Apple's iPhone *was* really a one of a kind product, which it does deserve credit for that, and so it has a large market base now.

But, now that Google is out with an as-good-if-not-better product, which isn't closed like the iPhone, it will overtake Apple.

Think of iPhone to Android in the relationship of Mac to PC. The MAC may have been a "better" computer, but with the closed proprietary way they are, they are not as popular as the PC.

ONE company makes iPhone and that is Apple. Dozens if not hundreds of manufactures make Android-based phones, and probably all carriers support an Android-based phones.

That doesn't make the iPhone "bad", but it will slowly sink into the same niche market that Macs are in today.

IMO of course.

So the next Android phone coming out this summer will be better than what Apple released 7 dog years ago?

Will it be better than what Apple is expected to have in stores in 2 weeks?

From the early info, it seems that the new iPhone will have a better screen than any current Android phone, higher resolution touch sensor, better color using LED screens than the current generation OLED screens, far better battery life thanks to using new battery technology, and a few other things.

What Android has going for it is access to apps from anyone without restriction including malware-containing ditto, that will hopefully be possible to fend off with Android OS antivirus and antiworm apps updated frequently.

Android demos showing Flash sites managed to crash the OS before finding a few sites where videos could be shown, alas with a battery suck that generated howls on the Android forum.

One major online ad network just showed that since the iPad's introduction, the number of ads served to desktop and notebook Macs had increased to about 15% of the overall, while Windows had dropped to 79%.

This over about 1 billion ads served, seeming to indicate that the iPad has had the same halo effect as the iPod did.

In other news this week, Wall Street Journal reported that web designers are now being told by clients to get rid of Flash, so that their web sites won't be inaccessible to iPads and iPhones.

Google isn't pushing Flash (they're pushing HTML5 and VP8, the latter which is now amassing a licensable patent portfolio from MPEG-LA), so they don't care, and the CEO of ARM (mobile CPU manufacturer) said recently that Adobe had failed to release a usable mobile Flash implementation.

The real loser in all of this is Microsoft. Ballmer had said he wanted to collect $6-8 per handset from 70-80% of the market, but they currently have 6.7% market share, and when they release their next Windows Mobile around New Year, I don't see why any handset vendors would even take their phone calls, considering they can get Android for $0.00 (Google will make money by reading your e-mail and the web pages you visit, to serve you "ads with related content," so if a friend forwards you an e-mail from MoveOn, you'll be bombarded with ads from the DNC...).

Will Microsoft's shareholders keep Ballmer around? I don't see how he could even last through the end of the year, perhaps not even the summer.

In the meantime, I am very happy that the iPhone finally got some real competition to keep Apple on its toes.

But anyone who thinks that Apple has been outmaneuvered by Google better not bet their own money...

Too many Google OS phones with various versions of the operating system.I haven't seen anything that convinces me to switch from my iPhone. As stated, competition is a good thing and I don't necessarily like Google knowing everything about me, and you know they will.

I don't think iPhone fans are the target audience. Whether the iPhone (4.0) is marginally better than the Android (2.2) is mostly immaterial. The fact of the matter is that the iPhone was orders of magnitude better than the next best phone up until Android. While there are tons of iPhone fans that won't switch to Android, the smartphone market is only starting to be tapped, and all of the folks on the sidelines now have a choice. Unless Apple pulls some serious, serious magic out of the hat, we'll be jumping into the smartphone market this summer on the Android side, simply because I refuse to be an AT&T customer. I can forgive Apple's overly tight control of the phone & apps, but I can't abide by a crappy network. Apple is going to miss out on A LOT of customers by continuing their exclusive deal with AT&T.

Apple may or may not have the superior phone once the update dust settles, but I think Google will have the numbers/customers advantage in relatively short order.

If Apple wants to be top dog they are going to have to provide the iPhone to other carriers. Sooner or later most people hate their phone service supplier. What gets me are what appears to be deliberate hold backs by Apple. For example the camera. Each model brings a few more features. The first iPhone should have had video capability. Like they are feeding you a few table scraps to keep you from starving. I jumped in with the 3GS because that was the first one worth buying and I paid $200. The fact that the iPad doesn't have a front facing video camera is ridiculous. Right off that causes me to not buy one.

