But RIM did nothing. Almost nothing. They were the healthiest competitor. They felt no pain from iPhone’s entry. The platform they had built was still growing and they were tweaking it constantly. There were always improvements to point to but fundamentally the code was limited. It was very difficult to adapt it to touch input and the first attempts at a touch UI were embarrassing. But there were no signs of a new platform that reflected the Unix-like competition.
The iPhone in 2007 and Android in 2008 forced Microsoft, Palm, and Nokia to scramble. Not RIM. RIM’s core customers were mostly enterprises. Microsoft, Palm, and Nokia had enough exposure to regular folks that when the iPhone and Android smartphones came on the market they felt it. The iPhone and Android smartphones have been slowly infiltrating the enterprise, not through massive corporate IT purchase agreements, but through individuals who want to use just one phone at home and at work.
I don’t think RIM is doomed. When it comes to smartphones RIM is more Apple like than even Apple. The hardware, BlackBerry OS, and data services are all managed by RIM. The most important competitive advantage is secure data services like email, which are encrypted and go through RIM controlled servers. That’s why RIM has been targeted by governments that desire the ability to intercept messages for reasons of national security. I put privacy at the top of the list of what’s important to me, so let’s hope RIM sticks around, does well, and more companies follow RIM’s footsteps in making our electronic communications secure especially from nosey, prying eyes.
Right now it’s the only open source mobile OS that has a chance against IOS. If there is no alternative to IOS then Apple will have exclusive control over what makes it to market. That is a future none of us should want to live in.
I like the way John Gruber puts it:
A different perspective would be that Google is the bigger threat, and that using Apple products is a way to better protect our privacy and personal information.
If there is no alternative to Android then Google will have exclusive control over what makes it to market. I just want to point to the WinTel-dominated PC market in the 1990s. It wasn’t very exciting then, and it’s not very exciting even now. Imagine a WinTel-like Android monopoly in the smartphone market. That would suck.
John Martellaro, The Mac Observer:
WWith the success of the Amazon Kindle Fire, Apple can no longer sit idly by and watch this part of the market get gobbled up by a competitor. An avalanche must be averted.
I don’t think there has been one day Apple has been idle since Steve Jobs came back to run the show in 1997. I’d bet for the foreseeable future everyone at Apple will be working as best as they can every single day. Apple will most likely upend markets, piss off incumbents, just to get us some insanely great products and services. But I don’t think a 7-inch tablet is one of them.
All the hoopla about Apple’s TV plans by The Wall Street Journal and at the end all you get is: “Apple’s plans are vague.” Ben Brooks sums it up nicely.
The explosive growth of smart phones and tablets has made high performance TFT technologies, particularly LTPS (low temperature polysilicon) and IGZO (indium gallium zinc oxide), critical to production of the high resolution displays used by these devices. These TFT technologies employ high mobility semiconductor materials, which allow panel manufacturers to shrink TFT dimensions and increase light transmission. LCDs with greater than 230 ppi (pixels per inch) resolution, such as Apple’s Retina Display, are enabled by high transmission because it minimizes power consumption, allowing mobile devices to run longer without recharging.
[...] high mobility backplane production is forecast to grow 150% from 5.6 million square meters in 2011 to 14.1 million square meters in 2012. Drivers for this tremendous growth include multiple Gen 5 and larger LTPS fabs starting production in 2012, as well as expected IGZO production on existing lines by Sharp, LG Display and Samsung.
IGZO seems to be quite promising.
[...] it’s made of a durable Lexan material that’s soft to the touch, and looks nearly as smart as leather. This isn’t a gaudy case. It reeks of purpose-built seriousness befitting Pong’s intentions. And the case not only seats the iPad 2 with a firm grip, it also includes a unique folding cover that can be be arranged in a variety of stand configurations.
But when push comes to shove, you wouldn’t spend $100 for aesthetics and a clever kickstand. You would buy the Pong case because you’re concerned about radiation exposure, and want to ensure you’re getting every bit of 3G power your iPad can muster.
