera apple managed to beat most of camera phones with more resolution...well they provided better quality over number of pixels...besides that being dual core doesnt means it is slow than a lot of 4 cores...u can see it trough interface and even more while gamming...u can say that it is because iphone screen has less pixels to move that is right but additional pixels are useless as long as they are not implemented on games... and iphone games are good looking some times better than ones for android....even and old iphone 4s is able to run a game that a quad core cortex 53 hardly can move...so it is still dual but better imagine if it was quad... so please dont talk about numbers or user experience if have never use an iphone.
AnonD-430787, 13 Sep 2015Hate it as much as you like. Apple changed/changing the entire phone industry!
Google's An... moreYour remark on the useless specs is so much right! Thumbs up!
Never been an Apple fan, but nevertheless I respect them for what they did (along with Bill Gates's Microsoft)
I used to love iProducts, but then their arrogance had grown as well
AnonD-430787, 13 Sep 2015Hate it as much as you like. Apple changed/changing the entire phone industry!
Google's An... moreThe only reason Apple doesn't talk about specs, is that they are too far behind in terms of sheer specs.
When they were first with a 64bit CPU in a mobile, they made sure people new that. And that is totally meaningless in a device with less than 4GB of ram. Actually it makes the OS and Apps bigger than 32bit versions, so that is mostly a downside.
And they say the new CPU is this or that much faster (isn't it always like 90%?), cause they need to say some numbers that show that they have done some work.
Still apps don't get that much faster. In graphical intense games, you could probably notice the difference.
You talk about 4K screens.
Yet a few years back Apple were so proud of their retina 326ppi display.
And today, a soc is more efficiently able to handle 4K resolution than a CPU/GPU combo were at handling 640x960 pixels back then.
Apple usually mentions the resolution of their cameras, and that is a pretty meaningless spec, as well.
Apple also talks about the amount of Apps in app-store. Probably the most meaningless number you could give up, in the mobile industry.
If you are tryning to say, that Apple is not trying to sell by saying pointless numbers, you are either blinded by your love for the company. Or you havent actually watched any keynote, and just guesses. Because GSMarena has to try to dig up some numbers that Apple don't give up.
And why so focused on Steve Jobs. How much did he actually come up with and how much was just a matter of picking products, that developers presented to him?
We should be carefull to make someone that perhaps was just a good businessman into a iconic visionary.
Apple could have done the same with the digital cameras as they did with the iPod. If Steve Jobs, was really able to make everything he touched turn to gold.
Their digital camera was istead discontinued about the same time he came back.
Their gaming console was also discontinued about the same time Jobs came back.
Gaming consoled has made Sony some money. And with Jobs steering the ship, he would gave probably made sure to make good money off games as well.
And why did Apple not start making headphones?
They made music players, then music phones. And when headphones became hot among consumers, apple were nowhere to be seen.
The headphones that come with i-devices aren't that good. They are a very cheap products. I'm pretty sure they even bought the design, and did not even design the looks, themselves. And since people hardly buy those separately, it sure doesnt count as beeing in the headphone business.
And active speakers?
Those are markets that Apple surely could have made a big splash in, and made a lot of money out of.
It also seems like Steve Jobs, was trying to hard, to sell products, that only worked with Mac, in order to try to sell Macs, instead of focusing on the brand, and making people choose Apple computers, because they really like the Apple brand.
To me, it seems like Jobs never was able to take the Mac brand to were he wanted to.
If someone wants to argue that Jobs managed to make Apple the highest valued company in the world.
I would say, that he had a lot of luck as well.
iPods eventually bacame more popular than he ever could have imagined.
So did iPhones.
And their market strategy was never a strategy to get really big pieces of the market share.
Jobs was really good at hyping products, making them sound fantastic. He really knew how to sell things to media.
And media had a lot of power. If media reported on a product, people thought it must be really special. It's still a bit like that. Apple certainly gets a lot more attention and praise. Look at the Apple Watch launch. Most media haven't written much about other smartwatches, but pretty much every ones has written about the Apple watch. Not everyone was convinced it was a product that we needed, but it got mentioned, so people got to hear about it. There were lots of others before it, a lot packs more innovation, and some are actually even more usefull.
