In article <8v6tpj-6p2m2.ln1@hergen.spdns.de>, Hergen Lehmann
<hlehmann.expires.12-22@snafu.de> wrote:

> >>> As to "the consumer has rejected it", phones with integrated computers
> >>> of some sort existed before the iPhone and were largely rejected by
> >>> consumers are large.
> >>
> >> Being from Finland, I'd like to point out that this view is a bit
> >> US-centric.
> >
> > it is not.
>
> It is.

it is not. symbian phones were available worldwide, and they did not
sell in appreciable numbers..

> >> Nokia had their Symbian smartphones (first models came out
> >> in 2001), they just didn't in the end succeed against Apple and Google.
> >
> > that's because they weren't very good. in other words, consumers
> > rejected it.
>
> They were actually quite reasonable for was possible around the turn of
> the millennium.

perhaps so, but that doesn't mean they were any good. they weren't.

> And no, consumers did NOT reject them.

they did not sell well, so yes consumers did reject them.

> Some early Nokia
> computer/phone combos were actually quite popular here in Europe, for
> example, all technology-affine management guys used to have a Nokia
> Communicator at some point.
>
> In the end, it was three factors which killed Nokia:

really just one: it wasn't anywhere near as good as iphone and android.

> 1. They were too early.

that's not a flaw.

> The technology was still too expensive for the
> average customer and the mobile networks not ready for large-scale data
> usage.

wifi.

> Syncing appointments and receiving/sending text-only eMail were
> basically the only reasonable over-the-air functionality.

which could be done on a flipper.

> Not because
> the devices didn't provide a browser and installable Apps (they did,
> starting with Symbian), but because data transmission was just WAY too
> slow and expensive.

the browser and third party apps were not particularly good and
comparatively expensive, most apps in the iphone app store were free,
and of the paid apps, they were a buck or two. it was also *much*
easier to write ios apps, especially since code could be shared from
the mac.

> 2. Nokia had far less marketing power than Apple and Google (especially
> outside of europe) and used it poorly. When Apple started aggressively
> marketing the iPhone, Nokia just reclined on their leading position in
> the European market.

that's because they knew they didn't have anything that could come
close to the iphone and android.

people wanted iphones and android phones. the products sold themselves.

> 3. The phone branch of Nokia was ultimately bought by Microsoft, which
> immediate stopped all improvement on Symbian in favor of the Mega-Flop
> called Windows Mobile.

true.

Am 06.08.23 um 20:08 schrieb nospam:

> it is not. symbian phones were available worldwide, and they did not
> sell in appreciable numbers..

Thanks for confirming your *very* US-centric view. ^_-
Nokia was actually No.1 in Europe in the early 2000s...

>> They were actually quite reasonable for was possible around the turn of
>> the millennium.
>
> perhaps so, but that doesn't mean they were any good. they weren't.

A handy little device with expandable software and mobile network
connectivity was absolutely stunning in the late 90s, were phones used
to be phones, PDAs used to be offline devices with limited software and
Laptops used to be heavy and bulky.

But these early smartphones were pretty expensive and of limited use due
to the lack of fast mobile data networks, which limited the target
audience very much (basically, only tech geeks and management guys).

>> In the end, it was three factors which killed Nokia:
>
> really just one: it wasn't anywhere near as good as iphone and android.

Oh, come on. You really want to compare products, which were developed
more than 10 years apart?

And: The first iPhone wasn't really that good either. Tiny screen, no
support for the state-of-the-art network technology of the time (UMTS),
only available in conjunction with an expensive "exclusive" phone
contract, very little software available in the store in the beginning.

The design was fancy and the marketing was superb, that's all.

>> 1. They were too early.
>
> that's not a flaw.

It is, because after many years of a niche presence, the product line
was accursed from the management perspective and they failed to invest
again, when it was necessary to do so.

>> The technology was still too expensive for the
>> average customer and the mobile networks not ready for large-scale data
>> usage.
>
> wifi.

The main selling point for a smartphone is mobility, and public WIFI was
almost non-existent back then.

>> Not because
>> the devices didn't provide a browser and installable Apps (they did,
>> starting with Symbian), but because data transmission was just WAY too
>> slow and expensive.
>
> the browser and third party apps were not particularly good and
> comparatively expensive,

The browser of the first iPhone wasn't particularly good and usable
either. It took a few years for the screen sizes to grow bigger and for
the web sites to adapt to mobile devices.

> most apps in the iphone app store were free, and of the paid apps, they were a buck or two.

The situation in the symbian store wasn't really that different.
Most of it was cheap. There were a few more expensive apps, but these
were either selling premium content (e.g. offline maps) or were targeted
toward big enterprises (mobile office).

