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 16:21 On Sun, 08 Aug 2010 16:01:08 -0400, in <znu-BBE42A.16010808082010(a)Port80.Individual.NET>, ZnU <znu(a)fake.invalid> wrote: >In article <dg1u56h7lp1018abdr7rad01rm4mbpgk0n(a)4ax.com>, > John Navas <spamfilter1(a)navasgroup.com> wrote: >> 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. You're making invalid assumptions again. I used data biased toward Apple in the hope you wouldn't reject it out of hand, but alas. ;) >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. Think more carefully before insulting someone with idle speculation. >> p.s. App development for iPad and other iDevices is irrelevant in this >> context. > >It's not, ... It is irrelevant, and I'm not going to be drawn into another pointless argument just because you feel the need to move the goalposts again (and again). >This is a battle for the future of mobile computing. ... It's a battle for the mobile phone market. The iPad market is a different market and battle. If you disagree, try making a phone call with an iPad, and let me know how well it's "working for you". ;) -- John "Never argue with an idiot. He'll drag you down to his level and then beat you with experience." -Dr. Alan Zimmerman
From: JF Mezei on 8 Aug 2010 16:22 John Navas wrote: > > 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. I am not sure that this is to the manufacturer's advantage because in the end, the manufacturer gets much less exposure and brand recognition for its products. At one point in time, the largers fizzy drink bottler in north america was a small canadian company called "Cott". Nobody knew of them. But if you purchased any fizzy drink that was a store's brand, no name etc (aka: not a Coke or Pepsi brand), chances were high that it had been bottled by Cott. If Verizon gets all the hype for some HTC phone, HTC doesn't get the brand recognition that will help it market its phones to other networks. This is where Apple did it right with its iphone. It may be sold by AT&T in the USA, but it remains an Apple branded product, Apple gets the recognition and publicity.
From: nospam on 8 Aug 2010 16:24 In article <663u56l9ugvum8cctg430039uqtnfdjhnr(a)4ax.com>, John Navas <spamfilter1(a)navasgroup.com> wrote: > >Apple > >decided that mechanical keyboards and stylus's were un-necessary. Now, > >almost all the new phones use an on screen keyboard. > > Or this one either: > * Sony Ericsson pioneered the touchscreen concept with the P800 (which > I had) and P900, and resistive touch screen. blech. > * RIM still leads the smartphone market with mechanical keyboards. rim is losing market share. > >Apple decided > >that battery life was critical in the iPhone 4. I'm starting to see > >larger phones (in product releases) primarily for the larger screen, > >but also for the larger battery. > > Extended batteries were around long before the iPhone 4. sure, with big bulky add-ons. the iphone 4 gets great battery life out of the box, much better than say, an htc evo. > >>IOW, the whole thing was a huge Internet echo chamber phenomenon that > >>turns out to be pretty pointless. > > > >Apple was lucky that the problem was somewhat mitigated with a rubber > >bumper. Had it been something more difficult to solve, it could > >easily have been a disaster. However, a good question to ask was how > >could Apple have missed this effect? Could it be that someone > >unilaterally decided that it wasn't a problem and go ship it anyway? > > Or that Apple lacked the experience and expertise to find and properly > assess the significance of the problem, which I think more likely given > the backgrounds of the people involved -- Apple would have been better > served by stealing a crack phone engineer away from Motorola than the > IBM engineer who's now been fired for a problem he probably didn't have > the experience and expertise to properly assess. what makes you think they didn't? the have something like 15-20 rf engineers working on the phone and other devices, with one of the most elaborate testing chambers around, and the ibm engineer probably had a lot less to do with it than people think. there's ample evidence for those who actually care about facts that shows he was on his way out well before antennagate happened.
From: nospam on 8 Aug 2010 16:26 In article <znu-FF87A9.16160108082010(a)Port80.Individual.NET>, ZnU <znu(a)fake.invalid> wrote: > I suspect Apple was aware of the tradeoff being made and decided to make > it anyway on the basis that it didn't impact real-world performance that > much. Which it doesn't seem to. true. real world use it's not a big deal most of the time. > They clearly failed to anticipate its potential to cause widespread > Internet hysteria. very true.
From: John Navas on 8 Aug 2010 16:28
On Sun, 08 Aug 2010 15:53:42 -0400, in <znu-3375CC.15534208082010(a)Port80.Individual.NET>, ZnU <znu(a)fake.invalid> wrote: >In article <nl1u561ih2audtf93lqg0mj3djqpuvufd3(a)4ax.com>, > John Navas <spamfilter1(a)navasgroup.com> wrote: >> 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_. Software problems are easy to fix in the field. Hardware problems are not. >> 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). Real data from Jeff and others show it to be a serious fault, and one that's unique to Apple, spin by Apple notwithstanding. >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". How so? Apple got a jump on them, but both are doing very well with their Android devices, rapidly gaining share. And smartphones are still only a small part of the overall phone market. >> 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. It is what it is. ;) >> 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. That doesn't follow, but it's a pointless debate regardless. -- John "Assumption is the mother of all screw ups." [Wethern�s Law of Suspended Judgement] |