Posts Tagged iphone killer
We will all soon forget about Google’s Android
Jui Tan, a partner for BlueRun Ventures who is based in Beijing, happened to be in Silicon Valley for a meeting a couple of weeks ago when Google finally unveiled the first Android mobile phone.
The international mobile market is a main focus for Tan and BlueRun. Which is why, when I asked him for this thoughts on Android, I was surprised that he shrugged and said:
“Coming to Silicon Valley (that) week was the first time I heard about it,” Tan said.
But isn’t Android, the latest wonder to come tumbling out of the Google Innovation Factory, going to change the world? Or at least the world of mobile phones?
Nope. And Tan’s response provides a little perspective on the immense hype Android has generated in Silicon Valley. Around the globe, Android is barely a blip on the radar. And that’s unlikely to change.
Instead, expect Android to remain the latest in a long list of Google curiosities introduced amid great fanfare, only to quietly fade into the background.
To review: Rumors had been swirling for more than a year that Google was developing a phone to counter the iPhone. Not true. Instead, the company developed Android, an operating system that is open-source and free for any company to use to build a smart phone.
That’s a crucial distinction. Google is not building a phone. It’s giving away software and encouraging other folks to use it. The first Android phone is being built by HTC of Taiwan and will be available from T-Mobile on Oct. 22 for $179. And early reviews were generally positive, though they noted the phone had a ways to go to catch up with the iPhone in terms of functionality and elegance.
Among those rumored to be working on Android-based phones are Sprint-Nextel, LG, Samsung and Motorola. There’s also some chatter that China Mobile is thinking about selling one.
But there are several challenges I don’t see Android overcoming.
First, it starts off way down the list of operating systems for smart phones. At the top of the heap are BlackBerry, Windows Mobile, the iPhone, and Symbian. This last one is produced by a consortium of the largest cell phone manufacturers in the world, including Ericsson and Nokia.
And it was recently announced that Symbian will become open-source. Throw in the fact that a group called the LiMo Foundation is developing a Linux-based operating system for mobile phones, and Android becomes just one of three open-source options.
Yes, you say, but this is Google. To which I say: Yes, but this is Google.
The company has been churning out countless initiatives in every direction, but they seem to have no coordination. A year ago, it launched the Open Social initiative to counter Facebook. Heard anything about that lately?
Another more recent example: You’ll have to wait a while before Google’s new Chrome browser can be used on its Android phone.
CNET recently reported that co-founder Sergey Brin noted the two high-profile initiatives were developed separately. “We have not wanted to bind one’s hands to the other’s,” Brin was quoted as saying. He went on to add: “Probably a subsequent version of Android is going to pick up a lot of the Chrome stack.”
If you were developing two big products to be released just weeks apart, wouldn’t you want them to work together right from the start?
And that leads to the next question, one that applies to Chrome as well: Why, exactly, is Google doing this? There appears to be no revenue model around Android. There’s no requirement that an Android phone use Google search.
Maybe Google is just trying to make the world a better place. But given all these issues, if you were building a smart phone, how much would you bet on Google continuing to improve Android? And how long would it take just to get it to match the iPhone?
The last problem is a big one. To be competitive, Android must attract developers. Smart phones, whether the BlackBerry or the iPhone, are increasingly going to be defined by the applications that third parties build to run on them.
On the surface, Android has an appealing pitch: It’s open-source, so anyone can develop any application for these phones.
Sounds great in theory. But many of the widgets I’ve seen built for Open Social are fairly useless. And remember what happened to Facebook when it threw open its platform last year? Developers rushed in with a lot of trivial junk.
To its credit, Facebook reformed that program to use both the carrot and the stick to promote higher-quality applications. And while developers are often annoyed over Apple’s restrictions for iPhone applications, having fewer apps to choose from is better for consumers.
Tally up this sizable list of hurdles, and I wouldn’t be placing any bets on Android.
We will all soon forget about Google’s Android
Jui Tan, a partner for BlueRun Ventures who is based in Beijing, happened to be in Silicon Valley for a meeting a couple of weeks ago when Google finally unveiled the first Android mobile phone.