I worry about radiation exposure and that’s why the computers in my home are connected to the Internet via Ethernet cables. Cables are not pretty but they are faster and more secure than wireless. There is one additional advantage: almost zero radiation exposure. The next step is to figure out a way to be reachable, but not need a cell phone. I’m not sure if this is possible, but I continue in my search. But not everyone who is worried about wireless radiation can or is willing to go without WiFi or 3G.
That’s where Pong Research comes in with its iPad 3G case, which reduces SAR levels and at the same time improves 3G power. The good folks at Pong Research is innovating in the right direction. Pong’s claims were confirmed by Cetecom, a FCC compliance testing outfit in Milpitas, Cali. A naked iPad 3G emits about 1.44 milliwatts per gram (mW/g); in a Pong case the SAR level drops to 0.445. And 3G power goes from 22.4 dBm to 16.4 in a regular case that trips the proximity sensor; the iPad runs at full power in a Pong case. If you’re worried about radiation exposure but can’t live without wireless Internet connectivity I recommend taking a serious look at cases by Pong Research.
But from my perspective, Siri’s greatest impact won’t ultimately be on users, or on device manufacturers (though they certainly risk losing market share to Apple). It will be on the TV industry’s content creators and packagers. Why? Because a voice-controlled television interface will fundamentally disrupt the six-decade-old legacy structure of networks, channels, and programs. And that’s a legacy that — until now, at least — has been carried forward from analog to digital.
Siri is like a point-to-point protocol where you get direct access to only the content you wish to view.
Apparently the bug is repeatable, booting up a multitouch game like Gun Brothers or Shadow Gun will put the lower right hand portion of the smartphone’s touchscreen in a finicky mood.
IDC:
Worldwide media tablet shipments into sales channels rose by 23.9% on a sequential basis in the third calendar quarter of 2011 (3Q11) to 18.1 million units, according to the International Data Corporation (IDC) Worldwide Quarterly Media Tablet and eReader Tracker. That represents an increase of 264.5% from the same quarter last year, but 5.8% below the original forecast of 19.2 million units. Despite these slightly lower-than-expected shipments in 3Q11, IDC sees strong demand in 4Q11 and has increased its worldwide shipment forecast for 2011 to 63.3 million units, up from a previous projection of 62.5 million units.
Apple continued to drive worldwide media tablet shipments in 3Q11. The company shipped 11.1 million units in 3Q11, up from 9.3 million units in 2Q11. That represents a 61.5% worldwide market share (down from 63.3% in 2Q11). HP entered and left the market in 3Q11 with its TouchPad product. The company shipped 903,354 units to grab a 5% share of the worldwide market, number three behind Samsung’s 5.6% market share. After IDC updated its taxonomy to move LCD-based devices such as Barnes & Noble’s Nook Color into the media tablet category, Barnes & Noble shipped 805,458 units to achieve the number four spot with a 4.5% market share. ASUS rounded out the top five with a 4% share.
This analysis is entirely wrong. Thanks to Samsung reporting shipment figures and wanting it to sound like sales to customer figures most astute readers of market data are aware of the difference between shipments into the channel and sales to customers. The big difference is inventory. Another recent example is RIM with its PlayBook: high shipment numbers, terribly low sales numbers. Yet another one is HP’s TouchPad. HP might have shipped almost one million units, but it took a drastic price slashing to actually get them into the hands of customers. Shipments into the channel and sales to customers are entirely different.
Apple does not unveil shipments into the channel; the company reports sales to customers as in people, not distributors, not retailers, actual people. So how does IDC calculate Apple shipments into the channel? It doesn’t. To IDC Apple’s shipments into the channel are the same as sales to customers. That’s absolutely wrong. To make matters worse IDC then compares Apple’s sales numbers to other company’s shipment numbers. A useless analysis.
DisplayBlog is written and produced by Jin Kim. Subscribe via RSS.