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 16:11 In alt.cellular.verizon Paul Miner <pminer(a)elrancho.invalid> wrote: > > 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. Here you go assuming that they are designing for such a short lifespan. My old phone from 5 or 6 years back can be activated on Sprint [if I care to ever use them again] and it will work on their mobile web just fine. Apple also designs the devices to last and they don't design them with a three year lifespan; if they did, I think they would lose a lot of customers who simply can't afford or can't justify an upgrade that often. The iPod Touch Gen 1 is still and will remain a VERY USABLE platform for the forseeable future and probably several more years and it will remain USABLE [with apps that simply can't be upgraded due to hardware requirements] for even longer. > > Then again, these are Apple products we're talking about, and Apple > customers seem to be 'different'. > I don't think so. Any electronic device pretty much fits the scenario. Not everybody feels like they have to chase the latest and greatest; in fact, many people who have been around the block several times understand the risks of early adoption and thus, they enter the market a little later in the game, but stay in it as long as the bleeding edge new users do. If you look at just mobile phones, other than smart phones, they have struggled to add any new meaningful features for the better part of the last 5 years (so what, they have better cameras, nicer screens and faster internet .... the basic functionality remains the same for the most part). Thus, many people keep the same phone for five years or more. The only reason some of these people have changed phones is because either their phone didn't have 911 location ability or they lost or broke the phone. I find myself wishing for my old trusty and sturdy Sanyo phone I had from Sprint (I don't recall the model number off hand), as I don't really use any features beyond SMS (been around for a LONG time), occassional MMS, occassional picture [usually the license plate of somebody parked too close to me], once a month at most Internet browsing (I do that with my iPod Touch) and of course the MAIN FEATURE ... TALKING ON THE PHONE. With the exception of perhaps the iPhone, all this smart phone stuff is largely gimmicky. I exclude the iPhone only because it is essentially an iPod Touch with phone, camera and GPS ability. It really isn't primarily a phone. Whatever though ... if mobile gimmicks are what people are willing to pay $360/year for or more, then a smart phone is the product for them. -- Thomas T. Veldhouse Religion is a crutch, but that's okay... humanity is a cripple.
From: Kimmy Boyer on 27 May 2010 16:24 On Thu, 27 May 2010 18:10:19 +0000 (UTC), Justin wrote: > nospam wrote on [Thu, 27 May 2010 10:47:30 -0700]: >> In article <htm9bf$33b$1(a)news.eternal-september.org>, Justin >> <nospam(a)insightbb.com> wrote: >> >>> > 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. >>> >>> They are not mutually exclusive items. They are both wrong. >> >> neither is wrong. > > Perhaps your reading comprehension is faulty. Perhaps you would like me to slap you around with my labias? -- http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hV7agoTb5Ak
From: John Navas on 27 May 2010 17:14 On Thu, 27 May 2010 16:22:09 -0400, Kimmy Boyer <KimaBoyer(a)yahoo.com> wrote in <4bfed46b$1(a)news.x-privat.org>: >[SNIP] *plonk*
From: Paul Miner on 27 May 2010 19:48 On Thu, 27 May 2010 12:37:54 -0700, nospam <nospam(a)nospam.invalid> wrote: >In article <20gtv59248g8qpm9digoi2od2i149u6vol(a)4ax.com>, Paul Miner ><pminer(a)elrancho.invalid> wrote: > >> >> Assuming you're right that 2.2 is available for the Nexus One, then >> >> it's obviously not vaporware. >> > >> >it's not vaporware only to a tiny subset of android users. >> >> Thanks for (finally) conceding the point! > >it's still vapor for the vast majority of android users. some don't >even know if they'll get it or not since the manufacturer has not yet >decided. You still don't understand what vaporware is. If it's available to any end users, (not necessarily ALL end users), then it's no longer vaporware. It's a simple concept. -- Paul Miner
From: nospam on 27 May 2010 20:05
In article <i31uv55mm6i5t3gl2pj2gjpd9eh1s34sg1(a)4ax.com>, Paul Miner <pminer(a)elrancho.invalid> wrote: > You still don't understand what vaporware is. If it's available to any > end users, (not necessarily ALL end users), then it's no longer > vaporware. It's a simple concept. then iphone os 4 isn't vaporware either since it's available to some end users, but not all (yet). very simple. |