The international mobile market is a main focus for Tan and BlueRun. Which is why, when I asked him for this thoughts on Android, I was surprised that he shrugged and said:
“Coming to Silicon Valley (that) week was the first time I heard about it,” Tan said.
But isn’t Android, the latest wonder to come tumbling out of the Google Innovation Factory, going to change the world? Or at least the world of mobile phones?
Nope. And Tan’s response provides a little perspective on the immense hype Android has generated in Silicon Valley. Around the globe, Android is barely a blip on the radar. And that’s unlikely to change.
Instead, expect Android to remain the latest in a long list of Google curiosities introduced amid great fanfare, only to quietly fade into the background.
To review: Rumors had been swirling for more than a year that Google was developing a phone to counter the iPhone. Not true. Instead, the company developed Android, an operating system that is open-source and free for any company to use to build a smart phone.
That’s a crucial distinction. Google is not building a phone. It’s giving away software and encouraging other folks to use it. The first Android phone is being built by HTC of Taiwan and will be available from T-Mobile on Oct. 22 for $179. And early reviews were generally positive, though they noted the phone had a ways to go to catch up with the iPhone in terms of functionality and elegance.
Among those rumored to be working on Android-based phones are Sprint-Nextel, LG, Samsung and Motorola. There’s also some chatter that China Mobile is thinking about selling one.
But there are several challenges I don’t see Android overcoming.
First, it starts off way down the list of operating systems for smart phones. At the top of the heap are BlackBerry, Windows Mobile, the iPhone, and Symbian. This last one is produced by a consortium of the largest cell phone manufacturers in the world, including Ericsson and Nokia.
And it was recently announced that Symbian will become open-source. Throw in the fact that a group called the LiMo Foundation is developing a Linux-based operating system for mobile phones, and Android becomes just one of three open-source options.
Yes, you say, but this is Google. To which I say: Yes, but this is Google.
The company has been churning out countless initiatives in every direction, but they seem to have no coordination. A year ago, it launched the Open Social initiative to counter Facebook. Heard anything about that lately?
Another more recent example: You’ll have to wait a while before Google’s new Chrome browser can be used on its Android phone.
CNET recently reported that co-founder Sergey Brin noted the two high-profile initiatives were developed separately. “We have not wanted to bind one’s hands to the other’s,” Brin was quoted as saying. He went on to add: “Probably a subsequent version of Android is going to pick up a lot of the Chrome stack.”
If you were developing two big products to be released just weeks apart, wouldn’t you want them to work together right from the start?
And that leads to the next question, one that applies to Chrome as well: Why, exactly, is Google doing this? There appears to be no revenue model around Android. There’s no requirement that an Android phone use Google search.
Maybe Google is just trying to make the world a better place. But given all these issues, if you were building a smart phone, how much would you bet on Google continuing to improve Android? And how long would it take just to get it to match the iPhone?
The last problem is a big one. To be competitive, Android must attract developers. Smart phones, whether the BlackBerry or the iPhone, are increasingly going to be defined by the applications that third parties build to run on them.
On the surface, Android has an appealing pitch: It’s open-source, so anyone can develop any application for these phones.
Sounds great in theory. But many of the widgets I’ve seen built for Open Social are fairly useless. And remember what happened to Facebook when it threw open its platform last year? Developers rushed in with a lot of trivial junk.
To its credit, Facebook reformed that program to use both the carrot and the stick to promote higher-quality applications. And while developers are often annoyed over Apple’s restrictions for iPhone applications, having fewer apps to choose from is better for consumers.
Tally up this sizable list of hurdles, and I wouldn’t be placing any bets on Android.
We will all soon forget about Google’s Android
Jui Tan, a partner for BlueRun Ventures who is based in Beijing, happened to be in Silicon Valley for a meeting a couple of weeks ago when Google finally unveiled the first Android mobile phone.
