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: John Navas on 8 Aug 2010 11:06 On Sat, 07 Aug 2010 14:27:26 -0400, in <znu-0C55BC.14272607082010(a)Port80.Individual.NET>, ZnU <znu(a)fake.invalid> wrote: >In article <4c5d7133$0$1591$742ec2ed(a)news.sonic.net>, > SMS <scharf.steven(a)geemail.com> wrote: >> If you look at the independent testing regarding dropped calls, it does >> show a far greater dropped call rate for AT&T, which jives with the >> results of all the independent consumer surveys on dropped calls. >> >> "http://www.9to5mac.com/changewave-AT-T" > >I have _serious_ doubts about the ability of users to accurately report >call drop rates to within a couple of percentage points over a 90 day >period. My guess(tm) is that users were asked to record (a) total number of calls and (b) number of dropped calls. In that context the most likely source of bias would be in the definition of "dropped call". Some users might see that only as calls when the connection is actually lost, whereas others might also include calls so poor they deliberately disconnected and called again, which could easily be biased by technology and/or particular handsets (good and bad). Without knowing much more about the survey methodology, there's no way of knowing how much bias there is in the data, but my guess(tm) is that the error of estimate is large relative to the reported numbers, making them of little real value. -- John "Assumption is the mother of all screw ups." [Wethern�s Law of Suspended Judgement]
From: ZnU on 8 Aug 2010 11:09 In article <s9gt56pusp7qj8ui39t376ba8uv627dnji(a)4ax.com>, John Navas <spamfilter1(a)navasgroup.com> wrote: > On Sat, 07 Aug 2010 18:17:49 -0400, in > <znu-EC978A.18174907082010(a)Port80.Individual.NET>, ZnU > <znu(a)fake.invalid> wrote: > > >In article <0fir569ng2c2k6seobom2mnubitl9jok38(a)4ax.com>, > > Jeff Liebermann <jeffl(a)cruzio.com> wrote: > > > >> On Sat, 07 Aug 2010 06:02:13 -0400, ZnU <znu(a)fake.invalid> wrote: > > > >[snip] > > > >> >If you look at the application sales estimates, it's not > >> >clear that users even understand Android as a platform; > >> > >> I don't see the connection. If app sales were higher, it would not > >> necessarily create a better understanding of the OS by the users. > > > >I'm speculating that the cause/effect relationship runs in the _other_ > >direction. That users aren't buying Android apps in large numbers > >because many don't understand that a) their phones can actually run apps > >and this is useful and that b) they'll be able to take their apps with > >them to other Android phones in the future. > > That wouldn't seem likely, what with: > (a) heavy promotion of Android apps (e.g., Verizon ads) > (b) similar app experience between Android and iPhone, > (c) multitasking in all Androids, and > (d) heavier data consumption by Android than by iPhone > <http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/38456202/ns/technology_and_science-wireless/>. http://larvalabs.com/blog/android/android-market-payouts-total-2-of-app-s tores-1b/ -- "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: ZnU on 8 Aug 2010 11:15 In article <kngt56d86aen3htqsp11lh21svie3jou1u(a)4ax.com>, John Navas <spamfilter1(a)navasgroup.com> wrote: > On Sat, 07 Aug 2010 14:16:55 -0400, in > <znu-7283CB.14165507082010(a)Port80.Individual.NET>, ZnU > <znu(a)fake.invalid> wrote: > > >In article <08sq56l9gi1u4hsrbecr24kadau1n7ph0i(a)4ax.com>, > > John Navas <spamfilter1(a)navasgroup.com> wrote: > > > >> On Sat, 07 Aug 2010 05:51:44 -0400, in > >> <znu-1D9F45.05514407082010(a)Port80.Individual.NET>, ZnU > >> <znu(a)fake.invalid> wrote: > >> > >> >In article <050820101301232886%nospam(a)nospam.invalid>, > >> > nospam <nospam(a)nospam.invalid> wrote: > >> > > >> >> In article <lloydparsons-2C9285.10404005082010(a)idisk.mac.com>, > >> >> Lloyd Parsons <lloydparsons(a)mac.com> wrote: > >> >> > >> >> > And for all the complaints about how good/bad AT&T is, there > >> >> > has been much conjecture that if any other provider had been > >> >> > given the iPhone exclusive, they would have had the same > >> >> > problems that AT&T has had with the useage patterns. > >> >> > >> >> except that with the explosion of android phones, you don't see > >> >> very many complaints about verizon, yet you still see > >> >> complaints about at&t. > >> > > >> >This is not especially meaningful. The iPhone has faced _far_ > >> >more scrutiny than the confused mess of Android phones various > >> >carriers are now selling. > >> > >> I respectfully disagree -- Android has received enormous scrutiny. > > > >Antennagate demonstrates _very_ clearly that Apple is not remotely > >held to the same standard as other industry participants. > > I respectfully disagree. Antennagate just demonstrates that Apple > got caught with a poor design that affects the entire population of > the latest phone. > > >It is simply unimaginable that any such controversy could have > >arisen with respect to any other specific handset model. > > It's "unimaginable" because there are so many different makes and > models, where any given model defect is confined to a small