backtop


Print 50 comment(s) - last by Cheesew1z69.. on Mar 22 at 1:39 PM

Sales of Apples iOS devices continue to soar the roof

Although some called Apple’s third generation iPad a relatively “modest” update to its popular predecessor, sales for its opening weekend were through the roof. Apple announced this afternoon that 3 million iPads since have been sold since it was officially launched on Friday morning.
 
It took the original iPad nearly three months to reach the 3 million mark, while Apple sold around 1 million iPad 2s during its first few days of availability.
 
“The new iPad is a blockbuster with three million sold?the strongest iPad launch yet,” said Philip Schiller, Apple SVP of Worldwide Marketing. “Customers are loving the incredible new features of iPad, including the stunning Retina display, and we can't wait to get it into the hands of even more customers around the world this Friday.”

To put those numbers into perspective, Samsung -- third place in tablet sales behind Apple and Amazon -- shipped a mere 1.5 million Android-based tablets during all of Q4 2011 according to IDC.


Sources: Apple, IDC



Comments     Threshold


This article is over a month old, voting and posting comments is disabled

RE: Stock buyback
By TakinYourPoints on 3/20/2012 5:41:48 AM , Rating: 2
You miss the point. Microsoft historically doesn't enter markets until they have been proven to work beyond a shadow of a doubt by other companies. There is a difference between iterating on prior concepts and waiting conservatively until it is "safe" to dip into the pool. Microsoft is historically a very safe company (Sinofsky is certainly bucking the trend by forcing Metro into Windows for desktops, very ballsy move).

quote:
Sony didn't invent the game console. Ever heard of Atari?


Again, MS jumped in when they saw that Sony was making a bankload on the Playstation, more than anyone thought possible at the time. It isn't about who did it first, it is about not moving until someone else has proven that there is a huge market out there.

This is different from pioneering new markets. Creating a market is something that MS doesn't do, they leave that for other companies and then they swoop in.

quote:
Since when was the iPod the first MP3 player?


It wasn't, but it showed that the market for media players done properly was much larger than anyone anticipated, hence Microsoft's eventual entry. This entry was of course late given that Apple was already finished with the PMP and moving onto smartphones.

Again, this is all about Microsoft's inherent conservatism and lack of vision. They have very talented engineers and researchers there, and whatever deficiencies MS has as a company can be blamed at the people at the top.

quote:
AHAHAHA, how hard you people still try and cling to that. Hold on, Xerox is calling me, they have something to say about this...


The Xerox Star, released three years before the Mac, has so little to do with MacOS (and consequently Windows) that it isn't even funny. Watch this and tell me that this has anything to do with how GUIs operate today: http://youtu.be/Cn4vC80Pv6Q

Here is an account from Bruce Horn who was an engineer at both Xerox and Apple: http://www.folklore.org/StoryView.py?project=Macin...

quote:
Smalltalk has no Finder, and no need for one, really. Drag-and- drop file manipulation came from the Mac group, along with many other unique concepts: resources and dual-fork files for storing layout and international information apart from code; definition procedures; drag-and-drop system extension and configuration; types and creators for files; direct manipulation editing of document, disk, and application names; redundant typed data for the clipboard; multiple views of the file system; desk accessories; and control panels, among others. The Lisa group invented some fundamental concepts as well: pull down menus, the imaging and windowing models based on QuickDraw, the clipboard, and cleanly internationalizable software.

...

As you may be gathering, the difference between the Xerox system architectures and Macintosh architecture is huge; much bigger than the difference between the Mac and Windows. It's not surprising, since Microsoft saw quite a bit of the Macintosh design (API's,sample code, etc.) during the Mac's development from 1981 to 1984; the intention was to help them write applications for the Mac, and it also gave their system designers a template from which to design Windows. In contrast, the Mac and Lisa designers had to invent their own architectures. Of course, there were some ex- Xerox people in the Lisa and Mac groups, but the design point for these machines was so different that we didn't leverage our knowledge of the Xerox systems as much as some people think.


Dragging and dropping files into folders (or folders into other folders) to move them, pull down menus, window behavior, clipboard behavior, control panels, these are all UI standards that we are still using almost thirty years later, and those standards came from MacOS, not Smalltalk or the Star. Apple took the basic idea of a visual interface and made it streamlined enough for anyone to use. To make things even more clear, Windows didn't reach parity with the 1984 MacOS for an additional six years with the release of Windows 3.0.

Cavemen banging rocks together? It'd have happened anyway with or without Microsoft. I'm not bashing on MS, Windows is a great platform, it's just that there are many other companies out there that were doing better work at the time, Microsoft just did the best job bullying their way into dominating the market. Apple may be a bully using the courts, but Microsoft directly threatened and pushed around numerous tech companies in the field. Things like threatening to pull or raise the price of licenses if vendors sold computers without Windows or with other operating systems, big difference.

Forget the Mac, the Amiga and NeXT platforms were almost a decade ahead of anything else out there in the early 90s, and ridiculously far ahead of Windows 3.1. Some people argue that Microsoft held back operating systems a decade with their technology, but they also did the right thing by running on generic x86 hardware. Right approach with inferior technology it seems. It eventually caught up in the end.

quote:
A letter?


Yeah, one I hope you read, the one where the head of Windows outlines everything Apple does right in their execution and that Microsoft needs to be doing as well. The thing is that those values never changed, they carried through their other products as well. About Microsoft Allchin said "I see lots of random features and some great vision, but that doesn’t translate onto great products", and sadly the people at the top are still not getting this in the same way that other companies are.


RE: Stock buyback
By Helbore on 3/20/2012 8:40:16 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
Windows didn't reach parity with the 1984 MacOS for an additional six years with the release of Windows 3.0.


To be fair to Microsoft, that was due to a licensing agreement they made with Apple. Microsoft agreed to not develop certain functionality into Windows in return for being allowed to develop software for the Mac.

When Microsoft released Windows 3, Apple tried to sue them copying their patented look and feel (this current spate of lawsuits is nothing new) and the judge threw out some 200 Apple patents as invalid, allowing Microsoft to continue to develop Windows beyond its original, limited form.


"And boy have we patented it!" -- Steve Jobs, Macworld 2007














botimage
Copyright 2014 DailyTech LLC. - RSS Feed | Advertise | About Us | Ethics | FAQ | Terms, Conditions & Privacy Information | Kristopher Kubicki