Apple’s Jony Ive, on Xiaomi’s style and products that are… “Inspired” by Apple.
There is a danger…I don’t see it as flattery. I see it as theft. (Talking about copying desings in general). When you’re doing something for the first time and you don’t know it’s going to work. I have to be honest the last thing I think is “Oh, that is flattering. All those weekends I could’ve been home with my family…I think it’s theft and lazy. I don’t think it’s OK at all.”
Xiaomi is shameless about trying to be as Apple-like as can be, and while you all know how I feel about Apple’s tendency to claim it invented and owns everything, with Xiaomi Apple certainly has a very strong point.
It is amazing how many things on the “cult list” that now applies to apple.
Violating one of the simple rules of business — if you’re on top, NEVER acknowledge the competition even exits.
Admittedly, Apple is NOT on top of the market, Android phones are… but that’s for people who don’t give a flying purple fish about the Apple kool-aid and it’s culture of mouth-breathing effete second generation money nitwits. Apple is on top of the “marketspeak” glittering generalities and culture of foppishness.
As such acknowledging that the ONLY thing that makes your products any different is being copied, actually NOT a smart move even if it’s true…
Unless of course you’re in panic mode as what little relevance you have is fading away, meaning you can’t use the “culture of idiots” to convince people you have a higher quality when you don’t, that’s worth more money when it isn’t.
Edited 2014-10-11 02:43 UTC
So how do you propose he answer the question specifically about Xiaomi? Pretend he doesn’t know who that is?
You might want to re-read he response, since he didn’t say what you imagined him to say.
I couldn’t agree more with that comment, hit the nail right on the head. His comment just comes over as very weak to me and tells me Apple has some kind of problem we don’t know about.
This is not good for Apple, they should be above this and trust that people will purchase their product anyway because it’s superior to any clone out there but I guess they don’t?
To add, he must be proud that their products were copied when he thinks it is. THat would by definition is working, instead of lambasting against competitors, they must be proud of their design as being the best in the market, if not, nobody will copy them anyway.
Xiaomi phones are the only non-Apple phones that I really like from an aesthetic point of view.
Go Xiaomi go!!!
Steve Jobs disagrees with you Jony or at least he did when Apple was still the underdog.
Yes… we all know… you don’t necessarily like theft… only theft of anything that belongs to Apple.
Many companies have stolen from Apple and got rich and powerful making derivatives of Apple tech. Were Apple to be successful in stifling those efforts, thom’s tech gear would not benefit from Apple’s improvements. His position is selfishly understandable but wrong.
I have to agree with you. It’s kind of distasteful how much Xiaomi copies Apple, but still, copying ideas — functional or audiovisual — isn’t theft and we’d all be worse off someone came up with a way of stopping that. Xiaomi has found a niche Apple wasn’t filling and that is a form of innovation, even if it basically amounts to ripping the looks of iOS and putting it on Android. They simply changed just enough to not be competing with people who want Apple’s ecosystem and instead be appealing to people who want the looks of Apple’s ecosystem, but the functionality of Android’s.
Thom here isn’t explaining the inconsistency in his remarks where he’s quite a few times said that copying a feature isn’t theft, but now all of a sudden he agrees with Apple that it is theft. I’d like to see him explaining his position.
I’m not actually agreeing with Apple, nor am I using the word “theft” anywhere (because theft has nothing to do with copying ideas). However, looking at Xiaomi’s products and style, I can *understand* Apple’s frustration here. Xiaomi takes it up several notches from Samsung.
Although, Samsung has had its Xiaomi-moments as well – het themwgacey, look at this news item you can ignore: http://www.osnews.com/story/25479/Samsung_Releases_Galaxy_3GS_Or_So… :o)
So, I don’t like “theft” (a word I have never used for any of this, by the way – it’s a word you put into my mouth), except when Apple is the victim? And you post this on a news item where I state I understand Apple’s frustration re:Xiaomi?
Do you see how little sense you’re making? How disconnected from reality?
What we’re seeing here is a classic case of you trying to solve a state of cognitive dissonance. You have this conviction in your head that Thom = anti-Apple. However, the truth is that I write more than enough positive things about Apple, but this fact, of course, creates a state of cognitive dissonance in your mind, because it does not fit into the “Thom = anti-Apple” conviction that you have.