The international mobile market is a main focus for Tan and BlueRun. Which is why, when I asked him for this thoughts on Android, I was surprised that he shrugged and said:
“Coming to Silicon Valley (that) week was the first time I heard about it,” Tan said.
But isn’t Android, the latest wonder to come tumbling out of the Google Innovation Factory, going to change the world? Or at least the world of mobile phones?
Nope. And Tan’s response provides a little perspective on the immense hype Android has generated in Silicon Valley. Around the globe, Android is barely a blip on the radar. And that’s unlikely to change.
Instead, expect Android to remain the latest in a long list of Google curiosities introduced amid great fanfare, only to quietly fade into the background.
To review: Rumors had been swirling for more than a year that Google was developing a phone to counter the iPhone. Not true. Instead, the company developed Android, an operating system that is open-source and free for any company to use to build a smart phone.
That’s a crucial distinction. Google is not building a phone. It’s giving away software and encouraging other folks to use it. The first Android phone is being built by HTC of Taiwan and will be available from T-Mobile on Oct. 22 for $179. And early reviews were generally positive, though they noted the phone had a ways to go to catch up with the iPhone in terms of functionality and elegance.
Among those rumored to be working on Android-based phones are Sprint-Nextel, LG, Samsung and Motorola. There’s also some chatter that China Mobile is thinking about selling one.
But there are several challenges I don’t see Android overcoming.
First, it starts off way down the list of operating systems for smart phones. At the top of the heap are BlackBerry, Windows Mobile, the iPhone, and Symbian. This last one is produced by a consortium of the largest cell phone manufacturers in the world, including Ericsson and Nokia.
And it was recently announced that Symbian will become open-source. Throw in the fact that a group called the LiMo Foundation is developing a Linux-based operating system for mobile phones, and Android becomes just one of three open-source options.
Yes, you say, but this is Google. To which I say: Yes, but this is Google.
The company has been churning out countless initiatives in every direction, but they seem to have no coordination. A year ago, it launched the Open Social initiative to counter Facebook. Heard anything about that lately?
Another more recent example: You’ll have to wait a while before Google’s new Chrome browser can be used on its Android phone.
CNET recently reported that co-founder Sergey Brin noted the two high-profile initiatives were developed separately. “We have not wanted to bind one’s hands to the other’s,” Brin was quoted as saying. He went on to add: “Probably a subsequent version of Android is going to pick up a lot of the Chrome stack.”
If you were developing two big products to be released just weeks apart, wouldn’t you want them to work together right from the start?
And that leads to the next question, one that applies to Chrome as well: Why, exactly, is Google doing this? There appears to be no revenue model around Android. There’s no requirement that an Android phone use Google search.
Maybe Google is just trying to make the world a better place. But given all these issues, if you were building a smart phone, how much would you bet on Google continuing to improve Android? And how long would it take just to get it to match the iPhone?
The last problem is a big one. To be competitive, Android must attract developers. Smart phones, whether the BlackBerry or the iPhone, are increasingly going to be defined by the applications that third parties build to run on them.
On the surface, Android has an appealing pitch: It’s open-source, so anyone can develop any application for these phones.
Sounds great in theory. But many of the widgets I’ve seen built for Open Social are fairly useless. And remember what happened to Facebook when it threw open its platform last year? Developers rushed in with a lot of trivial junk.
To its credit, Facebook reformed that program to use both the carrot and the stick to promote higher-quality applications. And while developers are often annoyed over Apple’s restrictions for iPhone applications, having fewer apps to choose from is better for consumers.
Tally up this sizable list of hurdles, and I wouldn’t be placing any bets on Android.
We will all soon forget about Google’s Android
Jui Tan, a partner for BlueRun Ventures who is based in Beijing, happened to be in Silicon Valley for a meeting a couple of weeks ago when Google finally unveiled the first Android mobile phone.
The international mobile market is a main focus for Tan and BlueRun. Which is why, when I asked him for this thoughts on Android, I was surprised that he shrugged and said:
“Coming to Silicon Valley (that) week was the first time I heard about it,” Tan said.
