Apple picker At present, it appears that the era of licensed software at the forefront with Microsoft Windows, which prevailed here for several decades, is coming to an end for good. Until recently, the licensed software model was considered the only possible way to approach the sale of computing technology.
The notion that the path of licensed software was the only correct one took root during the 1990s, based on the monumental success of Microsoft, and was always further vindicated when some of the integrated devices of the time such as the Amiga, Atari ST , Acorn, Commodore or Archimedes.
At that time, Apple was the only company that produced integrated devices without any interference from Microsoft, and it was also a very difficult time for Apple.
Since the licensed software model was seen as the only viable solution, there were subsequently many attempts to follow Microsoft and also go the licensed software route. Probably the most famous is OS/2 from IBM, but Sun with its Solaris system or Steve Jobs with his NeXTSTEP also came up with their solutions.
But the fact that no one was able to achieve the same level of success with their software as Microsoft suggested that something might be seriously amiss.
It turns out that the model of licensed software that Microsoft chose is not the most correct and successful option, but because Microsoft established a monopoly during the nineties that no one was able to defend against, and because it abused its hardware partners for decades, it was able to beat with your licensed software. In all this, he was helped all the time by the media reporting on the world of technology, which covered up the failures and unfair practices of Microsoft and always blindly praised it, and all this despite the disapproval of independent journalists.
Another attempt to test the licensed software model came in the early 21s when Palm failed to do well with sales of its Personal Digital Assistant (PDA). Back then, everyone advised Palm, based on the current trend, exactly what Microsoft would advise, which is to divide its business into a software and a hardware part. Although at the time Palm's founder Jeff Hawkins managed to use a strategy similar to Apple's to come to market with Treos, i.e. a pioneer among smartphones, the upcoming follow-up of Microsoft's model brought Palm to the brink of ruin. The company split into the software part of PalmSource and the hardware part of PalmOne, the only result of which was that customers were really confused and it certainly did not bring them any benefit. But what ultimately killed Palm completely was actually the iPhone.
At the end of the 1990s, Apple decided to do something completely unheard of at a time when licensed software dominated, namely to produce integrated devices. Apple, under the leadership of Steve Jobs, focused on something that no one in the computer world could offer at the time - an innovative, creative and tight connection between hardware and software. He soon came up with integrated devices like the new iMac or PowerBook, which were no longer just devices incompatible with Windows, but also surprisingly innovative and creative.
In 2001, however, Apple came up with the then completely unknown iPod device, which by 2003 was able to conquer the whole world and bring enormous profits to Apple.
Despite the fact that the media reporting on the world of computer technology refused to take into account the direction in which these technologies began to go, Microsoft's future development was slowly becoming clear. Therefore, between 2003 and 2006, he began working on his own variation on the iPod theme in order to introduce his own Zune player on November 14, 2006.
No one can be surprised, however, that Microsoft did about as badly in the field of integrated technologies as Apple did in the field of licensed software, and the Zune was thus accompanied by shame across all its generations.
However, Apple went further and in 2007 introduced the first iPhone, which within a quarter of a year outsold Microsoft's attempts at licensed software for Windows CE/Windows Mobile mobile phones.
So Microsoft had no choice but to buy a company for half a billion dollars, thanks to which it could go on the path of integrated mobile devices. In 2008, therefore, it absorbed the relatively popular Danger mobile device at the time, co-founded by Andy Rubin, which was actually a precursor to Android, because in terms of its software part, it was a system based on Java and Linux.
Microsoft did exactly the same thing with Danger as it has done with all of its acquisitions, recklessly cramming it down its throat.
What came out of Microsoft was the KIN - Microsoft's first integrated mobile device that lasted 48 days on the market. Compared to the KIN, the Zune was actually still a huge success.
It is probably no longer surprising that when Apple released the iPad, which easily won the favor of the whole world, Microsoft, in conjunction with its long-term partner HP, quickly rushed with its answer in the form of the Slate PC tablet, of which only a few thousand units were produced.
And so it is only a question of what Microsoft will do with the dying Nokia, which it is currently shoving down its throat.
It's surprising how blind the tech media has been in not being able to see the ongoing erosion of the licensed software model that Apple has caused with its integrated products. How else to explain the enthusiasm that the nascent Android garnered from these media. The media considered him to be the successor to Microsoft, from whom Android would take over the dominance of licensed software.
Google has teamed up with HTC to create the Nexus – a device that runs purely on Android. But after this experiment failed, this time Google teamed up with Samsung to create two more flops, the Nexus S and the Galaxy. Its latest foray into the smartphone world came from a partnership with LG that spawned the Nexus 4, another Nexus that no one is buying much.
But just as Microsoft wanted its share of the tablet market, so did Google, so in 2011 it focused on modifying Android 3 for tablets, but the result was such a disaster that there was talk of tons of Nexus tablets filling warehouses scattered around whole world.
