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 21:03 On Wed, 26 May 2010 15:22:28 -0700, nospam <nospam(a)nospam.invalid> wrote: >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. So is that more widespread, or less widespread, than people think? Who gets to decide what people think? Do you see my point? Your statement wasn't unsupportable because flash data wasn't available, it was unsupportable because what people think isn't available. >30-40% is not what i'd call 'ubiquitous'. How about the 67% for China? Is that closer to ubiquitous? Where do you draw the line, and how does even 30% compare to HTML5? >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. I think we both know that the people who buy devices with the Apple logo will not be dissuaded by anything so minor, so of course they aren't complaining about lack of flash. >> >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. Let's get cars off of the roads so that jet packs will be adopted faster. >> >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? You MUST have it both ways. If you're going to gripe about Adobe being proprietary, then the same should apply to Apple. >bottom line: flash has seen its day. it's time to move forward to the >next big thing. I don't advocate moving forward by cutting off people's access to something that's part of millions of web sites, but apparently it's fine with you. -- Paul Miner
From: John Navas on 26 May 2010 22:28 On Wed, 26 May 2010 19:42:08 -0500, Paul Miner <pminer(a)elrancho.invalid> wrote in <fqfrv557inqckpdpueb009pfgglhelphft(a)4ax.com>: >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. Roger that. Sorry if I came across as rude. -- Best regards, John If the iPhone is really so impressive, why do iFans keep making excuses for it?
From: nospam on 26 May 2010 23:10 In article <g3grv594ujmaf9llefpac6laqpjp2gfc6e(a)4ax.com>, Paul Miner <pminer(a)elrancho.invalid> wrote: > 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. 10% is total sold, the absolute maximum. not all are still in use, and that will of course drop in the next year. 3-4% is based on mobile analytics, which is what are in use *now*.
From: nospam on 26 May 2010 23:51 In article <jigrv5l15b5g0gpr3uhaursgd7ujejifq8(a)4ax.com>, Paul Miner <pminer(a)elrancho.invalid> wrote: > >> >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. > > So is that more widespread, or less widespread, than people think? less. people say flash is everywhere, which is why they think they want it on an iphone. 30-40% is not everywhere and most of what it's used for (video, games) can be done even though there is no flash. > Who gets to decide what people think? > > Do you see my point? Your statement > wasn't unsupportable because flash data wasn't available, it was > unsupportable because what people think isn't available. people complain that there is no flash, but they aren't actually using flash based on market surveys. what does that tell you? > >30-40% is not what i'd call 'ubiquitous'. > > How about the 67% for China? Is that closer to ubiquitous? Where do > you draw the line, and how does even 30% compare to HTML5? what about it? apple is not exclusively targeting the chinese market. most sites are in english for that matter, why aren't they translated? as for html5, apple is looking where things are going, not where they were. even microsoft agrees that html5 is the future. speaking of which, there's no flash on windows phone 7 either. microsoft has their own clone called silverlight, even more proprietary than what adobe is doing. where's the bitching about that? > >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. > > I think we both know that the people who buy devices with the Apple > logo will not be dissuaded by anything so minor, so of course they > aren't complaining about lack of flash. based on what? that's quite an assumption. they're not being bought by exclusively apple fanatics, you know. half of ipad buyers use windows and half of mac buyers never owned a mac before (i.e., windows switchers). i don't have any information on iphone buyers, at least not that i can easily find, but it's probably not that much different. > >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. > > Let's get cars off of the roads so that jet packs will be adopted > faster. straw man. > >> >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? > > You MUST have it both ways. If you're going to gripe about Adobe being > proprietary, then the same should apply to Apple. it's apple's platform. they don't want adobe controlling it. > >bottom line: flash has seen its day. it's time to move forward to the > >next big thing. > > I don't advocate moving forward by cutting off people's access to > something that's part of millions of web sites, but apparently it's > fine with you. the flaw in that is that people's access is not cut off because they can still do the stuff they want to do. plus, adobe is still working on a version of flash that runs on arm devices, so how could apple have included it? flash 10.1 is only in beta and the final version is expected sometime by the *end* of 2010. it needs a recent cpu, which means it will only work on the 3gs and whatever gets introduced in a couple of weeks (the same limitation exists for android, older android devices won't be able to run it either). that means roughly half of the install base of iphones would not be able to run it. as i said, alternatives 'just work' and on all iphones. tap on a youtube video and it plays, *without* flash. mafia wars, a popular flash game, is a native iphone app and it's free. farmville is coming soon. users can do *exactly* the same stuff, without flash. again, users don't care how it's done, just that it can be done. they want to watch videos and play games, and they can do that without flash, now. look at iphone sales, they keep going up. the lack of flash does not matter to most people.
From: Paul Miner on 27 May 2010 02:27
On Wed, 26 May 2010 19:28:41 -0700, John Navas <jnspam1(a)navasgroup.com> wrote: >On Wed, 26 May 2010 19:42:08 -0500, Paul Miner <pminer(a)elrancho.invalid> >wrote in <fqfrv557inqckpdpueb009pfgglhelphft(a)4ax.com>: > >>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. > >Roger that. Sorry if I came across as rude. Nope, no worries. -- Paul Miner |