But isn’t Android, the latest wonder to come tumbling out of the Google Innovation Factory, going to change the world? Or at least the world of mobile phones?
Nope. And Tan’s response provides a little perspective on the immense hype Android has generated in Silicon Valley. Around the globe, Android is barely a blip on the radar. And that’s unlikely to change.
Instead, expect Android to remain the latest in a long list of Google curiosities introduced amid great fanfare, only to quietly fade into the background.
To review: Rumors had been swirling for more than a year that Google was developing a phone to counter the iPhone. Not true. Instead, the company developed Android, an operating system that is open-source and free for any company to use to build a smart phone.
That’s a crucial distinction. Google is not building a phone. It’s giving away software and encouraging other folks to use it. The first Android phone is being built by HTC of Taiwan and will be available from T-Mobile on Oct. 22 for $179. And early reviews were generally positive, though they noted the phone had a ways to go to catch up with the iPhone in terms of functionality and elegance.
Among those rumored to be working on Android-based phones are Sprint-Nextel, LG, Samsung and Motorola. There’s also some chatter that China Mobile is thinking about selling one.
But there are several challenges I don’t see Android overcoming.
First, it starts off way down the list of operating systems for smart phones. At the top of the heap are BlackBerry, Windows Mobile, the iPhone, and Symbian. This last one is produced by a consortium of the largest cell phone manufacturers in the world, including Ericsson and Nokia.
And it was recently announced that Symbian will become open-source. Throw in the fact that a group called the LiMo Foundation is developing a Linux-based operating system for mobile phones, and Android becomes just one of three open-source options.
Yes, you say, but this is Google. To which I say: Yes, but this is Google.
The company has been churning out countless initiatives in every direction, but they seem to have no coordination. A year ago, it launched the Open Social initiative to counter Facebook. Heard anything about that lately?
Another more recent example: You’ll have to wait a while before Google’s new Chrome browser can be used on its Android phone.
CNET recently reported that co-founder Sergey Brin noted the two high-profile initiatives were developed separately. “We have not wanted to bind one’s hands to the other’s,” Brin was quoted as saying. He went on to add: “Probably a subsequent version of Android is going to pick up a lot of the Chrome stack.”
If you were developing two big products to be released just weeks apart, wouldn’t you want them to work together right from the start?
And that leads to the next question, one that applies to Chrome as well: Why, exactly, is Google doing this? There appears to be no revenue model around Android. There’s no requirement that an Android phone use Google search.
Maybe Google is just trying to make the world a better place. But given all these issues, if you were building a smart phone, how much would you bet on Google continuing to improve Android? And how long would it take just to get it to match the iPhone?
The last problem is a big one. To be competitive, Android must attract developers. Smart phones, whether the BlackBerry or the iPhone, are increasingly going to be defined by the applications that third parties build to run on them.
On the surface, Android has an appealing pitch: It’s open-source, so anyone can develop any application for these phones.
Sounds great in theory. But many of the widgets I’ve seen built for Open Social are fairly useless. And remember what happened to Facebook when it threw open its platform last year? Developers rushed in with a lot of trivial junk.
To its credit, Facebook reformed that program to use both the carrot and the stick to promote higher-quality applications. And while developers are often annoyed over Apple’s restrictions for iPhone applications, having fewer apps to choose from is better for consumers.
Tally up this sizable list of hurdles, and I wouldn’t be placing any bets on Android.
We will all soon forget about Google’s Android
Jui Tan, a partner for BlueRun Ventures who is based in Beijing, happened to be in Silicon Valley for a meeting a couple of weeks ago when Google finally unveiled the first Android mobile phone.
The international mobile market is a main focus for Tan and BlueRun. Which is why, when I asked him for this thoughts on Android, I was surprised that he shrugged and said:
“Coming to Silicon Valley (that) week was the first time I heard about it,” Tan said.
But isn’t Android, the latest wonder to come tumbling out of the Google Innovation Factory, going to change the world? Or at least the world of mobile phones?
Nope. And Tan’s response provides a little perspective on the immense hype Android has generated in Silicon Valley. Around the globe, Android is barely a blip on the radar. And that’s unlikely to change.
