Prev: NEWS: Security shortcomings in WPA2 that threaten security of wireless networks
Next: NEWS: Security shortcomings in WPA2 that threaten security ofwireless networks
From: nospam on 8 Aug 2010 16:28
In article <164u561i94um3buf9ptjp2ooa2ekmj6e3i(a)4ax.com>, John Navas
<spamfilter1(a)navasgroup.com> wrote:

> >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". ;)

it's very easy to do using skype, but more importantly, the ipad is an
ios device. i'm sure when android tablets come out you'll be counting
those. double-standard as always.
From: ZnU on 8 Aug 2010 16:29
In article <752u561i050d884dp5530b13l7eakj7a44(a)4ax.com>,
John Navas <spamfilter1(a)navasgroup.com> wrote:

> 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.

I'm saying certain Android phones, like the Droid X, are in the same
class as the iPhone 4, while other Android phones, like the Ally, are
not.

You appear to be disagreeing with me. One logical consequence of this
would seem to be that you believe the Ally and the Droid X are in the
same class. So why is anyone buying the latter for 4x the price (8x if
you want two)?

[snip]

> >> 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.

I suspect this data mostly predates the widespread availability of these
cheaper Android models, which is very recent -- and which seems to
coincide with significant sales growth.

> >> 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?

Well, for instance, the Droid X ships with junkware pre-installed and
with Motorola UI customizations that make the default Android UI worse.
So maybe I'll go with the Droid Incredible. Except that it has shorter
battery life and doesn't support tethering.

When arguing, Android advocates sort of act as if they're advocating
some Android phone that magically combines all the best features of all
the Android handsets on the market. Unfortunately, you can't actually
buy one of those.

--
"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 16:31
On Sun, 08 Aug 2010 16:16:01 -0400, in
<znu-FF87A9.16160108082010(a)Port80.Individual.NET>, ZnU
<znu(a)fake.invalid> wrote:

>In article <5g0u56pesbealt82grt16jgpkpbhs75t0c(a)4ax.com>,
> Jeff Liebermann <jeffl(a)cruzio.com> wrote:

>> Not within the Android market. They're too new for this kind of
>> evolutionary improvements. However, there are plenty of examples
>> among other cell phone manufacturers. Motorola revolutionized the
>> industry with the RAZR and its internal antenna at the bottom of the
>> phone. Now, most commodity phones have internal antenna. HTC
>> introduced the slide out keyboard which doesn't waste front panel
>> space. Now, almost all PDA phones have sliding keyboards. Apple
>> decided that mechanical keyboards and stylus's were un-necessary. Now,
>> almost all the new phones use an on screen keyboard. 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. My point is that all the
>> manufacturers borrow good ideas from each other, thus improving the
>> product.
>
>Yes. But the only time this is an advantage for Android vs. iPhone is if
>it can happen faster as a consequence of the fact that Android phones
>are released throughout the year while there is only one new iPhone
>model per year.
>
>Given the lead times for products this complex, I'm not sure I buy that
>vendors can effectively 'borrow' from each other on timescales that
>short.

They can and do. Evidence abounds.
Suggest you inform yourself _before_ taking positions.

>> >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.
>
>Meh. Remember, estimates are that Apple earns more profit from phones
>than any other company in the entire global cellular industry. They'd
>take a bit of a quarterly hit if a recall had been necessary, but they
>could afford it.

So it's OK as long as it doesn't have a big hit on the bottom line? ;)

>> 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?
>
>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.

Evidence says just the opposite.

>They clearly failed to anticipate its potential to cause widespread
>Internet hysteria.

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

--
John

"Assumption is the mother of all screw ups."
[Wethern�s Law of Suspended Judgement]
From: John Navas on 8 Aug 2010 16:34
On Sun, 08 Aug 2010 13:06:20 -0700, in
<8d2u56d3rjpmvui0e84604752co3bm8jth(a)4ax.com>, Jeff Liebermann
<jeffl(a)cruzio.com> wrote:

>On Sun, 08 Aug 2010 11:13:10 -0700, SMS <scharf.steven(a)geemail.com>
>wrote:

>>as the "fewest dropped calls" survey used by Cingular in its
>>ads a few years ago shows (even the organization that conducted the
>>survey disputed Cingular's conclusions that they used in their ads).
>
>Cingular/AT&T knows exactly how many calls are dropped and probably
>justifiably recognized that they had a problem. I guess TV
>advertising was deemed cheaper than spending the money on system
>upgrades.

Assumes facts not in evidence. In fact AT&T has been spending billions
on network upgrades (real numbers readily available in SEC filings).

Do you think Verizon's claim to have the best network is based on
knowing it doesn't have the best network? ;)

Hanlon's Razor.

--
John

"Never attribute to malice that which can be
adequately explained by stupidity." [Hanlon's razor]
From: nospam on 8 Aug 2010 16:43
In article <re4u56d4gi4ejkg9slfkn82lhrdm3ia9lf(a)4ax.com>, John Navas
<spamfilter1(a)navasgroup.com> wrote:

> >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.

real world data from people who actually own the iphone 4 show it to
not be a serious fault, and one that's common to all other phones.
First  |  Prev  |  Next  |  Last
Pages: 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65 66
Prev: NEWS: Security shortcomings in WPA2 that threaten security of wireless networks
Next: NEWS: Security shortcomings in WPA2 that threaten security ofwireless networks