←back to thread

Android

(www.avc.com)
168 points okeumeni | 7 comments | 16 Oct 10 16:38 UTC | HN request time: 0.678s | source | bottom
1. jawngee ◴[16 Oct 10 18:25 UTC] No.1798484[source]▶

    Windows lacked the fit and finish of the Macintosh.
    But it didn't matter. Because there were hundreds
    of Windows machines whereas there was only a few
    variations of Macintosh, all controlled by the
    same company and priced at a premium.
Windows is priced at a premium, you just don't feel it because the cost is rolled into the cost of whatever piece of kit you just bought. Is our memory so shallow as to forget the anti-trust methods that brought Windows to dominance? It wasn't because the market wanted it, it was because that's what was crammed down the throat of the market.

    And the most recent Android Foursquare build has finally
    delivered the awesome Foursquare iPhone experience to Android.
That line sort of says it all, doesn't it? How many times have you heard that the other way? "delivered the awesome Android experience to the iPhone" - yeah probably never.

I'm just bitter because I've been working on a html5 version of my site specifically for Android, and it's a major PITA. The 4 android phones I have all behave differently, the different OS versions have their own quirks and bugs. And the hardware, god the hardware! Awful.

replies(4): >>1798524 #>>1798575 #>>1798872 #>>1798887 #
2. davidw ◴[16 Oct 10 18:37 UTC] No.1798524[source]▶
> Is our memory so shallow as to forget the anti-trust methods that brought Windows to dominance? It wasn't because the market wanted it, it was because that's what was crammed down the throat of the market.

Yes, that came along eventually, but might I suggest a read of "20 years of high tech marketing disasters"? The author suggests that Microsoft came to dominate only thanks to other players in the market screwing up more than they did. IBM and Apple being amongst those who make the biggest mistakes.

And I do not say that as a Microsoft fan. Once they did get an advantage, they used it for all it was worth, to try and expand their monopoly into market sectors. That is what they were convicted of.

replies(2): >>1798624 #>>1799053 #
3. Zak ◴[16 Oct 10 18:57 UTC] No.1798575[source]▶
Windows is priced at a premium, you just don't feel it because the cost is rolled into the cost of whatever piece of kit you just bought.

As I understand it, OEM costs for Windows are a small fraction of retail. Computers offered with no OS, FreeDOS or Linux rarely cost less than the same machine with Windows. This holds true both with major manufacturers offering a choice of OS on their products and with generic laptops sold under several brand names (compare System76, which sells laptops with Linux to Sager, which sells some of the same machines with Windows). In most cases, the cost is offset by bundling trialware, so you don't actually pay for Windows at all.

4. gruseom ◴[16 Oct 10 19:15 UTC] No.1798624[source]▶
Quite right. The monopolist behavior came years after their original success, and doubtless in the minds of MS's leader(s) was no different from the scrappy competitiveness they had always practiced.

MS were smart, but also lucky in their competitors. Digital Research deserves a place of honor on your list. And most things I've read about Netscape seem like they were so afraid of being killed by MS that they killed themselves instead.

5. points ◴[16 Oct 10 21:10 UTC] No.1798872[source]▶
> " "delivered the awesome Android experience to the iPhone" - yeah probably never."

That's because the iPhone still doesn't have half the features that are standard on Android :/

6. sid0 ◴[16 Oct 10 21:17 UTC] No.1798887[source]▶
Is our memory so shallow as to forget the anti-trust methods that brought Windows to dominance?

As far as I know, no anti-trust methods brought Windows to dominance. Anti-trust methods did bring IE to dominance, however.

7. redthrowaway ◴[16 Oct 10 22:42 UTC] No.1799053[source]▶
I don't think anyone in tech can match the colossal, repeated fuckups of Xerox.