Instead, expect Android to remain the latest in a long list of Google curiosities introduced amid great fanfare, only to quietly fade into the background.
To review: Rumors had been swirling for more than a year that Google was developing a phone to counter the iPhone. Not true. Instead, the company developed Android, an operating system that is open-source and free for any company to use to build a smart phone.
That’s a crucial distinction. Google is not building a phone. It’s giving away software and encouraging other folks to use it. The first Android phone is being built by HTC of Taiwan and will be available from T-Mobile on Oct. 22 for $179. And early reviews were generally positive, though they noted the phone had a ways to go to catch up with the iPhone in terms of functionality and elegance.
Among those rumored to be working on Android-based phones are Sprint-Nextel, LG, Samsung and Motorola. There’s also some chatter that China Mobile is thinking about selling one.
But there are several challenges I don’t see Android overcoming.
First, it starts off way down the list of operating systems for smart phones. At the top of the heap are BlackBerry, Windows Mobile, the iPhone, and Symbian. This last one is produced by a consortium of the largest cell phone manufacturers in the world, including Ericsson and Nokia.
And it was recently announced that Symbian will become open-source. Throw in the fact that a group called the LiMo Foundation is developing a Linux-based operating system for mobile phones, and Android becomes just one of three open-source options.
Yes, you say, but this is Google. To which I say: Yes, but this is Google.
The company has been churning out countless initiatives in every direction, but they seem to have no coordination. A year ago, it launched the Open Social initiative to counter Facebook. Heard anything about that lately?
Another more recent example: You’ll have to wait a while before Google’s new Chrome browser can be used on its Android phone.
CNET recently reported that co-founder Sergey Brin noted the two high-profile initiatives were developed separately. “We have not wanted to bind one’s hands to the other’s,” Brin was quoted as saying. He went on to add: “Probably a subsequent version of Android is going to pick up a lot of the Chrome stack.”
If you were developing two big products to be released just weeks apart, wouldn’t you want them to work together right from the start?
And that leads to the next question, one that applies to Chrome as well: Why, exactly, is Google doing this? There appears to be no revenue model around Android. There’s no requirement that an Android phone use Google search.
Maybe Google is just trying to make the world a better place. But given all these issues, if you were building a smart phone, how much would you bet on Google continuing to improve Android? And how long would it take just to get it to match the iPhone?
The last problem is a big one. To be competitive, Android must attract developers. Smart phones, whether the BlackBerry or the iPhone, are increasingly going to be defined by the applications that third parties build to run on them.
On the surface, Android has an appealing pitch: It’s open-source, so anyone can develop any application for these phones.
Sounds great in theory. But many of the widgets I’ve seen built for Open Social are fairly useless. And remember what happened to Facebook when it threw open its platform last year? Developers rushed in with a lot of trivial junk.
To its credit, Facebook reformed that program to use both the carrot and the stick to promote higher-quality applications. And while developers are often annoyed over Apple’s restrictions for iPhone applications, having fewer apps to choose from is better for consumers.
Tally up this sizable list of hurdles, and I wouldn’t be placing any bets on Android.
Why the iphone 3G will kick androids ass
The next year is going to be fun.
A month from now, the Android-powered T-Mobile G1 will go on sale, along with all the Android apps in the online Android Market store. Having played with the G1 for a half hour or so on Tuesday, my reaction is — YAWN!
Don’t get me wrong, the G1 isn’t a bad phone. But it’s kind of like seeing Toby Hall as Truman Capote in Infamous right after Philip Seymour Hoffman won an Oscar for playing him in Capote — good, but I’ve seen it already. It doesn’t matter how good or even how bad the G1 is; its introduction, along with the iPhone, changes how we look at cellphones. Suddenly it’s all about the operating system.
And it just happens Apple and Google have completely different philosophies concerning their varying cellphone ecosystems, Apple with its usual paranoiac digital dictatorship and Google with its anyone-can-play Android anarchy. Are we looking at a replay of the ultimately lopsided late 1980’s battle between Windows vs. Mac OS? Follow the Continue link to find out.