The rumors of a CDMA iPhone are getting stronger, this could indicate either a different carrier here or something abroad.

Interestingly AT&T has cut the upgrade time for many subscribers to allow them to upgrade to the new iPhone in 2 weeks.

I would guess that AT&T is allowing the quicker upgrade so you have the 2 year contract hanging over your head when it becomes available to Verizon in 2011. AT&T just upped their ETF.

Yeah, I think you're right about that.

What I would like to understand is how come AT&T hasn't been able to fix their coverage in NYC and SFO?

Are they being cheap, or did the other carriers do a buyout of all the roof tops?

I like the way the apple silhouette on the laptop case lights up, do you think the new iPhone will have that? I hope so, I'm all excited.

PC's don't have that! Neener, neener, neener.

Note: This is just a parody, stand down the missiles.

"What I would like to understand is how come AT&T hasn't been able to fix their coverage in NYC and SFO?" gee, coursedesign, you should know why being a network guy! ;-)

There are only a few Oled manufacturers, and fewer patent holders..... and Apple is not one of them, so where is the royalty fees for the rumored 24 million screens>\? I guess Free for Apple, like all the other IP "issues"?

The iPhone certainly is a wonderful product, and I'm sure iPhone 4.0 will be great too, no doubt about that.

The thing that needs to be understood is that the Android based phones are coming on strong, and unless Apple opens up a bit they will be overtaken in the market just like their Macs have been overtaken by PC's.

If the original computer market was simply let's say Apple vs IBM PC, then Apple would have had a chance to be "THE" computer. But Microsoft was smart and licensed their OS to whoever wanted to build a clone, so now you have hundreds of manufactures building PC's and which OS do they sell with it? The only one they can, Windows. Is Windows "better" than the Mac OS? It doesn't even matter if it's better, it's the only choice all these other companies have to use. (don't start on Unix, you get my point I hope)

Anyway, I see the same thing happening with iPhone vs Android.

And I believe, not sure, that Google gives the license to all these phone-makers for free. So who do you think they're going to choose?

Apple is already in the process of bring advertisement to your phone..don't think your info won't shared.

Apple has no interest in the volume market. They make "BMWs," not mass market cars.

This is perhaps best illustrated by comparing Apple with Nokia.

Nokia sells 10 times as many phones as Apple, but Apple makes more money from their 10% than Nokia does from their 90%.

A few working-alone business analysts have suggested that Apple made a huge mistake when they didn't license their OS to anyone, and that they could have been "Microsoft" if they had done it.

Looking at it today, the top business analysts from Harvard Business School to Business Week, Forbes, etc. have hailed Steve Jobs as the #1 CEO. Apple is now the third largest company in the U.S. based on stock market valuation, and they are doing far better than Microsoft which is living off its inheritance of "desktop Windows and MS Office," a dwindling market as companies now issue MS Office only to those employees who absolutely need it, and the rest get OpenOffice or Google Docs.

Microsoft won't be able to compete with free, but Apple can, just like BMW sells $40,000 cars that don't really compete with $20,000 cars.

Microsoft won't be able to compete with free, but Apple can, just like BMW sells $40,000 cars that don't really compete with $20,000 cars.

BMW's may be "fancier" than a Honda, but I'd rather own a Honda than a BMW for the money. Now if I was super rich and money was no object, then yeah, maybe I would have few BMW's, but are they "worth" it? Not in my opinion.

(full disclosure, I have an Android phone and love it, so maybe I'm biased)

Honda makes some amazing cars and have a great racing heritage.

The same goes for BMW. I would not say one of them is "fancier" than the other overall.

And they both make cars in the same price ranges from less expensive "graduation presents" to very expensive sports cars (although the least expensive BMWs are not available in the U.S.)

Lest anyone get the wrong idea, my graduation present was continued use of my dad's WWII 1-speed bicycle.

This bicycle had large 27" wheels and ball bearings that were unmatched on consumer bikes for many many decades. I beat the school jock who had a brand new shiny sixspeed bike over a 5 mile course (that I didn't design). He just couldn't believe his eyes...

I've owned 2 BMWs, including a 1964 BMW 1800 which was the first car they made that was fun to drive (the basic hardware concepts turned into the 3.0CSi eventually), but I had to buy them myself for earned money (great deals of course :O).