Theory states that you now have several options to address your state of cognitive dissonance. What open-minded people generally do is assess the new facts, and alter convictions accordingly. This, however, requires much more mental energy than the simpler, less sophisticated option that you choose: you just ignore whatever I say that does not fit into your conviction. Your comment here illustrates this process so incredibly well it’d make Leon Festinger cry tears of joy.
I’ve been an Engineer for a long time and Apple is no different than Xiaomi except that Xiaomi doesn’t hide the fact where their designs come from. Apple has nothing original, their designs are inspired by Palm, HP, Sony and the list goes on, all they did was aggregate features and you can’t patent that.
Apple didn’t just ‘aggregate’ features….they invested the resources over more than a decade to produce an ecosystem for their computers and devices that must be half way decent, considering the millions of users who enjoy using their Apple hardware in that environment. Effective integration, execution and management trumps ‘original’ every time.
Clearly not a very good engineer if you can’t tell the difference between Apple/Xiaomi and Palm/Apple designs..
You are right, in January 2007 when the iPhone was announced the handset market was awash with smart phones built around one large touch screen, with no physical keyboards and running a full power unix based operating system with full internet access, including a fully functional web browser, and a suite of digital media apps. They were everywhere.
The problem for Apple is that Xiaomi makes superb products that are around 80% cheaper than the Apple equivalents. Xiaomi also has much shorter products cycles (3-6 months) than Apple.
Redmi Note (iPhone 6 plus) costs USD156.
Redmi 1S (iPhone 6) costs USD132.
http://www.mi.com/sg/
Edited 2014-10-11 07:48 UTC
So, we have cheap knockoffs of Apple devices and running Android…for many of us, that’s a non-starter…ymmv.
More importantly: MIUI, while affording a few relatively attractive skinning and customization options, is far more restrictive and closed than anything Apple has ever created (at least in China) with a far, far smaller ecosystem… on top of Android… on top of cheap hardware knockoffs of Apple devices (no, they aren’t offering similar hardware) with horrible support and software development because they do it all on a shoestring.
Edited 2014-10-11 18:02 UTC
What a load of nonsense. MIUI is merely a skin. Underneath the Xiaomi phones run Cyanogenmod which is automatically updated every week.
Xiaomi hardware is top quality that is equal or better than anything that comes out of Cupertino. Xiaomi phones are sold at cost with profits made out of sales of software.
So, please describe how their ecosystem matches up to Apple’s.
Actually Samsung’s collapsing profits show that this is a problem for the high end Android vendors, not for Apple.
Phones are minor part of the Samsung conglomerate. Apple is totally reliant on the iPhone. That’s a huge difference.
In a year or two the cheapest sub $100 pre-paid Android phone will be a quad core with a high resolution 4.5″ screen running Android ‘L’. That is a massive problem for Apple.
So Samsung issued a profit warning because they are selling fewer fridges? http://seekingalpha.com/article/2545285-samsung-q3-profit-warning-b…
Except the facts don’t agree with your conjecture.
That is a massive problem for Samsung and the other big Android vendors. Their product is now almost indistinguishable from the cheap chinese Android phones whereas Apple is still completely different.
Since 2012 you’ve been able to buy a high quality Android phone (Nexus 4) for half the price of an iPhone. Why haven’t Apple’s profits collapsed already?
Edited 2014-10-12 05:42 UTC
Samsung are one of the most diversified conglomerates in the world. They are involved in real estate, heavy manufacturing, pharmaceuticals, insurance, tourism etc. Samsung will simply expand other businesses to compensate for lost phone sales.
You forget that Apple went perilously close to bankruptcy trying exactly the same business plan 20 years ago.
The entire phone market is about to be completely commoditised. Everyone is going to suffer. Apple is going to suffer the most because they rely so heavily on selling expensive phones at high margins. Apple can’t support 400,000 staff and hundreds of Apple stores on a $10/unit margin.
Most high end are sold as heavily subsidised handsets on bundled contracts. The consumer never sees the real price of the phone. The Nexus 4 was sold online in tiny quantities – it was never available on carrier plans.
Apple is currently profitable because it has a large share of the US market. The US phone market is based on expensive monthly plans bundled with subsidised phones. In virtually every other market the iPhone is somewhere between a bit player and totally irrelevant. Sooner or later most Americans will realise that you don’t need to pay $100 for a phone contract and an expensive bundled phone.