Jobs managed to make even tech savvy journalist miss the signs, and see that touchphones was the latest formfactor that makers was going to convince people to buy, and they instead think Apple started this trend. When in actual reality they were not alone. But yes, had it not been for Apple the progress would have been slower, and touch phones would not have been so dominant (not that that domination is all good).
Few tech savvy journalist realises that the iPhone was pretty well timed,by luck, thanks to the fact that it came out just about when facebook was hitting big, and facebook is a big reason so many people wanted to get connected. Had it not been for facebook (or any service like that making it wide back then), less people would have been interested in phones, that were so focused on getting online. Also youtube and some video news services helped as well, as it helped making bigger screens a priority (meaning the transition from phones with keys too ones with touchscreen only, so the screen could take up more of the surface area).
Jobs clearly wanted to be early, he said that the iPhone was running OSX, and that clearly made you think it was going to be a smartphone. But the first iOS release did not support downloading apps. Even featurephones supported java apps (like opera browser) and java games, and some even multitasking. By the standards, the first iPhone was not a smartphone.
If Jobs wasn't so focused on beeing early, before the journalist would see the new touchscreen trend coming, he would have waited untill they had implemented App support (that probably would not have been another year, they just timed it like that, so they could release that together with a new device).
Apple themselves claims that the iPhone prototype used in the announcement in january 2007, was so unstable that it pretty much only worked if Jobs, presented the features in the right order.
And then it took almost six months untill it arrived.
It all points to Apple feeling really stressed by what was coming from competitiors.
Or by journalist piecing two and two togehter, and start speculating about touchscreens as the next new thing.
LG fist showed the KE850 before the iPhone was announced, it was later reannounced as the Prada phone. So apple had at least seen that, that one was coming.
With the Prada branding it could have grabbed some attention among journalists, even those not in the tech field.
Samsung had the F700 or F500 concept (cant remember right now which one it was), in febuary of 2007, clearly developed before the announcement of the iPhone.
A fashion LG and a new Samsung, put that together, and it could seem like a trend for journalists.
In reality, in it's field the iPhone did not have that much competition, in the first year from the announcement.
So Apple could have probably stolen the show anyhow, even if they waited some. But I think Jobs was really afraid of what others might been cooking, as he was certain it would be the next new thing, no matter if the iPhone was introduced or not.
Today when you read about it, it always sounds like the iPhone was the device that started it all. A unique vision by Jobs, that took everyone by surprise. It wasnt that unique and it wasnt that much of an surprice.
I sold mobiles back then, and touchscreens and smartphones were getting more attention from normal consumers, even before the iPhone was announced. Mostly due to products that felt more complete and thus were more interesting. Before, you got worse camera, and no good music player if you went for the smartphone, over a featurephone.
It felt like it was in the air.
So when I saw the iPhone announcement, I thought, finally it's here, a more fingerfriendly touchscreen smartphone. Or rather, finally one that will probably be any good. The Neonode wasn't really, but I had liked it since it was announced (to the swedish press first). I wasnt however completely convinced that you don't want a stylus. Handwrite recognition in Windows Mobile back then was pretty nice. But also quick handwritten notes are a lot quicker to write on a small device, than using any type of keyboard (though I'm perhaps able to write notes faster with a keyboard on a computer than with a pen, but most are not).
Apple did however start the app-craze, before the Apple app-store, even basic apps was just too expensive, to ever really get the attention of the average consumer. (it has some backsides as well, today, there are much too many apps, and it makes it hard for new platforms, also it's hard to demand proper money for well produced apps, meaning that some companies holds back and cuts corners, to bring products out to a price that they think they can sell them for, so some quality apps we could have seen will never be... and it really held back the development of mobile sites, as many sites started using apps, instead of sites that worked well with small screens, instead of sites that could use hardware of the device, like positioning).
Are we living in the post-pc era as Jobs said.
To some extent.
To a lot of people, the PC was just a step on the way.
A lot of people didn't really want a big bulky PC in their home. But still got one, cause it was so usefull.
Then came the laptop trend. At least now it wasn't as bulky. But a lot of people still had a computer corner. You still needed somewhere to charge it. It got hot in your lap. Ant it was too heavy to just hold for longer periods of time.
