NEWS: Apple sued over hot iPad shutdowns
in [Wireless Internet]
|
Prev: NEWS: Security shortcomings in WPA2 that threaten security of wireless networks
Next: NEWS: Security shortcomings in WPA2 that threaten security ofwireless networks
From: Todd Allcock on 7 Aug 2010 05:34 At 06 Aug 2010 16:59:55 -0400 ZnU wrote: > And then there's good old human irrationality. All carriers drop calls. > If you've been told your carrier is worse than most, every time a call > drops you'll say "Wow, AT&T sucks". If you've been told your carrier is > better than most, on the other hand, when a call drops you'll probably > just accept it as an inherent limitation of the technology. The catch is > that this will hold true regardless of the _actual_ relative performance > of the carriers in question. A point I've tried to make many times before, but not nearly as succinctly as you just did, thanks!
From: Todd Allcock on 7 Aug 2010 06:00 At 05 Aug 2010 16:58:38 -0700 John Navas wrote: > On Thu, 05 Aug 2010 16:35:33 -0600, in > <F1H6o.36539$F%7.30352(a)newsfe10.iad>, Todd Allcock > <elecconnec(a)AnoOspamL.com> wrote: > > >Exactly- so the ~60% of iPhone buyers forced to switch from Verizon, T- > >Mo, or Sprint, breaking up family plans or calling circles, and/or > > losing > >"free" M2M calls to friends/family still on their former service are > >going to be annoyed, even if AT&T service is perfectly adequate, or > > even, > >dare I say it, excellent. Given that 60 of iPhone customers switched > > to > >AT&T for an iPhone, I'd say a 27% "bitching rate" is pretty good. > > I respectfully disagree -- it's quite bad by industry standards, and a > tribute to Apple marketing that it's not turned into a bigger issue. My point was only half of the customers "forced" to switch find the exclusivity (and, therefore, the reason they had to switch) to be their main complaint. I think that actually speaks well of AT&T service. I'd argue that most people have chosen the carrier that they believe best suits their needs, so being forced to switch carriers just to use the new UberFone 3000 _should_ annoy them, regardless of who, or how good, that carrier was. Personally, I'm quite happy with my carrier, T-Mo, so I'd be annoyed if my preferred handset was only available through someone else- why should iPhone buyers be any different?
From: ZnU on 7 Aug 2010 06:02 In article <tckm56h6i3e25l7122k7leetk970oiefi6(a)4ax.com>, Jeff Liebermann <jeffl(a)cruzio.com> wrote: > On Thu, 05 Aug 2010 18:51:17 -0500, Lloyd Parsons > <lloydparsons(a)mac.com> wrote: > > >> On the contrary -- Android has now moved past iPhone into 2nd place > >> behind RIM in smartphones. > > > >In numbers in use? I don't think so. Can you provide a link showing > >that please? > > 1st quarter 2010 > <http://www.npd.com/press/releases/press_100510.html> > RIM 36% > Android 28% > Apple 21% > > 2nd quarter 2010 > <http://www.npd.com/press/releases/press_100804.html> > RIM 28% > Android 33% > Apple 22% One of these things is not like the others. I'm increasingly convinced there's no particularly good reason to count all Android phones in one pool when making comparisons. They're not from the same vendor. They don't provide a unified set of hardware or software capabilities or a consistent user experience across devices. And a lot of Android phones are sold with relatively little mention of 'Android'. If you look at the application sales estimates, it's not clear that users even understand Android as a platform; I suspect many are just buying Android phones as more capable 'feature' phones. Android might be more properly thought of as a common open source codebase that handset vendors can draw on when building their phones than as a mobile platform to be directly compared to Apple's or RIM's. -- "The game of professional investment is intolerably boring and over-exacting to anyone who is entirely exempt from the gambling instinct; whilst he who has it must pay to this propensity the appropriate toll." -- John Maynard Keynes
From: Dennis Ferguson on 7 Aug 2010 06:52 On 2010-08-06, nospam <nospam(a)nospam.invalid> wrote: > In article <hlkm56pra2bet8aj0u9gu0tohl98n0ppui(a)4ax.com>, Jeff > Liebermann <jeffl(a)cruzio.com> wrote: > >> >I think a persistent setting is changed in the phone when activated. >> >> Yep. The flag to allow operation might also be on the SIM card. >> Difficult to tell yet. > > it's not on the sim. Where is it, then? AT&T is certainly fussy about iPhone SIMs. Their computer won't let them enable an iPhone data plan on any SIM older than the ones that say "AT&T 3G" even though my wife's (Apple-)unlocked iPhone worked just fine with an orange Cingular 64k SIM on either of several other data plans. There is something on the new SIMs which AT&T insists you must have with an iPhone, and what ever that is must be of value to AT&T rather than the phone since the phone itself is happy to operate with any SIM new enough to do 3G authentication. Dennis Ferguson
From: Wes Groleau on 7 Aug 2010 10:09
On 08-06-2010 21:58, Jeff Liebermann wrote: > difference. I could be incredibly sloppy in my measurements and > assumptions, and still produce results that demonstrate that the > iPhone 4 has a bigger problem than the others. Especially if your _goal_ is to produce such results. -- Wes Groleau "What you see and hear depends a good deal on where you are standing; it also depends on what kind of person you are." -- C.S.Lewis |