Samsung receives a higher percentage of both revenue and profit from their smartphone division than Apple. Samsung can be extremely diversified and still more dependent on smartphone revenue & profits than Apple. You aren’t very well-informed.
http://www.asymco.com/2014/10/07/on-the-trajectory-of-successful-co…
Samsung Electronics is one division of Samsung.
The article doesn’t even support your claim. It shows that the iPad and iPhone revenue fell about 25% after Q4 2013. There is no growth in the other divisions. [The author of the article doesn’t even understand his own graphs].
In the case of Samsung Electronics the phone division has shown a small (~10%) shrinkage with modest growth in other areas.
You don’t compare Q4 2013 with Q1 2014. Revenue always falls after the holiday quarter for all companies selling consumer goods. Like clock work. Consumer electronics sales are seasonal and that is what the graph shows you.
You compare Q4 2013 with Q4 2012 and, after this year end, with Q4 2014.
Actually the graph shows that Apple sales are very seasonal. Samsung sales are far more consistent. We won’t now the Q4 results for quite a while.
I was just making the point that you talked about a 25% drop in revenues in Q4 as if it was something significant. I was just explaining that it is not a very useful comparison, as all it shows is that Apple’s sales are very seasonal. Sales may drop compared to the year ago quarter, and they have done so in the past, for a variety of reasons as well.
Yes, Samsung has far more consistent sales in part because they have a very large business selling TVs and other CE devices, as well as supplying other companies with their CE needs in a way that potentially smoothes over the volatility.
For example (and I am not claiming this is accurate), Samsung may see a sales surge in its semiconductor business in Q3 as companies take orders of the chips they need to make their CE goods for Q4. So Samsung smoothes out what might traditionally be its weakest quarter due to sales that will turn up in other companies’ Q4 results.
And it’s other products may not be as seasonal.
There is absolutely nothing wrong with having a seasonal business.
Except business cannot just magic up other profitable lines of business with a wand to replace lost revenue. If it was that easy, then Microsoft would not be struggling to come up with new major lines of revenue.
Apple does not have 400,000 staff. More like 40,000 if you count the guys in the stores.
If anything, Apple is suffering least because its phones are nowhere near as commoditised as the Android phones. They have their own OS, have their own hardware (e.g. Apple A7 processor), and they have their own services suite.
In actual fact, as with the Mac, Apple is likely to get itself a profitable niche selling iPhones (which are much more differentiated, and hence less commoditised) to loyal customers.
Ah, the excuse that consumers are hoodwinked by subsidised prices. Pray, tell, why would the networks subsidise iPhones when they could make much larger profits by selling cheaper devices on similar contracts.
You mean what they do in Europe, where the iPhone is, consequently, marginalised?
You mean marginalised like this:
http://appleinsider.com/articles/14/07/01/apples-iphone-5s-and-5c-l…
iPhone had around 32% market share in Europe. That is not being marginalised. That is healthier than any company not called Samsung.
Total garbage. The only country in the EU where the iPhone has 32% market share is Britain. In Spain the share is less than 8%. Overall EU iOS share is <20% and falling.
http://www.businessinsider.com.au/apple-marketing-of-iphone-5c-prev…
Don’t rely on Apple propaganda sites for your information.
That article states 16% for iOS. Did you read it?
I misread it. But my comments still stand at the 16% for iOS. 16% is still more than any company that isn’t Samsung. And Steve Jobs did state that they were hoping for a 1% market share of all mobile phones.
https://gigaom.com/2009/01/30/apple-achieves-11-percent-market-share…
Apple is already way past that, and by their own internal standards, are extremely successful.
If you ask Samsung, whether they prefer their market share, or would rather have Apple’s profits, they will tell you they would rather have Apple’s profits and defensible market share.
Samsung’s (and any other Android maker’s) market share is pretty much indefensible. That is why Xiaomi is eating their lunch in China. That is why Samsung is struggling in India. While Apple is able to defend its market or people who like iOS because no one else makes iOS devices.
That’s not a problem for Apple at the moment, or at least one can say that it has not actually manifested itself as a tangible problem for Apple at the moment. It seems to be more of a problem for Samsung.
The ASP and margins on all Apple products are both high and very stable, there are no signs of a deterioration or decline in either. iPhones sales are still growing.
