In alt.cellular.verizon nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> wrote:
> In article <862u6tF25pU1@mid.individual.net>, Thomas T. Veldhouse
> <veldy71@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> In alt.cellular.verizon John Navas <jnspam1@navasgroup.com> wrote:
>> > In due course it will be, whatever OS 4.0 actually is, not the current
>> > vaporware.
>>
>> It's not vaporware; it has been anounced by Apple. Vaporware defines the
>> rumor of software, but OS 4.0 is no rumor.
>
> not only has it been announced but it has shipped to developers. apple
> said the final version will ship in summer 2010 and it's not summer
> yet. nothing vapor about it.
>
> compare that to adobe flash for mobile, which was supposed to be done
> *last* year and it's still not done.
Steve Jobs doesn't seem to like Adobe much at all and it seems that Flash on
the iPod is influenced by this.
--
Thomas T. Veldhouse
Religion is a crutch, but that's okay... humanity is a cripple.
In alt.cellular.verizon Paul Miner <pminer@elrancho.invalid> wrote:
> On 25 May 2010 21:36:29 GMT, "Thomas T. Veldhouse" <veldy71@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
>>In alt.cellular.verizon John Navas <jnspam1@navasgroup.com> wrote:
>>>
>>> In due course it will be, whatever OS 4.0 actually is, not the current
>>> vaporware.
>>
>>It's not vaporware; it has been anounced by Apple. Vaporware defines the
>>rumor of software, but OS 4.0 is no rumor.
>
> Not true. Announcements certainly qualify as vaporware, although I
> understand in this case something has actually shipped (to
> developers).
>
Actual release announcements are not vaporware; they require demonstration
[kind of like Windows beta and release candidates come before the
announcement]. There is working software out there which makes it real
software, not vaporware. My statement that OS 4.0 is no rumor is a shorter
way of saying the obvious which I apparently just had to explain.
--
Thomas T. Veldhouse
Religion is a crutch, but that's okay... humanity is a cripple.
In alt.cellular.verizon nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> wrote:
> In article <j3jov5lfdkqkjf3t6nddkdk5ia4tivj9f5@4ax.com>, Paul Miner
> <pminer@elrancho.invalid> wrote:
>
> more importantly, not all devices will run android 2.2, including the
> t-mobile g1 which is currently being sold, *new*, right *now*.
Not all iPods that run 3.1.x will run 4.0 either. Only iPod Touch Gen 3 and
iPhone GS models (not sure about any previous iPhone model) will accept OS
4.0.
--
Thomas T. Veldhouse
Religion is a crutch, but that's okay... humanity is a cripple.
In alt.cellular.verizon John Navas <jnspam1@navasgroup.com> wrote:
>
> Irrelevant: prototype, not released, and nothing to do with the OS.
>
> "Stay on target, Luke, stay on target!"
Funny, considering you are one to often divert attention from the target.
--
Thomas T. Veldhouse
Religion is a crutch, but that's okay... humanity is a cripple.
In alt.cellular.verizon Justin <nospam@insightbb.com> wrote:
> Thomas T. Veldhouse wrote on [25 May 2010 21:36:29 GMT]:
>> In alt.cellular.verizon John Navas <jnspam1@navasgroup.com> wrote:
>>>
>>> In due course it will be, whatever OS 4.0 actually is, not the current
>>> vaporware.
>>
>> It's not vaporware; it has been anounced by Apple. Vaporware defines the
>> rumor of software, but OS 4.0 is no rumor.
>
> Um, until it makes it to the consumer it is not released. Vaporware is
> software or hardare that is announced but never released. Plenty
> of vaporware has "shipped" to developers and review units.
Computer Slang. a product, esp. software, that is promoted or marketed while
it is still in development and that may never be produced.
There is no "may" about it; OS4.0 will be produced and released. Vaporware,
as an example, is TiVo for Comcast [nationwide] and TiVo for DirecTV
[nationwide]. Both have been announced for a long time and the scheduled
release date slips ... in the case of Comcast by many many years now.
--
Thomas T. Veldhouse
Religion is a crutch, but that's okay... humanity is a cripple.