In 2012, Google, in partnership with Asus, came up with the Nexus 7 tablet, which was so terrible that even the most die-hard Android fans admitted that it was an embarrassment to the company. And even though in 2013 Google fixed a significant part of the mistakes, it cannot be said that anyone would trust its tablets very much.
However, Google has not only followed Microsoft in its model of licensed software and in fumbles both in the field of smartphones and in the field of tablets, but also faithfully copies it in the framework of overpriced acquisitions.
Believing that Google would break into the integrated device market as successfully as Apple, it bought Motorola Mobility in 2011 for $12 billion, but it ended up costing Google far more billions than it would have ever been able to make from the acquisition.
So it can be said that it is fascinating what paradoxical steps companies like Microsoft and Google are taking and how many billions they are spending to they became a company like Apple, even though everyone already knows that the licensed software model is long dead.
As I didn't read the whole article, but the last part under the picture. Nicely loaded on Android and I think it's true.
truth? certainly? oh, and android is also a flop and doesn't work at all, so it actually has a share of about 74% for mobile phones and it won't take long for tablets, it will also soon take over from iOS
and dare to say something like "what do you want when android is on 1452 HW phones while apple is on 5 products", that is probably completely irrelevant, after all, we are talking about platforms and eco-systems
The fact that Android is on billions of HW and iOS is on a few just makes it very narrow. Let's recalculate the number of iOS installs per device (total number / number of devices) and the number of Android OS installs per device (total number / number of devices) and we will get real ratios and here, here you will see the reality that is involved. A classic economic point of view, nothing else. I'm not pretending that, oh, I have a lower fuel consumption on my car than you, I pay less. But the fact that I pay less just because I have one car and not three, I'll cover that already. Poor Android…
I had to start laughing at the end of the article. Android doesn't suit me, but if it's Android, then in the form of Nexus. These devices are exempted from multiple appalling settings and the system runs smoothly - I know what I'm talking about, I had a Nexus 7, and it's definitely not true that there are tons of unsaleable tablets and other things lying around in warehouses. Maybe the author confused Nexus and Surface. Well, it's just that the author's bias and objectivity probably don't bother her either.
the first part of the article is great. The second one, where you write about Android, tablets and mobile phones from Google, is completely out of line. I haven't read anything other than an article in a long time.
So just for info:
1) Google Nexuses are reference phones for developers. Google did practically no marketing for them and they don't even feel like they have any high sales.
2) Android licensing is by no means the same as in the case of Windows, because Google is not paid for it. :)
3) Nexus 7 was a market bestseller. Thanks to the aggressive price in relation to the quite high quality, it was practically sold out.
4) Google is doing relatively well on tablets. Just look at the numbers.
5) The acquisition policy of Google and Microsoft is completely different. It cannot even be said by chance that one is copying the other.
Dear debaters. Try to read the article from beginning to end and only then express your opinion.
1/ The article is taken from AppleInsider and it says so.
2/ Miss Jana is not the author, she only translated the article.
3/ If you have the feeling or impression that the article contains false or misleading information, try to refute it factually.
4/ Posts that are vulgar, misleading, attempts at flame and those that do not correspond to the given topic will be deleted without apology.
Thanks for understanding.
Libor Kubín, chief editor
In that case, it is a mistake on the part of the editors, because they even allowed themselves to continue spreading such an article. Either way it's out and should be taken down. Factual rebuttal written by amanda.
I agree that this is a serious editorial error. When I accept someone else's article, I publish a summary of the most important points and a link to the original source. If I provide a literal translation, the contribution begins with this information and the entire translated text is clearly marked (mostly in italics). It is also fair to ask the author for permission to download the entire text (which we obviously did not do - it is considered an offense against intellectual property). Under the given circumstances, getting angry that people are arguing with the "author" of the article seems unreasonable to me. If you don't believe me, see how OSEL, Blisty, Lupa, anyone you recognize, even on the Czech or global Internet, does.
btw: I definitely don't agree that any post should be taken down just because it's "off" :D
HA!, sorry, ash on my head. It's something like a "summary", it just doesn't say anything about it. You do it interestingly, but what is the truth.
I hereby absolve you of the accusation of theft of intellectual property, but I still think that the mic is on the editor's side.
chief editor :D good forum
Dear Mr. Editor-in-Chief, cancel the possibility of adding a comment under the articles completely and you will have peace of mind xD The feedback is of no use to you anyway, if you can't admit a mistake. For example, let's take a 3-day-old article in which you say that Intel icore 7 has 8 gigs of L3 cache. Why is it that several people object in the comments that it is bullshit - when such an elementary error has not been corrected to this day ;) And with this article, IMHO, it will be the same...
“In 2012, Google partnered with Asus to come up with the Nexus 7 tablet, which was so terrible that even the most die-hard Android fans admitted it was a disgrace to the company. " So I would be interested in who is the toughest android core, because the sales statistics of this particular tablet speak clearly. In addition, this was the very first Nexus tablet, followed by a ten-inch version from Samsung. Both in 2012 and with Android 4.1. So it's probably bullshit to write that tons of Nexus tablets were stored in 2011, when they weren't produced that year and definitely didn't run on Android 3.