Interestingly Apple’s Mac business is also high ASP and high margin and it continues to prosper in the decades old and highly commodified PC market.
It’s also worth noting that there are reports that the preorders for the new iPhone 6 range were running at 20 million in China.
Copying Apple may be ethically dubious but it is not illegal. Then again there is nothing original about Apple.
Steve Jobs started as badly dressed nerd before copying the ‘cool’ black clothing look favoured by most architects and industrial designers.
Apple designs are straight out of a 1960s Braun catalogue (which is based on Bauhaus which is in turn based on minimalist Japanese designs.) An Apple store is not a lot different to what Ikea were doing decades earlier.
Also a BMW 5 series is not significantly different than a Model T.
Mercedes. Audi, Lexus, Infiniti, Ford, GM, Hyundai etc all make ‘5 Series’ equivalents.
Whoosh
In Apple’s defense, The designs Jony Ive has copied are from nearly a half century ago, are frequently from products that are significantly different in function, and are things Braun doesn’t even make anymore (as far as I can tell, the only thing they make these things are shavers).
Xiaomi is copying Apple to make products that compete with Apple.
Everyone copies everyone else (and makes minor improvements). That is how technology progresses. Get over it.
Culture grows by copying from each other.
Children copy the behaviour of their parents to learn.
Apple has copied about everything they present as their devine idea and starts whining when someone other then apple copies from apple.
Apple is not the highlight it pretends to be.
Apple doesn’t need to ‘pretend’ about anything…..almost every other tech company would give their collective nuts to be in Apple’s position.
I got down voted when I called it shameless and lazy in July.
http://www.osnews.com/thread?592967
Jony Ive… and everyone at Apple, really… please quit whining about this, it just makes you look like children.
The fact is, the Bell Telephone Company could say the same thing about the iPhone, that it copied THEIR design, it’s laziness, it’s theft, blah blah blah. All those poor engineers at Bell could have been at home with their kids… instead of doing all the work of figuring out which configuration and spacing of buttons is best for a push-button telephone, which you then stole.
So why does the iPhone have a keypad that starts with a 1 in the upper left corner, then go across to 2, then 3, then begin the next row… why does the 1 button have no letters associated with it, and the 2 have “ABC” written underneath, the 3 “DEF,” and why are there an asterisk and pound buttons in the same position as their phones, huh? Why didn’t Apple come up with their own design, maybe with 1 in the center, and 2 in the lower right corner, then maybe a gap, then 3 in the upper right, 4 at the center left… something like this:
50#3
4 1 6
8*92
Why didn’t Apple come up with their own layout instead of stealing Bell’s?
BECAUSE, USERS HAVE COME TO EXPECT A PHONE TO BEHAVE IN A CERTAIN WAY, AND TO HAVE CERTAIN FEATURES! Like the number pad having a 1 in the upper left spot. They expect this:
123
456
789
*0#
Unlike a computer keyboard, the number pads (when they have them) typically have 1 in the lower LEFT corner. Apple, as historically a computer company, should have used that same layout for the iPhone, right?
Sure. And maybe they can then put direction arrows on the keys instead of ABC, DEF, and so on? No, that’s an absurd thing to ask.
By this same token, a designer at Chevrolet could have complained that Chrysler stole their idea of having direction controlled by a wheel, and of having the same arrangement of pedals on the floor, controlling acceleration and deceleration, turn signals mounted on a stalk attached to the steering column, and having all of that on the left side of the vehicle, and situated so they can be operated by someone facing the same direction as the vehicle is traveling… the list goes on and on, and it’s just as absurd a complaint as that would be.
Apple had NO CHOICE but to lay the numbers out the way they are on a standard, push-button Bell Telephone, because that’s what everyone uses, and what people EXPECT in a phone. If you want people to take your new alternative to the corded and cordless phones seriously as a phone, it needs to have certain features in common with them, so as not to present an excessively high learning curve or difficult operation.
Well, today so many smartphone/cellphone users EXPECT a smartphone or cellphone to look and act and REACT much like an iPhone. Quit whining about the implicit compliment, or the unavoidable response to the popularity of your products. Imitation is the sincerest form of flattery, even if it’s not MEANT to be a compliment. I’m sure they might have wanted to do things differently and not make their phone look like an iPhone knockoff, but not NEARLY as badly as they wanted to EAT, and pay their rent, etc.
