On Wednesday, 8 November 2017 at 21:02:26 UTC, Ola Fosheim
Grøstad wrote:
On Wednesday, 8 November 2017 at 17:51:45 UTC, Joakim wrote:
way to axing that line altogether. The notion that their iOS
line, which now brings in the vast majority of their profits
and revenue, is riskier is a joke.
That really depends on what you mean by risk. There is no
general correlation between high profits and low risk.
I'm not saying mobile isn't risky. It's a cutting-edge tech
business, of course it's risky. Just look at HTC, LG, and all
the other mobile vendors doing badly. However, I'd rather be in
a booming risky business rather than a declining risky business,
which is what the desktop market is and therefore riskier.
I don't know if you're trying to make me laugh with these
excuses or what.
So you don't understand that the foundation that Apple had for
building iOS takes time, not only resources. Money does not
solve all problems, but you think otherwise. Ok. I strongly
disagree.
I assume it is a goodhearted laughter you are enjoying…
I don't know why you go back to Apple, when you clearly cut out
the part of the above excuses quote where I pointed out that
_google had none of the advantages_ you think were necessary to
win mobile, yet created the OS that now ships on the most mobile
devices.
Of course it's not just a matter of money, but you were the one
who mentioned how internal resources are needed, which is belied
by the fact that google had much less. You talk about OS
expertise, all while HP has long had their own OS's, HP-UX and
later Tru64, same with Sony and the various in-house OS's they've
worked on.
You don't want to own up to the fact that google succeeded with a
lot less resources and OS expertise than the companies you claim
couldn't do it, which suggests those factors you think were so
important likely weren't. More likely, it is what I said: the
incumbents like MS or Sony just didn't foresee mobile growing so
large so fast, at least that was one of the main reasons.
