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 16:57 On Sun, 08 Aug 2010 13:34:58 -0700, in <j25u561v9ulr968m5lhtd5p53v3hmsdo6q(a)4ax.com>, John Navas <spamfilter1(a)navasgroup.com> wrote: >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. Oops! What I actually meant was Occam's Razor: Entia non sunt multiplicanda praeter necessitatem. -- John "We have met the enemy and he is us" -Pogo
From: ZnU on 8 Aug 2010 17:03 In article <nq5u56pi853987e002dk328q1rgorrtsa5(a)4ax.com>, John Navas <spamfilter1(a)navasgroup.com> wrote: > On Sun, 08 Aug 2010 16:19:29 -0400, in > <znu-689068.16192908082010(a)Port80.Individual.NET>, ZnU > <znu(a)fake.invalid> wrote: > > >In article <3n2u56du8653880ejo4l47ibgls04nivrn(a)4ax.com>, > > John Navas <spamfilter1(a)navasgroup.com> wrote: > > >> 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> > > > >Vague nonsense. > > Real facts actually. Did you bother to check it out? > Do you really know nothing about those devices? > How then can you comment intelligently? > > >You're pushing the notion that a consequence of staggered releases, > >Android phones can borrow from each other sooner. But this only makes > >sense if it's possible to see a new feature in a competitor's product > >and have it in your product three months later or something. Which, with > >products this complex, it probably isn't. > > If you learn something about how such devices are actually developed > (outside of Apple at least), you'll discover that such incremental > improvements in each subsequent model are SOP. But models coming out, say, three months apart are not actually "subsequent models". Given realistic lead times, they would have been developed mostly in _parallel_. > As but one of a great many factors, a particular component (e.g., > chipset) might not be ready for phone 101 but in time for phone 102 a > month later. When you have only one release a year, like Apple, you > wind up with an average of six month lag, This ignores the fact that Apple does a fair bit in-house component development that is synced to iPhone release cycles, and probably even buys enough components to get outside suppliers to sync up with them to some extent. At best here, you've got an advantage for Android in a few trivial edge cases. > which is a tough hand to play over the long term, part of why Apple > went through three different CPU architectures in the PC business. Huh? I've never heard the theory that that had anything to do with Mac release cycles -- which are not nearly as rigid as iPhone release cycles have been so far. > >> Your class distinction, which amounts to iPhone 4 being in a class by > >> itself, is meaningless (and self-serving, no offense intended). > > > >Huh? I would say there are a couple of Android phones in the same class, > >like the Droid X. (Hardware-wise, anyway. I think iOS is far more > >polished than Android.) > > > >What I'm objecting to is that people sort of pretend _all_ Android > >handsets are in the same class as the Droid X or iPhone 4. > > You've defined the iPhone 3G as not being in the same class as the > iPhone 4, which is too meaningless (and self-serving, no offense > intended) for me to waste time on. It has processor half the speed, it has half the RAM, it has a screen with a quarter of the pixels. What sort of criteria did you think I was using to assign devices to classes? -- "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 17:09 In article <4c5f1714$0$5493$c3e8da3(a)news.astraweb.com>, JF Mezei <jfmezei.spamnot(a)vaxination.ca> wrote: > ZnU 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. > > I am convinced that there are folks within Apple who knew the antenna > had problems. I don't know who, and high high up. > > What puzzles me is that Jobs would have extoled the virtues of the new > antenna in his keynote speech if he knew the antenna had flaws. > > Perhaps he could have said "the antenna is so magical, it only works if > you don't hold the phone :-)" > > Perhaps, at the time of the keynote, Jobs was confident that a fix would > be found prior to first shipments. > > Perhaps Jobs is still confident that a fix will be made. You will note > that the offer for those free bumbers ends September 30th. Perhaps > lacker coated handsets will start shipping soon. Remember, there are a _lot_ of reports out there of the iPhone 4 getting reception in places the 3Gs doesn't, and at least one survey that has consumers saying the iPhone 4 drops fewer calls. If instead of being an unambiguous design flaw, the design choices that produce the "death grip" effect are instead _tradeoffs_ that result in _better_ performance under other circumstances, then everything here -- including Jobs extolling the virtues of the new antenna -- makes perfect sense. And it's far more reasonable to assume that Apple made a deliberate design tradeoff than to assume their $100M antenna testing facility and months of field testing missed a trivially correctable and unambiguous flaw that anyone in possession of at least one human hand can detect. -- "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: JF Mezei on 8 Aug 2010 17:17 ZnU wrote: > It has processor half the speed, it has half the RAM, it has a screen > with a quarter of the pixels. What sort of criteria did you think I was > using to assign devices to classes? 3GS has *essentially* the same functionality as the 4. So it is in the same class/category, despite all the PR hype about the 4 being in a new class. This is like going from Pentium 3 to Pentium 4 (or whatever it was called). Marketing calls it a totally new class of CPU, but ion reality, it is just an evolution of an architecture.
From: nospam on 8 Aug 2010 17:24
In article <3b5u56pqkbrf6ihbo8c1regflof5roc5j2(a)4ax.com>, John Navas <spamfilter1(a)navasgroup.com> wrote: > >So why is anyone buying the latter for 4x the price (8x if > >you want two)? > > Why would anyone buying water pay dollars per small bottle when > essentially free tap water is as good or better (as it is here in San > Francisco)? what the hell does that have to do with phones? > >> 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. > > In your opinion. Many others must actually prefer it, or it wouldn't be > such a hot device. some prefer it, but android is 'good enough.' even android fanbois agree that ios is more polished. a large part of the attraction to android is that it's available on verizon, sprint and t-mobile. those users have no option, other than switching carriers which is a pain, > >So maybe I'll go with the Droid Incredible. Except that it has shorter > >battery life and doesn't support tethering. > > Tip: There is no one perfect device -- all have pros and cons, iPhone > included, like the lack of multitasking up until recently. iphones multitasked since day one, which anyone who actually used one would know. there were limitations of course, as you say, there is no one perfect device. > >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. > > That's a straw man argument. and your water bottle argument isn't? |