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 11:22 On Sun, 08 Aug 2010 11:15:44 -0400, in <znu-1EC735.11154408082010(a)Port80.Individual.NET>, ZnU <znu(a)fake.invalid> wrote: >In article <kngt56d86aen3htqsp11lh21svie3jou1u(a)4ax.com>, > John Navas <spamfilter1(a)navasgroup.com> wrote: >> 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. Choice is _better_ for consumers, not only because one size doesn't fit all, but also because one bad apple doesn't spoil the whole barrel the way it does with Apple. Android looks better because its model is 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. I think the evidence is strong that there are far more blind Apple loyalists than Apple critics. -- John "Assumption is the mother of all screw ups." [Wethern�s Law of Suspended Judgement]
From: John Navas on 8 Aug 2010 11:30 On Sun, 08 Aug 2010 11:20:00 -0400, in <znu-5B8248.11200008082010(a)Port80.Individual.NET>, ZnU <znu(a)fake.invalid> wrote: >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. I can't imagine how. Perhaps I'm missing your point. An Apple problem affects the entire population of phones, whereas a given Android handset problem doesn't affect all the other Android handsets. Advantage Android, a matter of the open business model, not fairness. >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. It was widely reported. Google gets scrutiny comparable to Apple. >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. Not terribly surprising, since (a) Nexus One was only a minor factor in the Android market, (b) its problems were less severe than iPhone 4, and (c) its problems were largely corrected with an OTA update. -- John If the iPhone and iPad are really so impressive, then why do iFans keep making excuses for them?
From: ZnU on 8 Aug 2010 11:34 In article <4iit56lonjtsmk04cd357uppkqoi2epga1(a)4ax.com>, John Navas <spamfilter1(a)navasgroup.com> wrote: > 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-o > n-android-phones> That difference fails to account for such a large gap. Actually, I'd see it as evidence that a larger fraction of Android apps are hobbyist projects. Which we'd expect anyway, because the barriers to entry are much lower. You don't need a Mac to write Android apps, and they're written in Java, which is a more widely used language than Obj-C. In the long run, a platform which actually allows professional developers to make money from their apps is going to get much better apps. -- "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 11:40 In article <2nit56p0t9a20u676p834ajnqvca1mc8fi(a)4ax.com>, John Navas <spamfilter1(a)navasgroup.com> wrote: > On Sun, 08 Aug 2010 11:15:44 -0400, in > <znu-1EC735.11154408082010(a)Port80.Individual.NET>, ZnU > <znu(a)fake.invalid> wrote: > > >In article <kngt56d86aen3htqsp11lh21svie3jou1u(a)4ax.com>, > > John Navas <spamfilter1(a)navasgroup.com> wrote: > > >> 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. > > Choice is _better_ for consumers, not only because one size doesn't fit > all, but also because one bad apple doesn't spoil the whole barrel the > way it does with Apple. But issues related to specific Android models receive sufficiently little coverage that regular consumers aren't going to hear about them. > Android looks better because its model is better. There are a lot of Android handsets on the market, and only a handful that are really even in the same class as the iPhone. These are the ones that everyone focuses on in tech newsgroups, but I'd bet it's some combination of the lower-end Android handsets (some of which have been subsidized down to $0 or handed out in 2-for-1 deals at various times) that account for most of the sales. This will tend to make Android look _worse_ on average, to people who come into contact with it in the real world (friends' phones, etc.). > >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. > > I think the evidence is strong that there are far more blind Apple > loyalists than Apple critics. Even if that's true, a) the blind Apple loyalists also attack Apple (see above) and b) the blind loyalists also visit web sites with negative coverage (half the fun of being a blind loyalist is presumably being able to get nice and outraged occasionally, I'd think), which encourages web sites to stir up this sort of controversy. -- "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 11:53
On Sun, 08 Aug 2010 11:34:21 -0400, in <znu-A77FF2.11342008082010(a)Port80.Individual.NET>, ZnU <znu(a)fake.invalid> wrote: >In article <4iit56lonjtsmk04cd357uppkqoi2epga1(a)4ax.com>, > John Navas <spamfilter1(a)navasgroup.com> wrote: > >> 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-o >> n-android-phones> > >That difference fails to account for such a large gap. Actually, I'd see >it as evidence that a larger fraction of Android apps are hobbyist >projects. Which we'd expect anyway, because the barriers to entry are >much lower. Nothing wrong with that -- Android is getting the best of both worlds. >You don't need a Mac to write Android apps, and they're >written in Java, which is a more widely used language than Obj-C. Benefits of the Android model. >In the long run, a platform which actually allows professional >developers to make money from their apps is going to get much better >apps. Available evidence suggests otherwise; e.g., <http://www.gomonews.com/android-go-boom-mobile-analytics-points-to-explosion-of-development/> -- John "Assumption is the mother of all screw ups." [Wethern�s Law of Suspended Judgement] |