> it was also *much*
> easier to write ios apps, especially since code could be shared from
> the mac.

True. Symbian tried to follow up by switching from a proprietary API
towards QT, but this did not gain enough momentum, before MS killed
everything.

>> 2. Nokia had far less marketing power than Apple and Google (especially
>> outside of europe) and used it poorly. When Apple started aggressively
>> marketing the iPhone, Nokia just reclined on their leading position in
>> the European market.
>
> that's because they knew they didn't have anything that could come
> close to the iphone and android.

They actually had some pretty competitive devices back then, but they
failed to push them in time and improve upon them.

I remember having a Nokia 5800 at the time, which isn't really that far
away from the first iPhone Generation feature-wise. There was also the
N95/N96 Series, with a slider design, but again pretty much the same
feature set as the iPhone.

Alan <nuh-uh@nope.com> wrote:

> On 2023-08-03 21:23, Charles Jack Jones wrote:
>> To own an Apple product is to be p'owned by Apple because nothing
>> works unless you're logged into Apple servers 24/7/365 due to the
>> walled garden.
>
> Bzzzzt.
> Wrong.

(I assume we're still talking about phones)

Can applications be installed on iOS from anywhere else except that one
App Store, with a heavy Apple tax on it? Yep, that's a walled garden.

Sideloading is really a quite marginal thing on Apples, as you have to
completely jailbreak the phone (TestFlight only covers official Apple
developer beta programs).

In a sense iOS and Android are Scylla and Charybdis: either you are
totally owned and made to pay through the nose, or all your personal
data gets extracted and exploited by the highest advertising bidder.

PS. I use neither, but Sailfish, unfortunately it looks like Jolla may
be about to go under.
--
/* * * Otto J. Makela <om@iki.fi> * * * * * * * * * */
/* Phone: +358 40 765 5772, ICBM: N 60 10' E 24 55' */
/* Mail: Mechelininkatu 26 B 27, FI-00100 Helsinki */
/* * * Computers Rule 01001111 01001011 * * * * * * */

On 2023-08-08 07:32, Otto J. Makela wrote:
> Can applications be installed on iOS from anywhere else except that one
> App Store, with a heavy Apple tax on it? Yep, that's a walled garden.

If it were a walled garden, it would not be anywhere as popular as it
is. Indeed, iPhone took off when they let 3rd party developers in to the
eco system.

If it were a walled garden, 3rd party mail and message apps would not be
allowed.

Etc. and so on.

> Sideloading is really a quite marginal thing on Apples, as you have to
> completely jailbreak the phone (TestFlight only covers official Apple
> developer beta programs).

Sideloading is also the best way to make a phone more vulnerable to malware.
I'd much rather an app pass the Apple gauntlet into the App Store.

--
“If you torture the data long enough, it will confess to anything."
-Ronald Coase

Alan Browne <bitbucket@blackhole.com> wrote:

> On 2023-08-08 07:32, Otto J. Makela wrote:
>> Can applications be installed on iOS from anywhere else except that one
>> App Store, with a heavy Apple tax on it? Yep, that's a walled garden.
>
> If it were a walled garden, it would not be anywhere as popular as it
> is. Indeed, iPhone took off when they let 3rd party developers in to
> the eco system.
>
> If it were a walled garden, 3rd party mail and message apps would not
> be allowed.
>
> Etc. and so on.

You seem to be working from a different definition of a "walled garden"
than what is commonly understood. This page gives iOS as an example:

Some examples of walled gardens include: [...] Apple iOS and
other mobile devices, which are restricted to running
pre-approved applications from a digital distribution service.
-- https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Closed_platform

>> Sideloading is really a quite marginal thing on Apples, as you have
>> to completely jailbreak the phone (TestFlight only covers official
>> Apple developer beta programs).
>
> Sideloading is also the best way to make a phone more vulnerable to malware.
> I'd much rather an app pass the Apple gauntlet into the App Store.