Did anyone give Apple grief when the original Apple Computer machine, or the Apple ][, or the Macintosh (and all the subsequent iMac’s, Mac Mini’s, etc. etc. etc.) shipped with QWERTY keyboards? Why didn’t Apple come up with it’s own keyboard layout, instead of just COPYING the hard work of others, hmmm? I’m not sure who came up with QWERTY, but I know for sure it WASN’T APPLE. Did Apple invent the laptop form-factor, or did they steal the clam-shell type, rectangular, book/folder proportions too?
Apple is in NO position to be whining about people stealing ideas, since Apple’s historically had so few ideas of their own. The Mac interface they went to court with Microsoft for stealing from them was stolen originally from Xerox, (though everyone forgets that, and that Xerox got it in turn, albeit got it legally as I understand it, from MIT’s Computer Sciences department, where that interface was invented). The MP3 player? Not theirs either. The mouse? The track pad? Apple doesn’t invent or innovate, they just figure out what a certain group of the general populace with money to burn wants, and gives it to them. To deny anyone else the ability to give people what they want is truly anticompetitive.
In reality, Apple can’t really be said to have come up with even a lot of their own ideas on polishing, since they respond to the market, and what the people demand, just like the people Jony Ive is complaining about. The position Apple would like the rest of the industry to be in is untenable, and it’s unreasonable to expect that. But Apple sure would love not to have any competition, which is what would end up being the case if no one could make anything that looked anything like anything that anyone had ever made before.
Apple does have *one* thing going for them at least though, and that is they’re great at polishing things to an indescribable luster before shipping them to the world, but lately it seems they’re actually slacking on that front, which I think threatens the future of Apple as a company. They now seem to be springing beta-quality software on their users, full of bugs and problems, and not letting users go back to what worked is really just messed up.
So on that note, thank Linus (et al.) for giving us Linux, (yes, and RMS for GNU…) without which there would be no Android, and the iPhone’s only real competition would pretty much be BlackBerry…, and the fantasy promulgated in those I’m a PC/I’m a Mac ads that ALL computers are either Apple Macs, or IBM-clone machines running Microsoft Windows, which I’m happy to say aren’t true, WOULD BE. Thanks to the tireless and selfless efforts of the folks behind the BSDs and GNU/Linux, and all the other FL/OSS software out there, it is simply NOT true. We’re blessed with options.
These days, one can’t even root for Apple as the underdog to Microsoft’s Evil Empire, because they’re just about as bad as Microsoft in so many ways. I think Bill’s money may have tainted them, and since they lost their creative genius, things just haven’t been the same.
I feel sorry for all the cultists who waited to pay about a thousand bucks a pop for the iPhone 6 & 6 Plus, or the iPad nano and micro as I’ve taken to calling them.
In case this comes off as trolling, ask yourself if Apple is innocent of the malfeasance it’s accusing others of committing. Are they? Is it trolling to point out the truth, even if the truth hurts? I don’t think so.
Next thing you know, Apple will accuse Samsung of stealing their idea for a smart-watch, then go after Rolex, Timex, Tissot, Fossil, Citizen, Casio, Stührling… you name it. It’s sad, and it should stop.
Edited 2014-10-12 10:10 UTC
Well spoken, my friend.
I remember it well, the years before 2007, when everywhere you went on the internet there were people demanding full touch screen phones with no physical keyboards, no removable batteries, no memory card slots.
I really hate Linux desktop themes that are just a blatant, cheap clone of OSX.
If all you’ve ever known what the Windows95 desktop, I can see why you would not like Gnome3, but I have to say, with the latest releases, they really are developing their own style.
And it a style that is NOT a rip-off of OSX, or a rip-off of Windows (like KDE).
The point I made about Apple ripping off the keyboard or button layouts before from whoever first came up with QWERTY and the Bell layout applies to desktops of computers too. It’s what people have come to expect. It makes no more sense than to blame a new car company for “cloning” the interface of existing automobiles. In that case, I think it may even be legally required for cars to be offered for sale that they have certain features, such as turn signals and tail lamps, headlights, and even where not legally required, the market simply expects and maybe even demands it.