The parallels between Android vs. iPhone/Windows vs. Mac may not be perfect, but the feeling of déjà vu is as palpable as post-coital musk. Like Microsoft, Google doesn’t make hardware. As a result, it will have dwindling control over the hardware it’s implemented on and the applications developed for it. As a result, some Android phones will barely rise to the level of mediocrity and unvetted apps could contain unwelcome surprises.
The iPhone and its software are more tightly integrated and make for cooler products and a better experience, and its applications are likely to work better. Like Windows, Android is likely to be widely adopted into other cellphones and portable media players (à la the iPhone’s OS on the iPod Touch). As more and more devices adopt Android, iPhone’s advantage, influence and importance, even with a 10-million-unit head start, could begin to erode as Apple’s PC share did in the early 1990s.
But in this version of the battle, Apple holds a key advantage: iTunes.
It’s the Content, Stupid
Apple wasn’t in the content business in the 1980s, and Steve Jobs wasn’t the largest shareholder of one of the industry’s largest media conglomerates. Today, iTunes is the Wal-Mart of the downloadable music and video business. Numerous concerted attempts have been made by the most powerful players in Hollywood and Silicon Valley to topple iTunes, and all have failed miserably. Remember PlaysForSure?
Amazon will be Google’s content partner for DRM-free music and video. Amazon’s library doesn’t match iTunes (yet), and it’s unlikely to get ABC or ESPN television or Disney movie content, but it’s not that hard to see how Amazon/Android could chew a sizable chunk out of iTunes’ content hegemony in a year or two, though it’s doubtful they could really challenge Apple as the leader in the field.
But it’s also easy to see how this could all go horribly wrong for Google, even if Apple does nothing.
It’s the Desktop Application, Stupid
Google’s first problem is iTunes — not the online store, the desktop software. Online store, media manager and sync, all in one application. Astoundingly, there is no analogous Android desktop app. Consumers can cruise Amazon and download music and movies to their heart’s content, but how do they get everything on and off their Android device? (And don’t tell me all the music and movies you buy on the phone will stay on the phone — even Apple isn’t that restrictive.)
Yes, there’s Windows Media Player, or G1 owners can use some the other third-party media management application. Beyond that, you can drag and drop. But the mass market craves ease of use, and that would be the mass market Android needs to attract to just level the playing field with the iPhone. Relying completely on imperfect existing third-party applications instead of a tailored Android application that integrates Amazon’s music and video offerings, isn’t just plain dumb, it’s a horribly missed opportunity for both Amazon and Google.
It’s the Carrier, Stupid
Android’s second challenge is its initial carrier partner. T-Mobile has around 30 million subscribers, less than half as many as AT&T, which shrinks the G1’s potential customer base. Plus, to download music and especially video content right to the phone you’ll need 3G service. T-Mobile will have 27 3G markets up and running by year’s end. AT&T has more than 300 3G markets.
Of course, Android phones won’t be ghettoized at T-Mobile. Sprint will have its own Android phone sometime next year. But Verizon has committed itself to the Linux LiMo cellphone OS. Splitting the market, with the two smallest carriers carrying Android phones and the two largest carrying phones with a different cell OS, divides the marketplace to Apple’s advantage.
It’s the Competition, Stupid
Third, because Android is open, there’s nothing to stop other online media moguls — Rhapsody, Napster, Pandora, Netflix, et al. — from creating their own access and player applications for Android. So instead of Apple facing two monolithic and dangerous competitors in Google and Amazon, Apple will continue to face the existing unruly and uncoordinated mob of iTunes competitors. As usual, united they aren’t, so divided they’ll fail, which puts us right back where we started: Apple continuing to dominate.
And this is all assuming Apple does nothing. Yeah, this is going to be fun.
nokia 96 verse iphone 3g
We realise that we have been going on and on about the iPhone and the Nokia N96, but thats all what we can do since this is our job and specially when the two iconic phones launched together in the same week in India.
