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: ZnU on 9 Aug 2010 22:18 In article <nr4u565rdetqc85fkplhjqcoqv26tomig3(a)4ax.com>, John Navas <spamfilter1(a)navasgroup.com> wrote: > 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. Except that I asked you for specific examples, and you gave me vague nonsense. > >> >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? ;) It would have been inconsequential both in terms of Apple's financials and Apple's long-term success in this market. > >> 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. No, it doesn't. Read some of the many reports in Engadget's roundup: http://www.engadget.com/2010/07/13/yes-the-iphone-4-is-broken-no-the-ipho ne-4-is-not-broken/ There are as many reports of _improved_ performance as reports of this supposed issue -- and many reports that conform the issue say it has little or no real-world impact. [snip] -- "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 9 Aug 2010 22:20 On Mon, 09 Aug 2010 22:10:16 -0400, in <znu-D16126.22101609082010(a)Port80.Individual.NET>, ZnU <znu(a)fake.invalid> wrote: >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)? > >So you're saying people _shouldn't_ buy the Droid X, they should buy the >Ally, and it's irrational for them to buy the Droid X? Didn't say that. Didn't imply that. What I wrote speaks for itself. >> That's a straw man argument. > >No, it's not. ... Yes, it is, and I'm done with this pointless "discussion". -- John "Never argue with an idiot. He'll drag you down to his level and then beat you with experience." -Dr. Alan Zimmerman
From: ZnU on 9 Aug 2010 22:20 In article <v9bu5618p0gou9kevekfsef4hrm3jtomad(a)4ax.com>, John Navas <spamfilter1(a)navasgroup.com> wrote: > On Sun, 08 Aug 2010 17:09:48 -0400, in > <znu-4C6D0C.17094708082010(a)Port80.Individual.NET>, ZnU > <znu(a)fake.invalid> wrote: > > >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. > > If that were true, then the principal engineer would still have a job, > yet he was fired. Oops! The WSJ disagrees with you about why. > PLEASE STOP CHANGING THE CROSS-POSTING -- IT'S RUDE! I haven't touched the newsgroups or followups headers. -- "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 9 Aug 2010 22:27 In article <re4u56d4gi4ejkg9slfkn82lhrdm3ia9lf(a)4ax.com>, John Navas <spamfilter1(a)navasgroup.com> wrote: > 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. Ironically, the single biggest "software problem" with Android right now is probably that handset vendors have inserted themselves into the update process (by "customizing" Android -- usually making it worse) and are fallow down on the job when it comes to making updates available to users. [snip] > >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. By "Apple got the jump on them" I assume you mean "Apple entered a market they'd already been in for years, with a product that was better than anything they'd managed to produce to that point." Hint: the factors that allowed Apple to do that have not gone away. > And smartphones are still > only a small part of the overall phone market. Smartphones are pretty much the entire future of the market. And I'd bet they already count of a majority of the _profits_ in the phone market, at least in the US. > >> 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. ;) Yeah. And it's 1/3 of Apple's. > >> 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. I like how the debate became pointless as soon as you got cornered. -- "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 9 Aug 2010 22:29
In article <164u561i94um3buf9ptjp2ooa2ekmj6e3i(a)4ax.com>, John Navas <spamfilter1(a)navasgroup.com> wrote: [snip] > >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". ;) The iPad is arguably a different market. I would say it was definitely a different market, except that it's possible to 'universal' apps. The iPod Touch is absolutely _not_ a different market in any meaningful sense, despite the number of people who'd like to frame it that way to make Android look better. -- "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 |