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 15:49
On Sun, 08 Aug 2010 14:51:59 -0400, in
<znu-6F5DD3.14515808082010(a)Port80.Individual.NET>, ZnU
<znu(a)fake.invalid> wrote:

>In article <ltot569iv0ou37h6ncb828p5bjb84fehj3(a)4ax.com>,
> John Navas <spamfilter1(a)navasgroup.com> wrote:

>> Your personal belief and quibbles notwithstanding, they are perceived by
>> the industry and by consumers as being in the same class.
>
>Heh. I'm citing actual substantive differences,

I've seen no such "actual substantive differences" -- all I've seen is a
lot of vague hand-waving and exaggerations that would exclude even prior
versions of the iPhone.

>and you're accusing me
>of pushing "personal belief and quibbles". Meanwhile, you're claiming
>the industry and consumers apparently consider _all_ Android phones to
>be in the same class as the iPhone, and offering no evidence of that at
>all.

It would be easy to provide such evidence, but since you'll just reject
it, pointless.

>To the extent that the tech-savvy consider them equivalent, I think it
>actually has a lot to do with the fact that most of the focus is on a
>couple of the best Android handsets.

You are of course entitled to your opinion (no matter how unfounded).

>> Which ones (by name) are those? (I've asked you this before.)
>> What I've seen are comparisons of the biggest selling Android phones.
>> Moto Droid, for example, is a huge hit on Verizon.
>
>Look at Verizon's current lineup. You don't think there are probably a
>_lot_ of people buying the LG Ally, which is $50 and currently has a
>2-for-1 offer, rather than the Droid X, which is $199 -- 8x the price if
>you want two?

Verizon's big seller is the Droid.
<http://www.npd.com/press/releases/press_100804.html>:
1. Motorola Droid
2. HTC Droid Incredible
3. HTC EVO 4G
4. HTC Hero
5. HTC Droid Eris
Try again.

>> Quality is as good or better than Apple, and the advice is sound,
>> because there are in fact substantial differences between different
>> Android phones, as you yourself have admitted, plus things like physical
>> keyboards.
>
>You're missing the point. In order for an Android phone to be a better
>choice than an iPhone for a given user, there must be a _single
>specific_ Android phone that is a better choice than an iPhone for that
>user. This game of "Well, if you don't like X about Phone 1, buy Phone 2
>instead" is useless if Phone 2 has issue Y which is just as bad as issue
>X. And in the real world, that's very often the case.

I disagree. Do you not have even one good real example?

--
John

"Facts? We ain't got no facts. We don't need no facts. I don't have
to show you any stinking facts!" [with apologies to John Huston]
From: John Navas on 8 Aug 2010 15:51
On Sun, 08 Aug 2010 12:13:23 -0700, in
<1kvt56tv8mjsj30hpvegvq7i3dp3lpr58f(a)4ax.com>, Jeff Liebermann
<jeffl(a)cruzio.com> wrote:

>On Sun, 08 Aug 2010 10:28:16 -0700, John Navas
><spamfilter1(a)navasgroup.com> wrote:

>>What seems to be much
>>more important is (a) cachet and (b) recommendations from friends. FWIW,
>>pretty much everyone who's talked to me about getting an iPhone in the
>>past several months has said something like, "My friends tell me I
>>should get an iPhone!"
>
>Naw... they pump me for all the info they can squeeze out of me, and
>then buy whatever they find interesting. One prospective buyer seems
>to be most interested in which phone plays the best Tetris game. I
>beg them to talk to me before buying, but that never seems to happen.
>When I dig deeper, I find that the 16 year old grand brat had more
>influence than my detailed research. A common question is "What's
>everyone else buying"? which hints at some kind of herd instinct.