Price Comparision:
The Nokia N96 will cost you around Rs. 36,000 while the Apple iPhone 3G with 8GB memory will cost Rs. 31000 and 16GB about Rs. 36,100. On price points even though they are hugely expensive we give them equal rank.
SMS Forwarding, FM Radio:
These two features are the darling of any mobile phone user in India. Since Texting messaging is really cheap in this part of the world forwarding SMSes is a very normal thing for all users. FM Radio is the life of people whilst traveling this is your one source of entertainment on the roads of the Indian metro cities. The lack of both these features on the iPhone is a big minus as far as its Indian market is concerned.
Battery Life:
Nokia N96 wins on this hands down. There have been lots of problems with the battery drainage of the Apple iPhone and these don’t seem to stop. You will have to charge your phone everyday or twice a day for that matter if you are a heavy user.
GPS:
This is not a huge factor for the Indian market, but still a talking point. On the GPS front Nokia again wins this pretty easily.
Video Calling:
Video calling is not possible on the iPhone and the Nokia N96 is pretty good at it.
Data Transfer and Bluetooth usage:
A major , major talking point regarding the iPhone. The bluetooth on the iPhone can only be used for hands-free calling. No data transfer allowed between handsets or even with a computer with bluetooth enabled.
Storage:
You thought the storage factor will play in for the iPhone ? That isn’t true. The Nokia N96 comes with 16GB of internal storage plus you have the luxury of adding a 8GB memory card giving you a whopping storage of 24GB. The iPhone again loses here.
Design:
There is no beating the iPhone, as simple as that!
All in all, if you are looking for more bang for the buck, go for the Nokia N96. Lookwise and as a fashion symbol, we still say there is no beating the iPhone!
free iphone – Nokia to launch iPhone killer in October
A mobile expected to be a rival to the iPhone is to be released by Nokia in the UK in October.
The Finnish manufacturer clearly has an eye on the lucrative Christmas market and will hope that the new N96 will prove to be as big a success as its predecessor the N95.
The N95’s appeal rested on powerful internet access, Wi-Fi connectivity, and a five megapixel camera.
An impressive 16MB of internal memory, a 5MP camera and access to assisted GPS navigation through Nokia Maps will all be strong selling points for its sequel.
Unlike the iPhone though, it won’t have a touchscreen meaning that rumours that such a Nokia device (nicknamed the Tube by imaginative bloggers) is in the pipeline will still persist.
Samsung, LG and HTC have all jumped on the touchscreen phone bandwagon with much publicity this summer and surely it is only a matter of time before market giant Nokia follows suit.
Until that day arrives, Nokia has confirmed that the N96 will be available to buy through 3, Carphone Warehouse, Phones4U, Orange, T-Mobile and Vodafone.
Nokia is fighting a sales war with the iPhone’s maker Apple on several fronts. Earlier this month it fixed its guns on Apple’s iTunes service by agreeing a deal with Warner (the company that has Madonna, James Blunt and REM on its roster) to offer unlimited music downloads.
Comes With Music is distinct from other services in that users can keep all the music they have downloaded during a 12-month free trial period.
Nokia has already snapped up big music players Universal and Sony BMG and such deals should ensure that smaller companies come on board soon.
The new deals make good business sense for the major record companies who are looking to prop up falling CD sales and will be wise to the fact that Nokia managed to flog 146 million music phones last year, providing a captive audience for Comes With Music.
It’s tough to kill an Apple iPhone 3G
We put this faster version of the iPhone, released Friday in the United States, through dropping, scratching, and dunking tests, and the device performed like a champ. In fact, it wouldn’t knuckle under until we ran it over with a motorcycle.
In PC World’s second annual battery of iPhone Stress Tests our 3G iPhone test unit withstood a serious beating from keys, breakfast cereal, water, dish soap, and city sidewalks.
Only a renegade videographer on a motorcycle was able to render it fully non-operational–and even then, its battery kept on ticking. In fact, several hours after these event, its splintered screen was still glowing.