"Not only do I deny these chains exist, I also enjoy them so much!"
--
/* * * Otto J. Makela <om@iki.fi> * * * * * * * * * */
/* Phone: +358 40 765 5772, ICBM: N 60 10' E 24 55' */
/* Mail: Mechelininkatu 26 B 27, FI-00100 Helsinki */
/* * * Computers Rule 01001111 01001011 * * * * * * */

On 2023-08-08 09:02, Otto J. Makela wrote:
> Alan Browne <bitbucket@blackhole.com> wrote:
>
>> On 2023-08-08 07:32, Otto J. Makela wrote:
>>> Can applications be installed on iOS from anywhere else except that one
>>> App Store, with a heavy Apple tax on it? Yep, that's a walled garden.
>>
>> If it were a walled garden, it would not be anywhere as popular as it
>> is. Indeed, iPhone took off when they let 3rd party developers in to
>> the eco system.
>>
>> If it were a walled garden, 3rd party mail and message apps would not
>> be allowed.
>>
>> Etc. and so on.
>
> You seem to be working from a different definition of a "walled garden"
> than what is commonly understood. This page gives iOS as an example:
>
> Some examples of walled gardens include: [...] Apple iOS and
> other mobile devices, which are restricted to running
> pre-approved applications from a digital distribution service.
> -- https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Closed_platform

It's a bad definition of a walled garden. Perhaps I better go in there
and fix that.

The AOL example is much more on point.

--
“If you torture the data long enough, it will confess to anything."
-Ronald Coase

In article <87sf8tn51p.fsf@tigger.extechop.net>, Otto J. Makela
<om@iki.fi> wrote:

>
> Can applications be installed on iOS from anywhere else except that one
> App Store, with a heavy Apple tax on it?

yes, and there is no 'heavy apple tax'. it's the same fee as google,
microsoft and other app stores, for services rendered by the store.

> Yep, that's a walled garden.

nope. the only walls are self-imposed, largely out of ignorance.

> Sideloading is really a quite marginal thing on Apples, as you have to
> completely jailbreak the phone (TestFlight only covers official Apple
> developer beta programs).

nope.

On 8/8/2023, nospam wrote:

>> Yep, that's a walled garden.
>
> nope. the only walls are self-imposed, largely out of ignorance.

The walled garden is everywhere on an Apple iPhone, but it starts with
restricting users to the app store which nospam will claim that you can use
a series of temporary two-day classic Apple clusterfucks to override.

Another example of teh walled garden is trying to use any messenger app as
your default messenger - you can't. Why not? Walled garden.

Another example is trying to organize your homescreen the way you want it.
You can't. Why not? Walled garden.

Almost everything you try to do on an iPhone that you easily do every day
on Android can't be done on iOS. Why not? Walled garden.

On 8/8/2023, Alan Browne wrote:

> If it were a walled garden, 3rd party mail and message apps would not be
> allowed.

For some reason you forgot to mention the third-party default messenger.

On 8/8/2023, Otto J. Makela wrote:

> Can applications be installed on iOS from anywhere else except that one
> App Store, with a heavy Apple tax on it? Yep, that's a walled garden.

Oh, the walled garden is much worse than that.

Do you know that on Android you can install an app and the APK can be saved
or extracted so that you can install that same app & version on any other
Android phone in the world (mostly)?

Do you know why you can't do that with iOS?

The walled garden inserts a unique id into every app you install such that
you have to be logged into that account just to install that app on any
other iPhone.

Now why do you think Apple inserts a unique-to-you ID into every app (even
every free app) and NO OTHER OPERATING SYSTEM does that?

Answer = walled garden

On 2023-08-10 12:30, Falafel Balls wrote:
> On 8/8/2023, nospam wrote:
>

>> nope. the only walls are self-imposed, largely out of ignorance.
>
> The walled garden is everywhere on an Apple iPhone

Not at all. If it were a walled garden it would not have third party
apps, competing messaging, competing e-mail, competing browsers, etc.
and so on, not to mention 3rd party hardware suppliers.

No walled garden at all. But keep up the lies - Donald may be looking
for people qualified to work for him - and you will fit the bill perfectly.

--
“If you torture the data long enough, it will confess to anything."
-Ronald Coase

On Thu, 10 Aug 2023 12:55:40 -0400, Alan Browne wrote:
> Not at all. If it were a walled garden it would not have third party
> apps, competing messaging, competing e-mail, competing browsers, etc.
> and so on, not to mention 3rd party hardware suppliers.

I disagree. Apple has ultimate control over all but the most trivial
of hardware (screen protectors and cases) via their MFi program which
requires Apple licensed hardware and software to authenticate most
accessories.

Similarly they require all software to be digitally signed and
authenticated by a digital certificate authority they control and
loaded via their App Store platform or their XCode development tools.
To do this requires an Apple ID that is associated with a developer
account and in almost all cases a paid subscription attached to that
developer account.

If it isn't a wall, it is certainly quite a moat.

At the end of the day nothing in the ecosystem competes with Apple.
They'd love nothing more than for you to buy "third party" provided
products -- they get paid when you do!

--
"The avalanche has started, it is too late for the pebbles to vote."
--Kosh

On 10/8/2023, Alan Browne wrote:

> No walled garden at all.

