7 Ways Android 2.2 Froyo Tops Apple's iPhone
in [Wireless Internet]
|
Prev: WARNING: Known bad versions of DD-WRT in the database!
Next: LIVE: Stop ELITE Pedophile Clan in Lithuania and Save A Child NOW!
From: Paul Miner on 26 May 2010 17:46 On Wed, 26 May 2010 10:55:44 -0700, nospam <nospam(a)nospam.invalid> wrote: >In article <htjmit$vnv$1(a)news.eternal-september.org>, Justin ><nospam(a)insightbb.com> wrote: > >> 3 years isn't very old for an mp3 player. > >doesn't matter, there aren't enough of them out there to bother >supporting. it's about 3-4% of the install base. Hence, my question. What happened to them? Why are "very, very few" still in use after 3 years? Are they that fragile, or is it something else? -- Paul Miner
From: Paul Miner on 26 May 2010 17:49 On Wed, 26 May 2010 10:48:28 -0700, Steve Fenwick <nospam(a)nospam.invalid> wrote: >In article <i8lqv599av527mfj61o7clmft1fni8bm9n(a)4ax.com>, > Paul Miner <pminer(a)elrancho.invalid> wrote: > >> What could possibly justify very, very few 3 year old i* devices being >> still in use? If true, that's not good for anyone, including Apple. > >Huh? 3 year old iPhones (1st gen) may work just fine. Not as fast as new >ones, but still better than many alternatives. Less waste for the >landfill sounds like a decent reason. > >Steve You replied to me, but you disputed nospam's claim that "very, very few" of the earlier units are still in use after 3 years. Thank you. -- Paul Miner
From: nospam on 26 May 2010 17:53 In article <fb5rv519l75p02jqlrml1id3iaqftbtmjk(a)4ax.com>, John Navas <jnspam1(a)navasgroup.com> wrote: > >>but if you want to call it vapor, android 2.2 is also vapor, and even > >>more so. > > > >Agreed. The definition of vapor applies universally. Both are > >vaporware until they ship, and "to developers" doesn't count. > > Wrong. Android 2.2 for Nexus One is already available for download. > <http://apexnewsnetwork.com/21787/google-nexus-one-gets-android-2-2-update-upgrade/> you might want to actually read what you cite. The Over the Air Update should be following very soon. Only Nexus One users can be updated, it is not announced for other mobiles like HTC Droid Incredible which runs on Android 2.1 'very soon' and 'not announced for other mobiles like the htc droid' and only for manual update (a tricky process) means that it is *vapor* for most users. the nexus one did not sell very well and there are not a lot of nexus one users out there. there are probably *more* iphones running iphone os 4 than there are android 2.2. claiming iphone os 4 is vapor but not android 2.2 is deceptive bullshit. <http://www.pcworld.com/article/196994/nexus_one_motorola_droid_line_up_ for_android_22_update.html> according to pcworld, based on past verizon updates, droid might be getting 2.2 in 3 months or more! htc should get it by the end of the year and possibly only on phones introduced in 2010!! vapor goes both ways.
From: nospam on 26 May 2010 18:02 In article <gk5rv517sjjnumjo32oom774q7kj4lp5d4(a)4ax.com>, Paul Miner <pminer(a)elrancho.invalid> wrote: > >doesn't matter, there aren't enough of them out there to bother > >supporting. it's about 3-4% of the install base. > > Hence, my question. What happened to them? Why are "very, very few" > still in use after 3 years? Are they that fragile, or is it something > else? not that many were sold. 6 million original iphones, out of 50 million total iphones sold to date (early april numbers). apple doesn't give breakdowns for ipods, but they did say 35 million ipod touches sold to date. given that ratio, it's reasonable to conclude that there are about 4 million ipod touch 1st gens. thus, there are about 10 million sold, out of roughly 100 million devices by the time iphone os 4 actually ships, based on current sales rates. thus, at *best*, only 10% are orphaned. that's not a large amount, and far less than will be orphaned by android 2.2, including some phones that are *still being sold*. however, not all of those old units are still in use. some have been damaged, some lost, etc. some of the iphones are used as ipods, not phones. one of the mobile analytics companies shows that about 2 million of original iphones are still in use, showing up on their logs. that's about 1/3rd of what was sold. that's actually on the high side for a 3 year old phone, and one which did not have 3g. most of the users have upgraded to something else, whether it's an iphone or another device. so it's not bad at all.
From: Paul Miner on 26 May 2010 18:02
On Wed, 26 May 2010 10:31:23 -0700, nospam <nospam(a)nospam.invalid> wrote: >In article <7slqv5l92odh1442eqk7tj3agrcii93tfe(a)4ax.com>, Paul Miner ><pminer(a)elrancho.invalid> wrote: > >> >> Flash is just the biggest threat at the moment. >> > >> >it's not a threat. flash is proprietary, buggy, a cpu hog and a >> >security risk. there are much better ways to do what flash does, such >> >as html5. >> >> Flash is ubiquitous, HTML5 not so much. It has a lot more to do with >> what's deployed versus what's better for the job. > >flash is not as widespread as people think That's an unsupportable statement. >and a lot of people use >plugins that block it. And many more than "a lot" don't. What's your point? >not supporting it has more to do with the user >experience and long term goals. by allowing flash, html5 adoption will >stagnate. Mind boggling logic, and just plain wrong, too. >people say they want flash, but what they really mean is to watch >videos and play games. they don't care *how* it happens, only that it >can be done. Sure, and since flash is so common, blocking it hurts the user experience. Why not let the end users decide if they want to enable flash or not? (We both know the reasons, they've been mentioned in this and other threads, and it has nothing to do with promoting HTML5.) >as for flash ads, i doubt very many users miss those. Nor do many miss any other kind of ads, I suspect. Again, I ask, what's your point? Flash isn't required for ads. Why bring ads into it? >basically, flash is on its way out and adobe knows it, that's why >they're making a big deal out of it. adobe is losing its proprietary >grip. and the don't like it. You have the nerve to mention proprietary grip and Adobe in the same question, while completely overlooking proprietary grip and Apple? -- Paul Miner |