On 26 May 2010 14:17:04 GMT, "Thomas T. Veldhouse" <veldy71@gmail.com>
wrote:
>In alt.cellular.verizon Paul Miner <pminer@elrancho.invalid> wrote:
>> On 25 May 2010 21:36:29 GMT, "Thomas T. Veldhouse" <veldy71@gmail.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>>>In alt.cellular.verizon John Navas <jnspam1@navasgroup.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>> In due course it will be, whatever OS 4.0 actually is, not the current
>>>> vaporware.
>>>
>>>It's not vaporware; it has been anounced by Apple. Vaporware defines the
>>>rumor of software, but OS 4.0 is no rumor.
>>
>> Not true. Announcements certainly qualify as vaporware, although I
>> understand in this case something has actually shipped (to
>> developers).
>>
>
>Actual release announcements are not vaporware;
Actually, announcements are the epitome of vaporware. Nearly all
vaporware starts with an announcement. A software product stops being
vaporware when it actually becomes available. Announcements !=
available.
On 26 May 2010 14:25:06 GMT, "Thomas T. Veldhouse" <veldy71@gmail.com>
wrote:
>In alt.cellular.verizon Justin <nospam@insightbb.com> wrote:
>> Thomas T. Veldhouse wrote on [25 May 2010 21:36:29 GMT]:
>>> In alt.cellular.verizon John Navas <jnspam1@navasgroup.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>> In due course it will be, whatever OS 4.0 actually is, not the current
>>>> vaporware.
>>>
>>> It's not vaporware; it has been anounced by Apple. Vaporware defines the
>>> rumor of software, but OS 4.0 is no rumor.
>>
>> Um, until it makes it to the consumer it is not released. Vaporware is
>> software or hardare that is announced but never released. Plenty
>> of vaporware has "shipped" to developers and review units.
>
>No, that is not what vaporware is.
>
> http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/vaporware
>
>Computer Slang. a product, esp. software, that is promoted or marketed while
>it is still in development and that may never be produced.
>
>There is no "may" about it; OS4.0 will be produced and released. Vaporware,
>as an example, is TiVo for Comcast [nationwide] and TiVo for DirecTV
>[nationwide]. Both have been announced for a long time and the scheduled
>release date slips ... in the case of Comcast by many many years now.
I guess the part about being "promoted or marketed while it is still
in development" escaped you. Did you read what you copied/pasted?
Thomas T. Veldhouse wrote on [26 May 2010 14:25:06 GMT]:
> In alt.cellular.verizon Justin <nospam@insightbb.com> wrote:
>> Thomas T. Veldhouse wrote on [25 May 2010 21:36:29 GMT]:
>>> In alt.cellular.verizon John Navas <jnspam1@navasgroup.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>> In due course it will be, whatever OS 4.0 actually is, not the current
>>>> vaporware.
>>>
>>> It's not vaporware; it has been anounced by Apple. Vaporware defines the
>>> rumor of software, but OS 4.0 is no rumor.
>>
>> Um, until it makes it to the consumer it is not released. Vaporware is
>> software or hardare that is announced but never released. Plenty
>> of vaporware has "shipped" to developers and review units.
>
> No, that is not what vaporware is.
>
> http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/vaporware
>
> Computer Slang. a product, esp. software, that is promoted or marketed while
> it is still in development and that may never be produced.
>
> There is no "may" about it; OS4.0 will be produced and released. Vaporware,
> as an example, is TiVo for Comcast [nationwide] and TiVo for DirecTV
> [nationwide]. Both have been announced for a long time and the scheduled
> release date slips ... in the case of Comcast by many many years now.
TiVo has been available on DirecTV for years and years, it's been pulled but it was released.
Until something is released it is vaporware. That's how it goes.
vaporware ( ) n. New software that has been announced or marketed but has not been produced.
In article <864ovbFsdlU4@mid.individual.net>, Thomas T. Veldhouse
<veldy71@gmail.com> wrote:
> > more importantly, not all devices will run android 2.2, including the
> > t-mobile g1 which is currently being sold, *new*, right *now*.
>
> Not all iPods that run 3.1.x will run 4.0 either. Only iPod Touch Gen 3 and
> iPhone GS models (not sure about any previous iPhone model) will accept OS
> 4.0.
all 2nd and 3rd gen ipod touches and the iphone 3g and 3gs can run 4.0,
plus whatever is released this year.
only the 1st gen ipod touch and original iphone cannot. they're 3 year
old devices and very, very few are still in use.
compare that with android devices that are shipping *now* that can't
ever run 2.2, and some that won't run it for a while, whenever the
manufacturer decides it will update it.
