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: Kimmy Boyer on 27 May 2010 10:31 On Wed, 26 May 2010 19:28:41 -0700, John Navas wrote: > Roger that. Sorry if I came across as rude. I'll slap your fukken face if you do that again! -- http://www.facebook.com/john.ziolkowski 2205 Noble Ct. Naples, FL 34110-1023 Call me! (239) 593-6959
From: Justin on 27 May 2010 10:52 Thomas T. Veldhouse wrote on [26 May 2010 21:35:57 GMT]: > In alt.cellular.verizon John Navas <jnspam1(a)navasgroup.com> wrote: >> >> Until it ships to end users it most certainly *is* vaporware. > > Since it exists and is not simply an idea in the vapor, I respectfully > disagree. If you want to claim victory; it really doesn't matter to me as the > issue, as I said is one of semantics. The real issue is comparing the correct > software platforms. Duke Nukem Forever has been demoed plenty of times, yet it is famous vaporware
From: Justin on 27 May 2010 10:53 nospam wrote on [Wed, 26 May 2010 14:41:42 -0700]: > In article <865ingF4vaU3(a)mid.individual.net>, Thomas T. Veldhouse > <veldy71(a)gmail.com> wrote: > >> I am sure he can argue semantics and warp it to his desired result. > > that's what he does. > >> The >> simple facts are that android 2.2 will be compared to Apple OS 4.0 >> (iPhone,iPod,iPad). Vaporware be damned. > > right. android 2.2 is going to be vapor for a lot longer and for a lot > more users than iphone os 4. 2.2 has been released to end users, it's not vaporware. I know it's hard to understand simple concepts like that, but it's a fact.
From: Justin on 27 May 2010 10:55 Paul Miner wrote on [Wed, 26 May 2010 19:46:50 -0500]: > 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. Of course, 3-10% is far from very very few. Very very few is under 1% But, since APple is famous for orphaning products that are only a couple of years old, it's not unexpected.
From: Justin on 27 May 2010 11:00
nospam wrote on [Wed, 26 May 2010 15:22:28 -0700]: > 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'. Is that weighted by popularity if the sites? There are millions of small flat sites out there that are blogs etc. that skew those numbers. > 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. I don't want native app games, I want the flash games that will never be ported to native apps. I want to be able to use restaurant websites that are flash based Hint: That's a lot of sites. >> And many more than "a lot" don't. What's your point? > > that not everyone wants flash. Or people use those blockers to block the unwanted flash > because having to toggle flash on/off all the time is a royal pain. No, it's not. The Firefox flashblock extension shows a little play button where the flash is embedded, when you want to run that item just hit play not hard |