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 18:03 On Wed, 26 May 2010 10:17:39 -0700, nospam <nospam(a)nospam.invalid> wrote: >In article <i8lqv599av527mfj61o7clmft1fni8bm9n(a)4ax.com>, Paul Miner ><pminer(a)elrancho.invalid> wrote: > >> >only the 1st gen ipod touch and original iphone cannot. they're 3 year >> >old devices and very, very few are still in use. >> >> 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. > >why isn't it good? The answer to your question might become obvious if you decide to answer mine first. -- Paul Miner
From: nospam on 26 May 2010 18:05 In article <6l6rv590ojrf48mpiec9i8oj7l8oqr5jfj(a)4ax.com>, Paul Miner <pminer(a)elrancho.invalid> wrote: > >> >only the 1st gen ipod touch and original iphone cannot. they're 3 year > >> >old devices and very, very few are still in use. > >> > >> 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. > > > >why isn't it good? > > The answer to your question might become obvious if you decide to > answer mine first. see other post for details.
From: nospam on 26 May 2010 18:22 In article <fs5rv51thskp4q0thqep1bikc05e3pe35g(a)4ax.com>, Paul Miner <pminer(a)elrancho.invalid> wrote: > >> 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. <http://www.flashmagazine.com/news/detail/how_many_sites_use_flash/> Surveying more than 3.5 million pages, the Opera (browser) developer center found that somewhere between 30% and 40% of all pages tested contained Flash files. 30-40% is not what i'd call 'ubiquitous'. most of what users want flash for work quite well on an iphone. youtube videos automatically stream h.264 with no extra work from the user. vimeo and other sites support h.264. native app games are readily available and work better than the flash versions. the lack of flash has not adversely affected sales of the iphone, ipod touch or the ipad. people who bought them do not complain about the lack of flash, they complain about the battery life and at&t. > >and a lot of people use > >plugins that block it. > > And many more than "a lot" don't. What's your point? that not everyone wants flash. > >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. it's exactly correct. without flash, people have to use html 5 if they want to support iphone users, who make up roughly 2/3rds of mobile web traffic. html 5 adoption will be faster, as a result. look at the demo of flash on a nexus one. it stutters and battery life is shot. adobe says 3 hours total, that's horrible for a phone. the controls are too tiny and he has trouble pausing the video. the nexus one even reported a memory error. the browser goes from fastest without flash to slowest with flash. yep, that's a fantastic user experience. <http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PtGCaKyd_co> on the joojoo, battery life drops in half, to 2.5 hours, and that's a tablet with a much bigger battery than in a phone. > >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? because having to toggle flash on/off all the time is a royal pain. most users will not do that. they'll leave it on and suffer with a slower buggier browser and lower battery life, or they'll leave it off and be exactly the same of how the iphone currently is. > (We both know the reasons, they've been mentioned in > this and other threads, and it has nothing to do with promoting > HTML5.) it most certainly does. > >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? ads are one of the uses of flash. web sites are not going to be overly happy about ads not showing up. dpreview, for instance, gets very annoyed when forum users explain how to block ads. > >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? can't have it both ways. why is adobe's proprietary ok when apple's is not? bottom line: flash has seen its day. it's time to move forward to the next big thing.
From: Paul Miner on 26 May 2010 20:42 On Wed, 26 May 2010 14:42:34 -0700, John Navas <jnspam1(a)navasgroup.com> wrote: >On Wed, 26 May 2010 16:30:36 -0500, Paul Miner <pminer(a)elrancho.invalid> >wrote in <4i4rv55peon1qbiic92fsj3bgnqvqtn6vf(a)4ax.com>: > >>On Wed, 26 May 2010 10:32:43 -0700, nospam <nospam(a)nospam.invalid> >>wrote: >> >>>In article <f0mqv5920dnd7odg242l5bv4nbldc2k21i(a)4ax.com>, Paul Miner >>><pminer(a)elrancho.invalid> wrote: >>> >>>> The key word is 'announced'. It's vapor until it ships. >>> >>>it *has* shipped. anyone who wants it can sign up as a developer and >>>get a beta version. the public release is imminent. >>> >>>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/> Thanks, I stand corrected. I was actually trying to avoid the part of the discussion dealing with what is released or not, since I don't know or care. I was mainly correcting the false impression a couple of folks (not you) had where they thought announcements meant something had moved beyond vaporware, when in fact most vaporware *starts* with an announcement. -- Paul Miner
From: Paul Miner on 26 May 2010 20:46
On Wed, 26 May 2010 15:02:43 -0700, nospam <nospam(a)nospam.invalid> wrote: >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. Thanks for the explanation. I find it interesting that your estimates of device population range from a low of 3-4% to 10% to 20%. That's quite a range, so surely you've covered yourself adequately. -- Paul Miner |