In article <k7dqv5pab9vup4otq4od82ed07qd471fve@4ax.com>, Paul Miner
<pminer@elrancho.invalid> wrote:
> Actually, announcements are the epitome of vaporware. Nearly all
> vaporware starts with an announcement. A software product stops being
> vaporware when it actually becomes available. Announcements !=
> available.
it *has* shipped, to developers, four versions so far. it's not vapor.
developers are using it and developing for it. the public release will
be soon, probably about two weeks.
In article <2rgqv5h571j3dmseaabrise0me2mhupdai@4ax.com>, John Navas
<jnspam1@navasgroup.com> wrote:
> >Steve Jobs doesn't seem to like Adobe much at all and it seems that Flash on
> >the iPod is influenced by this.
>
> I think it's essentially a control
partly true. apple doesn't want another company, adobe, controlling
their platform with their proprietary and buggy technology. adobe has
demonstrated that they do not fix bugs very quickly. apple would have
to wait on them for any fixes. that's dumb.
another part is flash for mobile is not even done yet. it's barely even
beta! it is supposed to be done by the end of 2010. the iphone came out
3 years ago, how could apple have offered flash?
lastly, flash on mobile is just not very good. look at the demos of
flash on android. it stutters, battery life drops and some things don't
work because it's designed for mouse/keyboard.
> (and revenue) issue --
except that developers can write web apps that not only provide no
revenue to apple, but don't even go through the store. they can also
write native apps that are free. people love to say it's money related
but it clearly is not.
> Steve is
> determined to control all things Apple, and Adobe software (not only
> Flash, but also products like Photoshop) has always threatened that
> control (and revenue) --
how in the world does photoshop affect control or revenue? apple does
not compete with photoshop on any level.
> Flash is just the biggest threat at the moment.
it's not a threat. flash is proprietary, buggy, a cpu hog and a
security risk. there are much better ways to do what flash does, such
as html5.
look at flash on the nexus one. pocketnow did a comparison of three
devices. without flash, the nexus one browser was the fastest, but with
flash installed it was the slowest, and that was compared to the
current iphone whose specs are not as good as a nexus one. it will be
even more dramatic with the next model (they could have used an ipad
which will be similar in speed to the next iphone).
In article <s4hqv5pdnj1gs1ocdar10fdg63oohgmlf1@4ax.com>, John Navas
<jnspam1@navasgroup.com> wrote:
> It's vaporware until it's actually released (to everyone) --
> <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vaporware>:
>
> Vaporware is a word used to describe products, usually computer
> hardware or software, not released on the date announced by their
> developer...
not that wikipedia is a good reference, but according to that
definition, it's not vapor since the ship date announced is 'summer
2010.'
as i said, it has shipped, to developers. they're using it right now.
meanwhile, android 2.2 is vapor. motorola said 'soon' for the droid.
not even a date. other devices might not ever get it.
> The good reason for this is that actual products all too often fail to
> ship on dates promised, fail to contain all features promised, etc.
apple has a history of shipping when promised. every iphone os release
has been exactly when they said.
On Wed, 26 May 2010 09:41:33 -0700, nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid>
wrote:
>In article <864ovbFsdlU4@mid.individual.net>, Thomas T. Veldhouse
><veldy71@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> > more importantly, not all devices will run android 2.2, including the
>> > t-mobile g1 which is currently being sold, *new*, right *now*.
>>
>> Not all iPods that run 3.1.x will run 4.0 either. Only iPod Touch Gen 3 and
>> iPhone GS models (not sure about any previous iPhone model) will accept OS
>> 4.0.
>
>all 2nd and 3rd gen ipod touches and the iphone 3g and 3gs can run 4.0,
>plus whatever is released this year.
>
>only the 1st gen ipod touch and original iphone cannot. they're 3 year
>old devices and very, very few are still in use.
What could possibly justify very, very few 3 year old i* devices being
still in use? If true, that's not good for anyone, including Apple.
On Wed, 26 May 2010 09:41:38 -0700, nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid>
wrote:
>In article <k7dqv5pab9vup4otq4od82ed07qd471fve@4ax.com>, Paul Miner
><pminer@elrancho.invalid> wrote:
>
>> Actually, announcements are the epitome of vaporware. Nearly all
>> vaporware starts with an announcement. A software product stops being
>> vaporware when it actually becomes available. Announcements !=
>> available.