You've never read anything about Apple in the news, yet in the news
everyone has for years discussed the walled garden which you don't see.

https://www.fool.com/investing/2023/07/01/unveiling-the-dark-side-of-apples-walled-garden/
https://www.computerworld.com/article/3682761/apple-looks-poised-to-open-its-walled-garden-in-2023.html
https://www.marketwatch.com/story/apple-has-spent-decades-building-its-walled-garden-it-may-be-starting-to-crack-11651762698
https://www.theverge.com/2021/6/7/22521476/apple-walled-garden-carrier-app-store-innovation
https://milkeninstitute.org/article/apple-walled-garden-tech-digest
https://slate.com/technology/2021/06/apple-wwdc-ios15-new-features-walled-garden.html
https://www.tomsguide.com/opinion/apples-walled-garden-is-crumbling-right-before-our-eyes
https://medium.com/geekculture/apple-ecosystem-the-walled-garden-9f07644367be
https://www.bloomberg.com/news/features/2023-07-11/switching-from-iphone-to-android-is-a-data-transfer-hell
https://arstechnica.com/gaming/2023/04/apples-ios-walled-garden-doesnt-break-antitrust-laws-appeals-court-affirms/

Nobody on the planet, except you, has claimed there isn't a walled garden.
But you've shown you've never read news about Apple so what do you know?

Alan Browne <bitbucket@blackhole.com> wrote:

> On 2023-08-08 09:02, Otto J. Makela wrote:

>> You seem to be working from a different definition of a "walled
>> garden" than what is commonly understood. This page gives iOS as
>> an example:
>> Some examples of walled gardens include: [...] Apple iOS and
>> other mobile devices, which are restricted to running
>> pre-approved applications from a digital distribution service.
>> -- https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Closed_platform
>
> It's a bad definition of a walled garden. Perhaps I better go in
> there and fix that.

You are free to hold your opinion, but this is what is commonly
understood by the term "walled garden".

Various companies have used wall gardens in the past, including:
[...] Apple: iOS and its mobile devices restrict users from running
unapproved applications from a digital distribution service.
-- https://www.techslang.com/definition/what-is-a-walled-garden/

Apple's App Store is a prime example of the use of a walled
garden. While the store boasts the ability for users to
download more than 2.2 million apps onto their Apple
smartphones and tablets, users cannot access applications
that do not meet Apple's stringent standards.
-- https://www.techtarget.com/searchsecurity/definition/walled-garden

In 2007, Apple's iPhone was a walled garden with a basic set
of applications. Soon after, Apple opened the iPhone,
encouraging third-party developers to write apps as long as
they were approved by Apple. Thus, the wall was broken, but
not entirely, because Apple can disapprove any app that is
submitted to its online store (see jailbreaking).
-- https://www.pcmag.com/encyclopedia/term/walled-garden
--
/* * * Otto J. Makela <om@iki.fi> * * * * * * * * * */
/* Phone: +358 40 765 5772, ICBM: N 60 10' E 24 55' */
/* Mail: Mechelininkatu 26 B 27, FI-00100 Helsinki */
/* * * Computers Rule 01001111 01001011 * * * * * * */

On 2023-08-14 03:37, Otto J. Makela wrote:
> Alan Browne <bitbucket@blackhole.com> wrote:
>
>> On 2023-08-08 09:02, Otto J. Makela wrote:
>
>>> You seem to be working from a different definition of a "walled
>>> garden" than what is commonly understood. This page gives iOS as
>>> an example:
>>> Some examples of walled gardens include: [...] Apple iOS and
>>> other mobile devices, which are restricted to running
>>> pre-approved applications from a digital distribution service.
>>> -- https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Closed_platform
>>
>> It's a bad definition of a walled garden. Perhaps I better go in
>> there and fix that.
>
> You are free to hold your opinion, but this is what is commonly
> understood by the term "walled garden".

Applying broadbrushes to a particular case doesn't make it fit.

A walled garden is airtight.

Yet iOS permits 3rd party apps including mail, messaging, browsers,
maps, and so on and so forth. It allows communications that Apple does
not know about.

The sole thing the "walled garden" accusers can hang their hat on is the
requirement that apps go through the Apple App Store.

And I cheer that requirement as a lot of malware prevention happens due
to that.

If that's too much to bear, go with Android and "be happy".

Of course the seamless integration between various devices that Apple
users take for granted is not available other than in narrow cases
requiring users setups and/or devices from a particular vendor such as
Samsung - and even then it's nowhere as broad as it is with Apple.

--
“If you torture the data long enough, it will confess to anything."
-Ronald Coase