Great article :) Yes, there are a couple of details that don't fit, but that's not important to the overall context.
So, from the beginning, Android reminds me a lot of the Windows model and maybe even the behavior of Google in some things like Microsoft, but those opinions about nexus tablets...well, maybe that's some purposeful propaganda, isn't it?
The only thing interesting in the article is the comparison of licensed sales with integrated and the rest is more nonsense.
Thanks for the nice article and the various reminders. Out of nostalgia, I immediately switched on my exhibition Bondi Blue with its original Mac OS 8.1CZ and after that I played on the Atari 1040STE from the TestDrive™ disk.
We develop for both platforms and each has its pros and cons. But I really don't like how incredibly interested some articles on Jablickari are, they often distort some facts, ignore others and sometimes it's complete nonsense, this article is unfortunately a sad proof of that. I go to this website to read articles about Apple, but lately, especially with glos, I have the feeling that I don't know the website technologically, but instead some stupid sects that don't even understand technology :(
If everyone wanted to read only high-quality, relevant, objective and politically correct articles, there would be no tabloid :-) The content of the article is taken from abroad, but Miss Jana's translation seems very good to me, so certain sentences, however borderline, at least in "sounds good" in Czech :-)
We agree that Apple has weak points, but I wouldn't start too much with that sect, the author doesn't do much with the content and a few ill-informed discussants fortunately do not reflect the thousands of more "cultivated" readers of this website. And about the technological knowledge: if I have the technology and I can't process it commercially, it can be as good as it wants, but it's useless to me. That's why the BB Z10 and Surface will disappear, even if they are technologically quality products, they don't have the right drive on sale. Austin Powers would say they're "not hot, babes".
From my own experience, I can say that a large part of Apple device users really do not understand technology. The fact that they take a picture of something with their mobile phone and in a few seconds it appears on the screen of their home television (via Apple TV), they consider it magic and have absolutely no idea how it works. You can just turn it off or on - that's enough for them. By this I mean that understanding technology is not absolutely necessary if we want to use high-tech.
I admit that saying that Android phones are worse or better is not accurate, I prefer to say that they are different, for a different target group of customers.
Yes, I remember this whole story. Once upon a time, as a 15-year-old boy, it was incomprehensible to me why someone buys i286 monsters with flashing c: when the Atari ST, Macintosh, Amiga were perfectly easy-to-use machines and did a more worthy job for entertainment and the office. I missed the 'bysnys' practices of MS. Excellent article, today I still don't understand the parents of children who want a tablet and the parents buy them an Android monster with bad usability, bad applications, disgusting display, untested applications from Google play. Then the children look sadly for companions with the iPad. For myself, I'm glad that what I almost buried with idealistic sadness 20 years ago is back. And it's sexy and my daughter loves it too.
Articles written in such a know-it-all, dismissive, and arrogant tone are disgusting, and it doesn't matter who they are for or against. Such things have no business on a serious WEB, regardless of where they are taken from.
Mr. Kubín does write that "Miss Jana is not the author, she only translated the article", but there is nothing to tell from this. Even while writing this comment, the editorial system tells me "About the author: Jana Zlámalová".
It's 27/9/6:26 AM - about the IOS 7.0.2 update. there is no mention of Jablíčkára. I would consider that far more worthy of attention than similar revolver texts.
It's mentioned in flashcards, it was already there yesterday
Thanks for the heads up, so sorry at this point. It does not change the other reservations.
According to Wiki, the Nexus 7 sold 4,6 million units in 2012 and 7 million units in total. Sales of the first iPad: 15 million units. New iPads are sold 12-15 million units - quarterly. So over 50 million pieces for 2012 and over 60 million in 3 quarters + it will be Christmas. If Apple could produce enough new iPads, let's say 80 million iPads sold this year?
The Nexus is not a flop, it has achieved a nice 5-10% of iPad sales. Surface has sales of 1,7 million units in total. That's what a loser looks like. Not a technological flop, but a sales flop. Surface is technologically at the level, the potential is huge, but - it's not selling. Dot. Over 120 million iPads sold vs. 1,7 million (on paper) Surface tablets sold.
Because it's important to them, instead of units sold, they brag about turnover. I'm guessing they make a profit of $10 each, but that doesn't cover the development costs incurred. But that is not said much anywhere. As I say, a classic corporation. Not admitting a mistake and continuing with the boss's idea…
for God's sake, what kind of arrogant Zlatanin is this, that no one buys Nexuses much and they were/are flops? Miss/Madam, you'd better go cook something good in the kitchen, don't you know a lot about the world of technology?
I'm not exactly a fan of Android and discourage everyone from it as much as possible, but what is written in the article is nonsense. By that I mean that no one wants Nexus and that the warehouses are full of them. Unfortunately, I'm one of the few in my neighborhood who has an iPad, everyone else has different nasty mutations of Android, so it's probably not a failure (even if it is for me personally).