I got weaned off when they lost control of their quality in the 1980s, and they also created a number of embarrassments like a 535 that was slower than the 525, because the cast iron stove up front was so ridiculously heavy.

The core problem is that Apple's whole business model is based on emptying the pockets of the gherkins, and to further the agenda of a maniacal CEO that can't move on.

Ever heard of the Pied Piper?

=======================================================
Wall Street Journal reported that web designers are now being told by clients to get rid of Flash, so that their web sites won't be inaccessible to iPads and iPhones.

Based on feel, performance and my "alignment" with company philosophy, I chose a Motorola Droid over an iPhone and I chose this Honda over a BMW Z4.

Apple is ABSOLUTELY interested in the volume market. Despite their elite appeal, they are a business in the end. I think the BMW/Honda comparison is apples & oranges. Apple is in the consumer market and while they can get away with a 10-20% premium for their "extra special" products, they can't get more than that.

You BET Apple wants to DOMINATE any market that they get into; they just choose a different path than some (Google, Microsoft). The better comparison for the smartphone market is the iPod/MP3 business, which they are definitely the dominant player. The major difference between the iPod & iPhone success is that the iPod was a vastly superior product for a much, much longer time and Apple was able to completely define & dominate the market. The iPhone has been a great success, but because they went with an AT&T exclusive deal they weren't able to get to critical mass prior to a peer competitor coming out.

The iPhone will continue to be successful & Apple will continue to make money. Even after Apple ends the AT&T exclusive deal, the iPhone will continue to be a closed system & Apple will likely be able to demand a small price premium for it. Very, very good chance, however, that Android will steal the numbers game & more app and aftermarket developers will support Android than Apple, and Google will enjoy a stronger revenue stream because of that. The iPhone will probably end up with a similar marketshare percentage as the Mac. If you think that Apple will be happy just with the noble thought that they have a superior product, you're smoking something. In the end, they are just as greedy (which isn't necessarily a bad thing) as everyone else. Domination is their goal.

"Apple ends the AT&T exclusive deal" well, the exclusive deal with att drove market interest and permitted Apple to share in service contract profits....... but the secret about profits was that Apple and att both decided when to increase phone functionality and control load on network, permitting more handicapped phones/contracts than if att was completing with another carrier. This controlled the number of failures the iphone demonstrated in use, limiting bad press. Remember how long it was before the iPhone could simply email a pic? Regardless of spin most iphones did not perform with Internet connections and simple use. The Safara browser was the best mobile one around but it was limited by hardware and carrier issues. The exclusive deal benefit Apple bottom line more (in the end) that att. But att needed an image "upgrade" which the Apple spin did well!

Even after Apple ends the AT&T exclusive deal, the iPhone will continue...

And AT&T will continue to do well with smartphones of all kinds for a while too, because as measured at 50,000 locations across the U.S. their 3G data rates are 100% faster than the others.

Now there is a battle for 4G networks; AT&T says they'll have upgrades to 14 Mbps on the way to max. 4G.

So competition is good!

(Apit, why do you think any other carrier would have done better than AT&T with the massive increase in data traffic from the iPhone? Unlike the others, AT&T at least was equipped to do data and voice simultaneously, and their data rates were twice as high, so transmissions and downloads went through in half the time.)

Even after Apple ends the AT&T exclusive deal, the iPhone will continue...

And AT&T will continue to do well with smartphones of all kinds for a while too, because as measured at 50,000 locations across the U.S. their 3G data rates are 100% faster than the others.

Now there is a battle for 4G networks; AT&T says they'll have 3G upgrades to 14 Mbps this fall on the way to max. 4G.

So competition is good!

(Apit, why do you think any other carrier would have done better than AT&T with the massive increase in data traffic from the iPhone? Unlike the others, AT&T at least was equipped to do data and voice simultaneously, and their data rates were twice as high, so transmissions and downloads went through in half the time.)

"So competition is good!"

This debacle shows the opposite. We've had NextG/4G for years, yes even the iPhones down here use it. The reason we have it is because our largely public owned carrier could invest the money to install the expensive backbones capable of carrying the traffic knowing that a ROI was guaranteed to the shareholders.

Bob.