Testing Methodology
The first test involved placing the iPhone in a plastic bag with two sets of keys and jostling it around like 3G Shake ‘N’ Bake. This is designed to simulate what might happen to the phone as it rattles around in your pocket or purse. The iPhone’s screen, plastic backing, and ridges emerged relatively pristine from this test.
Next, we turned up the heat a bit, applying pressure to rub the keys on the iPhone’s screen and backing. Again, the iPhone looked as good as new after that more rigorous key-scratch test. It wasn’t until we removed the plastic bag completely from the equation and took a key to the screen and backing of the phone that we saw any tangible damage–and that was only to the foil-like Apple logo on the back of the handset.
Liquids Attack
Froot Loops and milk are also no match for this handset. After dropping the iPhone in a bowl of delicious cereal–not once, but twice–the phone was fully operational, even before towelling it off. When washed in a sink with lukewarm water and generic hand soap, the iPhone also came out unscathed… and smelling great.
Alas, chinks in the 3G iPhone’s armor developed with the onset of our drop tests. The first drop produced a small nick in the beautiful 3.5-inch touchscreen (as well as the appearance of internal condensation, presumably from the cereal/water tests), as well as scuffing and dents on the treated plastic backing.
iPhone 3G Finally Cracks
Subsequent drops chipped away at the screen, producing a spider-web-like matrix of cracks by about the 5th drop. The touchscreen, iPhone’s 480-by-320-pixel trademark visage, no longer responded to human touch. And then there was that unfortunate motorcycle event.
Of course, this test follows directly in the footsteps of last year’s masterpiece, starring the first version of the iPhone and Senior Associate Editor Eric Butterfield.
In these tests, we were unable to render the iPhone useless, but we didn’t stoop to (literally) driving it into the ground as we did today. The iPhone’s gotten tougher–but so have we.
Apple’s 3G iPhone 2 Better Chance Against BlackBerry
Apple’s just-announced 3G iPhone 2 has the potential of becoming a stronger competitor in the business market against Research In Motion (NSDQ: RIMM)’s popular BlackBerry, and could weaken the impact of Google (NSDQ: GOOG)’s initiative to build an open source operating system for smartphones, experts said Tuesday.
Apple chief executive Steve Jobs introduced the latest version of the iPhone on Monday at the company’s Worldwide Developers Conference in San Francisco. With support for carriers’ 3G, high-speed wireless networks, third-party applications, a number of security protocols, and Microsoft (NSDQ: MSFT)’s Exchange e-mail server, the new iPhone has what it needs to appease enterprise customers, experts said.
“This could enable Apple to challenge the BlackBerry market more aggressively,” Fareena Sultan, digital marketing professor at Northeastern University, said in an e-mail. “Also, more third-party applications could help soften the impact of the Android initiative from Google and the Open Handset Alliance.”
Gloria Barczak, chair of the marketing department at Northeastern’s business school, agreed. “Apple’s announcement of the iPhone 2.0 with 3G technology and GPS [global positioning system] are certainly the right moves to gain market share in the enterprise market.”
In addition, Apple’s decision to drop the price of the base model of the iPhone to $199 from $399 is expected to boost demand in the enterprise, as well as with consumers. “This lower price now puts the iPhone in reach of many more people,” Barczak said. “Together, these three enhancements will help to build overall demand for the iPhone and the product category of smartphones and puts even more pressure on iPhone imitators and competitors.”
The BlackBerry is the leading smartphone among businesspeople. The iPhone, however, has made gains in the market, but remains a relatively small player.
J. Gerry Purdy, chief analyst for mobile and wireless at consulting and analyst firm Frost & Sullivan, said the new iPhone reflects a business shift for Apple from offering high-priced units and sharing revenue with carriers to delivering low-priced devices that support the company’s paid online services, such as the new MobileMe, also launched at WWDC.
“With iPhone App Store now coming to market along with MobileMe, Apple uses their new 3G iPhone as a services platform,” Purdy said in an e-mail.
Apple plans to release the latest iPhone on July 11. The company expects to make it available in 70 countries this year.