I think that's pretty much what I said. ;)

--
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 15:53
In article <nl1u561ih2audtf93lqg0mj3djqpuvufd3(a)4ax.com>,
John Navas <spamfilter1(a)navasgroup.com> wrote:

> On Sun, 08 Aug 2010 14:52:00 -0400, in
> <znu-81C683.14520008082010(a)Port80.Individual.NET>, ZnU
> <znu(a)fake.invalid> wrote:
>
> >In article <dunt56pr5g0psrni122fd04qnro35d6p2s(a)4ax.com>,
> > John Navas <spamfilter1(a)navasgroup.com> wrote:
>
> >> I see no basis for that claim. Perhaps you're confusing Android, made
> >> by Google, with Android hardware, make by experienced hardware players.
> >
> >I'm talking about actual Android phones, which include both hardware and
> >software components.
>
> So you are confusing them. Tip: You can have great software on
> not-so-great hardware, vice versa, and other combinations as well.

I have no idea what your point is here. There is nothing wrong with
looking at actual _products_ considering _all of their components_.

> >> Apple has come up to speed remarkably well, but its mistakes are
> >> evidence of how new it is to the party as compared to much more
> >> experienced players like Nokia and Motorola. Google likewise, as
> >> evidenced by Nexus One.
> >
> >Um... if you compare the iPhone to specific models of Android phone or
> >even to, say, all the Android phones sold by Motorola, Apple is
> >trouncing those "more experienced players".
>
> Just the opposite --
> Motorola has had no such embarrassing hardware issues,
> <http://www.mediapost.com/publications/?fa=Articles.showArticle&art_aid=132820

1) The issue was "embarrassing" primarily as a result of the nature of
the media coverage Apple receives, not as a consequence of the nature
of the underlying fault (a mildly exaggerated version of a fault most
devices on the market have).

2) Apple is selling ~3x as many smartphones as Motorola or HTC:

http://www.gsmarena.com/apple_htc_and_motorola_increase_smartphone_market
_share_-news-1642.php

That has to be pretty embarrassing for those "more experienced players".

> and is (re)gaining market share much more rapidly than Apple.
> <http://www.npd.com/press/releases/press_100804.html>

This doesn't show Motorola's overall smartphone market share.

> >> Since _all_ iPhone users tend to be impacted by any iPhone hardware
> >> issue, whereas a given Android hardware issue won't affect the
> >> majority of Android users, greater publicity is both understandable
> >> and meaningful.
> >
> >What you can't seem to grasp is that more models doesn't mean the same
> >number of discrete issues, with each issue impacting fewer users. All
> >else being equal, more models also means _more discrete issues_ with
> >each issue impacting fewer users. The odds of a specific user having
> >_some_ issue remain the same.
>
> Sorry, but that doesn't follow -- you're making an unwarranted
> assumption that files in the face of the available evidence.

No. I'm assuming, in the absence of evidence to the contrary, that the
per-model issue rate is doesn't magically go down because the number of
models is higher. _You_ are assuming that it does.

If anything, I'd expect the number of per-model issues to be _higher_
when vendors have their attention divided between more models.

> If you're going to promote Apple so aggressively, you should at least
> stick to its strengths, not its weaknesses. ;)

--
"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 15:59
On Sun, 08 Aug 2010 15:16:34 -0400, in
<znu-67E0CB.15163408082010(a)Port80.Individual.NET>, ZnU
<znu(a)fake.invalid> wrote:

>In article <v9ut569kkb5soa46241rg2t2jrrehdjcs7(a)4ax.com>,
> John Navas <spamfilter1(a)navasgroup.com> wrote:

>> HTC model history.
>> Motorola model history.
>
>See, that's exactly the kind of vague nonsense I wasn't asking for.

You don't know the model history of those two major brands?
(How then can you comment intelligently on the issue?)
OK, here you go: <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Android_devices>

>> Read what he wrote more carefully.
>
>I was making a point about brand recognition in the context of
>discussing how much coverage issues with phones get in the media.
>
>He seems to be making some other point about brand recognition.

You're still misreading what he wrote, which is that brand recognition
in this particular context is more a matter of carrier ("Can you hear me
now?") than of device.

>> Really? What support do you have for that claim (if any)?
>
>You're both playing games.

So you don't have any support for that claim?

