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: Thomas T. Veldhouse on 27 May 2010 11:44 In alt.cellular.attws nospam <nospam(a)nospam.invalid> wrote: > > 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? > FYI ... Silverlight is DEFINITELY NO CLONE of Flash in either function or implementation. > > based on what? that's quite an assumption. they're not being bought by > exclusively apple fanatics, you know. I bought two iPod Touch devices [sold the first one to upgrade to the second one] and I DO WANT FLASH. I wouldn't mind Silverlight either as far as that goes, but isn't that widespread [yet]. -- Thomas T. Veldhouse Religion is a crutch, but that's okay... humanity is a cripple.
From: Thomas T. Veldhouse on 27 May 2010 11:50 In alt.cellular.attws Paul Miner <pminer(a)elrancho.invalid> wrote: > > Please review what you wrote. In no way does it logically follow the > post you replied to. > > My question stands: 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. > It's good if people are buying from the iTunes store. It is good if people are getting attached to the Apple branded products and will buy future products. It is good, because they maintain marketshare (due to the owners of these devices not buying from a competitor). Do you need more reasons why it is good for Apple? True, ideally, they would love for you to upgrade, but also ideally, they want you to keep the Apple device you upgraded from in service either personally or with somebody else. -- Thomas T. Veldhouse Religion is a crutch, but that's okay... humanity is a cripple.
From: nospam on 27 May 2010 11:56 In article <htm1dg$i1d$4(a)news.eternal-september.org>, Justin <nospam(a)insightbb.com> wrote: > > 30-40% is not what i'd call 'ubiquitous'. > > Is that weighted by popularity if the sites? There are millions of small > flat sites out there that are blogs etc. that skew those numbers. it doesn't skew the numbers. if there are millions of small sites without flash, they count too. what makes you think an iphone user won't visit any of them? > I don't want native app games, I want the flash games that will never > be ported to native apps. such as? and how do you know they won't ever be ported? and what makes you think they'll work well on a touch device when they're designed for a mouse/keyboard and larger screen? > I want to be able to use restaurant websites that are flash based > Hint: That's a lot of sites. actually it isn't, and the number is dropping. > >> And many more than "a lot" don't. What's your point? > > > > that not everyone wants flash. > > Or people use those blockers to block the unwanted flash if people block it, they don't want it. > > because having to toggle flash on/off all the time is a royal pain. > > No, it's not. The Firefox flashblock extension shows a little play button > where the flash is embedded, when you want to run that item just hit play that's not part of flash. that's yet *another* piece.
From: nospam on 27 May 2010 11:56 In article <htm15p$i1d$3(a)news.eternal-september.org>, Justin <nospam(a)insightbb.com> wrote: > Of course, 3-10% is far from very very few. > Very very few is under 1% it's not enough to bother, especially when most of them will probably want to upgrade anyway, whether or not it was supported. > But, since APple is famous for orphaning products that are only a couple > of years old, it's not unexpected. but it's perfectly ok for google to orphan the t-mobile g1, a phone that's just 18 months old and *still being sold* today, or for htc to orphan anything sold prior to 2010, less than six months ago.
From: Paul Miner on 27 May 2010 12:43
On 27 May 2010 15:50:12 GMT, "Thomas T. Veldhouse" <veldy71(a)gmail.com> wrote: >In alt.cellular.attws Paul Miner <pminer(a)elrancho.invalid> wrote: >> >> Please review what you wrote. In no way does it logically follow the >> post you replied to. >> >> My question stands: 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. >> > >It's good if people are buying from the iTunes store. It is good if people >are getting attached to the Apple branded products and will buy future >products. It is good, because they maintain marketshare (due to the owners of >these devices not buying from a competitor). Do you need more reasons why it >is good for Apple? True, ideally, they would love for you to upgrade, but >also ideally, they want you to keep the Apple device you upgraded from in >service either personally or with somebody else. I guess I'm just wired to think differently. To me, when I see a group of products with "very, very few" still in use after just 3 years, I congratulate myself for not owning anything from that group. I think it's extremely shortsighted for a manufacturer to be comfortable with such a short lifespan of their products, as well. Sure, the high turnover helps the revenue, but at some point it seems like people would wake up and realize what they're buying and what a poor value it is. Then again, these are Apple products we're talking about, and Apple customers seem to be 'different'. -- Paul Miner |