The tasks most people performed on their PC/Laptops they can now do on a phone or a tablet. (home storage as backup of pictures/videos still hasn't had a break through, though)
It's hard to get away from PCs in the office, but there they are computers and not personal computers.
Personally I dont like it, since I need computers, for a lot of the things like want to do. And when less people buy computer, the hardware gets more expensive, and the development rate drops.
But yes he was right most people don't want computers. But on the other hand, he seemed to want to sell Macs pretty much to the end, so it does not quite add up.
Nice short history. Looking forward to the movie with Michael Fassbender and Seth Rogen soon.
This was the longest article in this series, yet it describes the shortest amount of time.
It was a whopping 1000 words longer than the one describing the biggest mobile maker; Samsung.
It was 700 words longer than the one describing the company that made the first mobile phone device (at least outside of testlabs).
It was 600 words longer than the one describing Nokia, another one of the greats in mobile history.
It was only about 250 words longer than the sony one.
It also seemed like the one they worked most with.
But after all, they had planned it for a while, and was probably just sitting around waiting for the new iPhones to be released, so they could spike the apple interest on GSMarena by publishing this the same week.
They posted the Samsung article before the Samung event. And it wasnt the biggest Samsung event of the year, but that one had already passed...
The Sony article was a few weeks off from the Sony launch, even though GSMarena was fully expecting Sony to launch new products at IFA.
It seemed to be the arcticle that was best focused on them all, in terms of relevant products metioned.
In many other cases, a lot of the products mentioned seemed really irrelevant. Many products, that made no splash, and introduced nothing. Despite the fact that, that maker had much more relevant products, that should have been mentioned.
Ok, some iPhone releases mentioned here aren't that interesting, but Apple hasn't released that many, so what was GSMarena supposed to do?
Did they actually sit around, discover that Apple didn't have that many intresting iPhones, and then decided to mention irrelevant releases from others, so that those companies would not seem more interesting, or more innovative?
And why not mention the problems Apple had, recently with products, that they still overcame.
Since they overcame them, that should be a sign of greatness.
On the ohter hand mentioning them, shows that Apple isn't flawless...
This is clearely a tribute article. And it's more of a tribute than any of the other companies have gotten this far.
So those that say GSMarena is unfair to apple. And that GSMarena is a Samsung loving or perhaps Sony loving, and Apple hating site should compare these articles.
(on the other hand, many that writes those things in the comment section, never reads articles about non apple products, so they don't really know the situation)
you can't phrase it like this, unless you are trying to falsefy history
"Then in the month of October, the iconic iPod was launched. Aimed primarily at youngsters, the $399 portable digital audio player turned out to be a roaring success, with the company selling more than 100 million units in the six years that followed."
No, it took a couple of generations of iPod, and the introduction of models much different from the original (and windows support), before it became a success.
There were other digital music players out there, that outsold the iPod for many years.
If the first iPod (iPods even) was a flop depends on what the sale targets were. But giving their launch in several of countries, Apple was probably hoping for higher sales volumes, so it was likely considered a flop. But they stood by it, and when others started to leave the market, the iPod got more attention from the public, and somehow it became a sucess, when many thought the market was dead.
They could rephrase it some
Then in the month of October, the iconic iPod was launched. It was later expanded to a series of iPod products, that eventually became a roaring success,
And this makes no sense:
"with the company selling more than 100 million units in the six years that followed."
Like the iPod ended with the realase of the first iPone. Actually, the best years for the iPod was 2008 and 2009.
I dont know what the latest figures are but according to wikipedia, Apple announced in 2012 that they had sold 350 millon. So that figure or 100 million in six years seems small, compared to additional sales of 250 million the folowing 5 years.
[deleted post]Well I was replying to someones comment, I didn't say that myself, so ya, you're right.
views, 13 Sep 2015they stole ideas from other companies and haven't been sued yet, but I respect Woz and his gen... moreUn-patented technology man... You can't sue someone for something you can't prove It's yours... If Apple had patented the design and the scroll and the pinch-to-zoom and everything else Google copied from iPhone back in 2007, every OEM would've be paying for using Apple's technology... It's people's fault for not patenting innovations, not Apple's for implementing them and actually making them work better...