>> Just as there are between iPhone models. Is each iPhone in a separate
>> class in your opinion? :)
>
>The iPhone 4 is certainly in a different class from, say, the iPhone 3G.

Your class distinction, which amounts to iPhone 4 being in a class by
itself, is meaningless (and self-serving, no offense intended).

--
John

"Assumption is the mother of all screw ups."
[Wethern�s Law of Suspended Judgement]
From: ZnU on 8 Aug 2010 16:01
In article <dg1u56h7lp1018abdr7rad01rm4mbpgk0n(a)4ax.com>,
John Navas <spamfilter1(a)navasgroup.com> wrote:

> On Sun, 08 Aug 2010 14:58:09 -0400, in
> <znu-7FD0D5.14580908082010(a)Port80.Individual.NET>, ZnU
> <znu(a)fake.invalid> wrote:
>
> >In article <5jnt569bq08ae2pu55k07401lkeifop6s5(a)4ax.com>,
> > John Navas <spamfilter1(a)navasgroup.com> wrote:
> >
> >> On Sun, 08 Aug 2010 12:37:20 -0400, in
> >> <znu-E6AA49.12372008082010(a)Port80.Individual.NET>, ZnU
> >> <znu(a)fake.invalid> wrote:
> >>
> >> >In article <sgkt569kivh80jiji4hm81iassi99cktn6(a)4ax.com>,
> >> > John Navas <spamfilter1(a)navasgroup.com> wrote:
> >>
> >> >> Nothing wrong with that -- Android is getting the best of both
> >> >> worlds.
> >> >
> >> >See next response.
> >> >
> >> >> >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.
> >> >
> >> >Not if it results in junky hobbyware crowding higher quality apps
> >> >out, it's not.
> >>
> >> I see no evidence of that, and don't think it likely.
> >>
> >> >> Available evidence suggests otherwise; e.g.,
> >> >> <http://www.gomonews.com/android-go-boom-mobile-analytics-points-to
> >> >> -explosi on- of-development/>
> >> >
> >> >The data is from last October, which was still early days. It's easy
> >> >to have huge relative growth that early in the game, because the
> >> >baseline is so low.
> >>
> >> There's ample evidence of continued rapid growth (but since you're
> >> probably just going to reject them, I'm not going to waste time on
> >> more citations).
> >>
> >> >See also:
> >> >http://blog.flurry.com/bid/31825/iPad-Developer-Support-Continues-to-
> >> >Soar
> >> >
> >> >Android project starts are still growing, but iOS project starts are
> >> >growing even faster, thanks in part to iPad. (RIM just appears
> >> >totally screwed in making the transition from e-mail appliances to
> >> >real smartphones.)
> >>
> >> Flurry data is biased toward Apple. Got anything more objective?
> >
> >Your original link cited Flurry data, but as soon as I use it it's
> >"biased toward Apple". Hilarious.
>
> Think more carefully before you dash off a reply -- I used it
> precisely because it's (a) biased toward Apple and (b) still shows a
> huge boom in Android development. More representative data shows an
> even bigger Android boom.

You're claiming you posted data biased toward Apple despite having
access to "more representative data" that more strongly supported your
point.

That makes no sense. A more reasonable interpretation of the exchange is
that you found Flurry data from last October that supported your point,
so you posted it unquestioningly. But then once you saw more recent
Flurry data that supported my point, you decided Flurry data had to be
biased.

Think more carefully before you dash off a reply.

> p.s. App development for iPad and other iDevices is irrelevant in this
> context.

It's not, and it baffles me that people believe it is. What is an
iPhone? It's basically an iPod Touch with a cellular version of what
used to be called a "voice modem". Did people count computers with
modems and without modems as different types of devices? No. So why does
it make any sense to do that in this market?

This is a battle for the future of mobile computing. Supporting cellular
data and/or voice is just another feature that a particular mobile
computing device might have or not.

--
"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
First  |  Prev  |  Next  |  Last
Pages: 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63
Prev: NEWS: Security shortcomings in WPA2 that threaten security of wireless networks
Next: NEWS: Security shortcomings in WPA2 that threaten security ofwireless networks