>
>it *has* shipped, to developers, four versions so far. it's not vapor.
>developers are using it and developing for it. the public release will
>be soon, probably about two weeks.
Good, so going by what you wrote, it will no longer be vapor in about
two weeks. Development efforts and beta code aren't enough to get it
out of vapor status.
In article <i8lqv599av527mfj61o7clmft1fni8bm9n@4ax.com>, Paul Miner
<pminer@elrancho.invalid> wrote:
> >only the 1st gen ipod touch and original iphone cannot. they're 3 year
> >old devices and very, very few are still in use.
>
> What could possibly justify very, very few 3 year old i* devices being
> still in use? If true, that's not good for anyone, including Apple.
On Wed, 26 May 2010 09:41:41 -0700, nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid>
wrote:
>In article <2rgqv5h571j3dmseaabrise0me2mhupdai@4ax.com>, John Navas
><jnspam1@navasgroup.com> wrote:
>
>> Flash is just the biggest threat at the moment.
>
>it's not a threat. flash is proprietary, buggy, a cpu hog and a
>security risk. there are much better ways to do what flash does, such
>as html5.
Flash is ubiquitous, HTML5 not so much. It has a lot more to do with
what's deployed versus what's better for the job.
On Wed, 26 May 2010 09:41:44 -0700, nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid>
wrote:
>In article <s4hqv5pdnj1gs1ocdar10fdg63oohgmlf1@4ax.com>, John Navas
><jnspam1@navasgroup.com> wrote:
>
>> It's vaporware until it's actually released (to everyone) --
>> <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vaporware>:
>>
>> Vaporware is a word used to describe products, usually computer
>> hardware or software, not released on the date announced by their
>> developer...
>
>not that wikipedia is a good reference, but according to that
>definition, it's not vapor since the ship date announced is 'summer
>2010.'
The key word is 'announced'. It's vapor until it ships.
In article <7slqv5l92odh1442eqk7tj3agrcii93tfe@4ax.com>, Paul Miner
<pminer@elrancho.invalid> wrote:
> >> Flash is just the biggest threat at the moment.
> >
> >it's not a threat. flash is proprietary, buggy, a cpu hog and a
> >security risk. there are much better ways to do what flash does, such
> >as html5.
>
> Flash is ubiquitous, HTML5 not so much. It has a lot more to do with
> what's deployed versus what's better for the job.
flash is not as widespread as people think and a lot of people use
plugins that block it. not supporting it has more to do with the user
experience and long term goals. by allowing flash, html5 adoption will
stagnate.
people say they want flash, but what they really mean is to watch
videos and play games. they don't care *how* it happens, only that it
can be done. as for flash ads, i doubt very many users miss those.
the iphone can do both of those without flash. youtube streams h.264
and has for 3 years. other sites also do that. there are thousands of
native app games, which work much better than flash ever could,
especially with not needing the bandwidth to download them each time.
plus, a lot of flash is designed for mouse and keyboard and won't work
very well on a touch device anyway. battery life is shot to hell too.
basically, flash is on its way out and adobe knows it, that's why
they're making a big deal out of it. adobe is losing its proprietary
grip. and the don't like it.
nospam wrote on [Wed, 26 May 2010 09:41:33 -0700]:
> In article <864ovbFsdlU4@mid.individual.net>, Thomas T. Veldhouse
> <veldy71@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> > more importantly, not all devices will run android 2.2, including the
>> > t-mobile g1 which is currently being sold, *new*, right *now*.
>>
>> Not all iPods that run 3.1.x will run 4.0 either. Only iPod Touch Gen 3 and
>> iPhone GS models (not sure about any previous iPhone model) will accept OS
>> 4.0.
>
> all 2nd and 3rd gen ipod touches and the iphone 3g and 3gs can run 4.0,
> plus whatever is released this year.
>
> only the 1st gen ipod touch and original iphone cannot. they're 3 year
> old devices and very, very few are still in use.
>
> compare that with android devices that are shipping *now* that can't
> ever run 2.2, and some that won't run it for a while, whenever the
> manufacturer decides it will update it.
Reply With Quote
Bookmarks