Comments on: Why other handset providers can’t catch Apple

By: modsuperstar

modsuperstar — Tue, 01 Dec 2009 22:36:38 +0000

Is the App Store available in India? That is where Apple was really able to gain traction was when people started to be able to add functionality to their phones.

By: modsuperstar

modsuperstar — Tue, 01 Dec 2009 17:36:38 +0000

Is the App Store available in India? That is where Apple was really able to gain traction was when people started to be able to add functionality to their phones.

By: Roshan

Roshan — Mon, 30 Nov 2009 17:08:19 +0000

I'm not sure about other places but the iphone has flopped in my area of India. It's not even to be seen. Nokia E series is leading and the Blackberry phones are getting some of the action. I myself am pushing BB for people that I know. One trend – people who use the Bold 9000 have become addicted to it and will not even think of another set.

By: Christine Sweeton

Christine Sweeton — Thu, 19 Nov 2009 13:34:22 +0000

http://xkcd.com/662/
Though I don't even own a cell phone let alone a touch one with Aps.

By: modsuperstar

modsuperstar — Thu, 12 Nov 2009 20:42:03 +0000

But that is essentially the point. The Samsungs, HTCs and Motorolas of the world don't have nearly the marketing clout that Apple wields. Because they are making phones that essentially blend into a marketplace crowded with similar phones, they just throw it out to market and let the carriers advertise it. While that may sell phones, you're never going to have 1 device that is going to be an iPhone killer when you let your product be marginalized by the carriers.

By: ccarmichael

ccarmichael — Thu, 12 Nov 2009 20:25:44 +0000

I would only point out that the iPhone ad is from the device manufacturer. The Rudolph ad is from the network provider/reseller. Priorities are very different. It's difficult for Verizon to justify the spend on a device-specific ad when they carry devices from multiple manufacturers, so they're left to attack their competitors instead.

BlackBerry has long been primarily an enterprise (employer-supplied) device, which historically meant that slick TV commercials weren't necessary. I don't know how much of RIM's business is now retail vs. enterprise, but I suspect it's still a much higher proportion than Apple's.

By: modsuperstar

modsuperstar — Wed, 11 Nov 2009 15:52:37 +0000

The girl in the sky with the big forehead freaks me out.

By: tlam

tlam — Wed, 11 Nov 2009 15:47:36 +0000

those Palm Pre Commercials are ridiculous…I don't see how anyone would buy a phone cuz you can notify people that you will be late by a touch on the screen. Really?

By: modsuperstar

modsuperstar — Wed, 11 Nov 2009 00:04:14 +0000

You're probably right on that aspect of things. I'm not trying to put the iPhone out there as infallible, but it's hard to deny it's reach when it comes to consumer awareness. There are other devices out there that are just as capable as the iPhone, it's just that they do a crappy job of marketing themselves in comparison with Apple. And it seems that whenever a new device comes out it's always compared to the iPhone, not the Blackberry, N97, G1, Pre or Instinct or whatever other previous handset that is on the market.

By: Danovac

Danovac — Tue, 10 Nov 2009 23:14:24 +0000

I don't know about that. At least in most other consumer products categories you measure units & dollars by brand. Smartphones would be a segment of the cell phone category. In that segment Apple is neither unit nor dollar share leader. They do have a very unique product, but I think what you are saying is that if we put up the BB Storm and the, I dunno, Android against the iPhone then Apple would “beat” that product in units/dollar sales. I'd compare this to a MagLite in the Flashlight category.