minority > of Android devices (one of the advantages of the open Android model). But this is precisely my point. Having more models doesn't actually mean the phone an individual user buys is less likely to have an issue. It just means consumers less likely to _hear_ about issues. This is actually _worse_ for consumers, yet it makes Android look better. And I think there's even an additional factor at work. There are a lot of people who _love_ to hate Apple. There are also lots of clueless Apple fans who demand entirely unreasonable things from Apple and get pissed off when they don't get the. (See any Mac web forum on the day of a major Apple announcement.) And the iPhone still has substantially better brand recognition than Android. Put these together with the tendency for sensationalist Internet 'journalism', you have a recipe for a firestorm -- in a way you just don't with Android devices. > Google's own Nexus One received comparable criticism to iPhone 4 even > though its problems were less severe. -- "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: John Navas on 8 Aug 2010 11:17 On Sun, 08 Aug 2010 11:09:57 -0400, in <znu-6A80F1.11095708082010(a)Port80.Individual.NET>, ZnU <znu(a)fake.invalid> wrote: >In article <s9gt56pusp7qj8ui39t376ba8uv627dnji(a)4ax.com>, > John Navas <spamfilter1(a)navasgroup.com> wrote: > >> On Sat, 07 Aug 2010 18:17:49 -0400, in >> <znu-EC978A.18174907082010(a)Port80.Individual.NET>, ZnU >> <znu(a)fake.invalid> wrote: >> >> >In article <0fir569ng2c2k6seobom2mnubitl9jok38(a)4ax.com>, >> > Jeff Liebermann <jeffl(a)cruzio.com> wrote: >> > >> >> On Sat, 07 Aug 2010 06:02:13 -0400, ZnU <znu(a)fake.invalid> wrote: >> > >> >[snip] >> > >> >> >If you look at the application sales estimates, it's not >> >> >clear that users even understand Android as a platform; >> >> >> >> I don't see the connection. If app sales were higher, it would not >> >> necessarily create a better understanding of the OS by the users. >> > >> >I'm speculating that the cause/effect relationship runs in the _other_ >> >direction. That users aren't buying Android apps in large numbers >> >because many don't understand that a) their phones can actually run apps >> >and this is useful and that b) they'll be able to take their apps with >> >them to other Android phones in the future. >> >> That wouldn't seem likely, what with: >> (a) heavy promotion of Android apps (e.g., Verizon ads) >> (b) similar app experience between Android and iPhone, >> (c) multitasking in all Androids, and >> (d) heavier data consumption by Android than by iPhone >> <http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/38456202/ns/technology_and_science-wireless/>. > >http://larvalabs.com/blog/android/android-market-payouts-total-2-of-app-s >tores-1b/ <http://www.appolicious.com/tech/articles/2275-consumers-find-more-free-apps-on-android-phones> -- John "Assumption is the mother of all screw ups." [Wethern�s Law of Suspended Judgement]
From: ZnU on 8 Aug 2010 11:20
In article <h1ht56h23jirsiu43ndgtb69nmrmihu60c(a)4ax.com>, John Navas <spamfilter1(a)navasgroup.com> wrote: > On Sat, 07 Aug 2010 18:11:05 -0400, in > <znu-DD830A.18110507082010(a)Port80.Individual.NET>, ZnU > <znu(a)fake.invalid> wrote: > > >In article <H2k7o.3910$EF1.1599(a)newsfe14.iad>, > > "Todd Allcock" <elecconnec(a)AnoOspamL.com> wrote: > > > >> "ZnU" <znu(a)fake.invalid> wrote in message > >> news:znu-7283CB.14165507082010(a)Port80.Individual.NET... > > >> > Antennagate demonstrates _very_ clearly that Apple is not remotely held > >> > to the same standard as other industry participants. It is simply > >> > unimaginable that any such controversy could have arisen with respect to > >> > any other specific handset model. > >> > >> Perhaps, but I see it as a popularity issue, coupled with the dearth of > >> models. If Nokia or Motorola had a "radical new" antenna design on one of > >> their phones with a similar problem, it'd be one model of dozens. Other > >> than Apple continuing to sell "last year's model" along with the iPhone du > >> jour, the iPhone 4 is THE Apple phone, meaning if the device has an > >> alleged > >> problem, the "entire line" has an alleged problem. If there was an iPhone > >> Classic, iPhone Nano, iPhone Shuffle, etc., I think this would be less of > >> a > >> big deal. > > > >Yes, this is absolutely part of why individual Apple devices get more > >scrutiny. But they _do_ get more scrutiny. So you can't just say that > >since people make a big deal out of these things with Apple devices, but > >not with other devices, other devices must not ever have any issues. > > Google's own Nexus One received comparable criticism to iPhone 4 even > though its problems were less severe. This supports my point. Even someone like me -- who follows tech news pretty damn closely -- didn't hear about this issue on the Nexus One until the firestorm surrounding the iPhone antenna had erupted and a few people started pointing it out. And even then I'd be surprised if it got more than a tenth of a percent of the coverage the iPhone 4 antenna got. -- "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 |