Also, almost every desktop borrows elements from previous, usually someone else’ desktops. If you look at TWM, or CDE, (the inspiration for KDE,) sure it’s extremely primitive, but there are design elements that made their way to OS X. Like rectangular windows with controls at the top, fox example. Why are window controls not along the side, or along the bottom? Or why not make the controls for a window pop up in the geographical center of the window when a meta key is depressed?
Actually, shoot, that’s a damned good idea. No space lost to controls unless a button is pressed that lets the computer know you want access to the controls. Of course, that’s a bit like the Arch in Star Trek the Next Generation’s Holodeck, now that I think about it. So I didn’t even invent that, though as you can imagine, it could well be no one has thought to use that on a computer. The entire toolbar should pop-over the center of the window, with text menus and toolbar buttons and window controls. Like the alt-key in M$ Window$ do make the hotkeys display underlines to let you know which key activates which menu-item? So blending the two elements get’s you something where the menu isn’t at the top of the screen, it’s at the top of the popup menu-box in the center of a window on a screen, and the O’s are buttons (I don’t have the ability to make them look like toolbar buttons, please use your imagination.)
Or maybe it should appear as close as possible to the geographical center of the screen, within the window without moving it, so as to make as sure as possible that even if a window is partially off the screen, its control but also the window would need to be identified so it’s unambiguous which window the controls are for, like by darkening the entire rest of the screen, and making the active/selected window even a little brighter, pulsing the window border, (which would stretch when the meta key is depressed, and pulse from outside to inside along all four sides…) and the like.
So again, it’s not off-topic, but complaining about cloning of desktops is a lot like complaining about copying of interfaces. Of “look and feel,” of the size, shape, configuration, and behavior of buttons. The users expect things to work a certain way. Can you imagine someone today managing to sell computers successfully, or an OS successfully, with only a text interface?
Even among CLI’s, when the various Unix shells have commands like “ls” for listing working directory contents, “cp” to copy a file, “mv” to move a file, “rm” to erase a file, and DOS has “dir” and “copy” and “move” and “del” or “erase” commands, like when Unix uses the “-” character for switches, like long list of contents, “ls – l,” and DOS uses “/” as in “dir /w” etc… you could say DOS copied Unix, (or CP/M, which copied Unix…) but what would you have had them use? The exact same exceedingly cryptic commands? Or maybe a whole sentence? As in:
C:\>please make a duplicate of the file “myfile.texttypefile” to the directory one up from this one?
That would require either typing the command exactly right, or having the computer be able to figure out how to interpret natural English correctly. Both of these are wasteful when a good compromise is to use commands like “dir” and “copy” and “move” and “del,” etc., even if they are kind of a copy of what’s already been done.
Also, CP/M and DOS could be said to have improved on Unix’s (or really the shells’) syntaxes, in that sometimes it was too cryptic.
A joke went, “user calls and asks, how do I rename a file?” and the reply comes, “just type ‘rm’ and the file name!” This of course would REMOVE the file, not rename it, so then there’s at least one instance of a dangerous ambiguity. “Erase” would be much harder to confuse as to what the command does.
Similarly, the abstractions represented on a desktop with icons, and windows necessarily can’t be TOO different from what people are accustomed to even for people who pick one or the other ‘environment,’ and stick with it, because you never know when you’ll be confronted with the unavoidable thing of having to use the (ugh…) other operating system. Suppose you use Windows at home, and where you work the computers run Sun Solaris? Or they use a Mac where you work, and you use RHEL at home, or Fedora, or whatever?
What if you are one of those people using BeOS/Haiku, or Amiga OS, or some other crazy thing almost no one else is using, and people elsewhere where you have to use computers use something different. Having them be too different will generally slow or stop adoption of a new or different OS/DE/interface, etc., even if the new one is in every way better.
So do I. That is because the OSX desktop is an utter abomination.
In your opinion, of course…..millions would heartily disagree with you.
There’s been ad-supported apple-looking cheap knockoffs for many years. The companies either cease to exist after a few months or they find a better business plan than bootlegging aka knockoffs.
Also, I think it’s funny that this would even be a viable product on Android — who could possibly want everything to look like Apple but not work like Apple? Missing the point, me thinks. Apple’s are beloved because of the way they work, not because of the way the icons look.
In China most users buy their Apple (or Xiaomi) phones because of the perceived status. They wouldn’t care if their phones were using WP8, Symbian or CP/M.
Edited 2014-10-14 08:57 UTC