|
| Authored by: Anonymous on Sunday, July 21 2013 @ 09:32 AM EDT |
Android's greatest advantage is the LOW COST OF ENTRY for a
developer; Almost any Linux distro can host a freely
available software development kit.
Surface didn't have enough positive bouyancy without
applications providing an ecosystem. Microsoft, like Sony's
BetaMax, wants to get paid for every little bit of enabling
technology.
Android may be inexpensive but it is not cheap... more like
JVC's VHS portfolio (JVC, like Phillips before them, was
willing to settle for having a small chunk of a huge market
rather than 100% of a small market). Android is more like
the original PC & AT "ISA" which created a HUGE ecosystem
that IBM had a piece of; IBM's Micro-Channel, despite the
"superiority" in technology, was a mistake 'cuz IBM wanted
to profit on every little feature, which left MCA,
eventually, as an IBM-only technology. Frankly, I didn't
spend enough time looking at PCI's penetration.
Apple is also trying to monopolize their markets, and, yes,
there have been some really cool technologies that would
have flopped (or been passed by) if Jobs hadn't considered
how to package them (as much as I'd like to revile Apple for
some things, like for iTunes being necessary to manage an
iPod until Linux had banshee and rhythmbox, the PACKAGING of
the iPod technologies was a winner).
M$ doesn't have anyone enthusiastic about their products...
well, as someone commented, no one not being bribed in some
way to fake sincere enthusiasm. Microsoft, for decades, has
been about money FIRST and Second... with technology coming
in a weak Third.
Apple has been about Ego... which means that making money
gets mixed in with other ways to boost egos. (Hmmmm...
Jobs wanted to be a god rather than Gates' desire to be PAID
like a god?) Some ego boost comes from money alone, others
prefer adulation.
With Android? Like Linux, I'll bet there are enough people
who can take some pride in having lines of THEIR code within
the system, which, in my opinion, probably boosts the
overall quality of the system (but, then, I'm prejudiced).
Surface turned out to be unprofitable because they were so
desperate to make huge profits. Penny-wise, pound-foolish.
Apple survives... but, then, they are good at marketing,
aren't they?[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|
|
|
