On 26 May 2010 18:49:02 GMT, "Thomas T. Veldhouse" <veldy71@gmail.com>
wrote:
>In alt.cellular.verizon Paul Miner <pminer@elrancho.invalid> wrote:
>> 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.
>
>That is a very short sighted thing to say. With two-year contracts on these
>devices standard and with the market for such a device spanning as much as a
>year, you have three years of modern support right there. Further, it is VERY
>common for such devices to be passed on to other people for continued use and
>the original person "upgrades". Five years is probably more realistic in my
>opinion.
Please review what you wrote. In no way does it logically follow the
post you replied to.
My question stands: 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 10:55:44 -0700, nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid>
wrote:
>In article <htjmit$vnv$1@news.eternal-september.org>, Justin
><nospam@insightbb.com> wrote:
>
>> 3 years isn't very old for an mp3 player.
>
>doesn't matter, there aren't enough of them out there to bother
>supporting. it's about 3-4% of the install base.
Hence, my question. What happened to them? Why are "very, very few"
still in use after 3 years? Are they that fragile, or is it something
else?
On Wed, 26 May 2010 10:48:28 -0700, Steve Fenwick
<nospam@nospam.invalid> wrote:
>In article <i8lqv599av527mfj61o7clmft1fni8bm9n@4ax.com>,
> Paul Miner <pminer@elrancho.invalid> wrote:
>
>> 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.
>
>Huh? 3 year old iPhones (1st gen) may work just fine. Not as fast as new
>ones, but still better than many alternatives. Less waste for the
>landfill sounds like a decent reason.
>
>Steve
You replied to me, but you disputed nospam's claim that "very, very
few" of the earlier units are still in use after 3 years. Thank you.
In article <fb5rv519l75p02jqlrml1id3iaqftbtmjk@4ax.com>, John Navas
<jnspam1@navasgroup.com> wrote:
> >>but if you want to call it vapor, android 2.2 is also vapor, and even
> >>more so.
> >
> >Agreed. The definition of vapor applies universally. Both are
> >vaporware until they ship, and "to developers" doesn't count.
>
> Wrong. Android 2.2 for Nexus One is already available for download.
> <http://apexnewsnetwork.com/21787/google-nexus-one-gets-android-2-2-update-upgrade/>
you might want to actually read what you cite.
The Over the Air Update should be following very soon.
Only Nexus One users can be updated, it is not announced for other
mobiles like HTC Droid Incredible which runs on Android 2.1
'very soon' and 'not announced for other mobiles like the htc droid'
and only for manual update (a tricky process) means that it is *vapor*
for most users.
the nexus one did not sell very well and there are not a lot of nexus
one users out there. there are probably *more* iphones running iphone
os 4 than there are android 2.2. claiming iphone os 4 is vapor but not
android 2.2 is deceptive ********.
In article <gk5rv517sjjnumjo32oom774q7kj4lp5d4@4ax.com>, Paul Miner
<pminer@elrancho.invalid> wrote:
> >doesn't matter, there aren't enough of them out there to bother
> >supporting. it's about 3-4% of the install base.
>
> Hence, my question. What happened to them? Why are "very, very few"
> still in use after 3 years? Are they that fragile, or is it something
> else?
not that many were sold. 6 million original iphones, out of 50 million
total iphones sold to date (early april numbers). apple doesn't give
breakdowns for ipods, but they did say 35 million ipod touches sold to
date. given that ratio, it's reasonable to conclude that there are
about 4 million ipod touch 1st gens.
thus, there are about 10 million sold, out of roughly 100 million
devices by the time iphone os 4 actually ships, based on current sales
rates. thus, at *best*, only 10% are orphaned. that's not a large
amount, and far less than will be orphaned by android 2.2, including
some phones that are *still being sold*.
however, not all of those old units are still in use. some have been
damaged, some lost, etc. some of the iphones are used as ipods, not
phones. one of the mobile analytics companies shows that about 2
million of original iphones are still in use, showing up on their logs.
that's about 1/3rd of what was sold. that's actually on the high side
for a 3 year old phone, and one which did not have 3g. most of the
users have upgraded to something else, whether it's an iphone or
another device.
On Wed, 26 May 2010 10:31:23 -0700, nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid>
wrote:
>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
That's an unsupportable statement.
>and a lot of people use
>plugins that block it.
And many more than "a lot" don't. What's your point?
>not supporting it has more to do with the user
>experience and long term goals. by allowing flash, html5 adoption will
>stagnate.
Mind boggling logic, and just plain wrong, too.
>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.
Sure, and since flash is so common, blocking it hurts the user
experience. Why not let the end users decide if they want to enable
flash or not? (We both know the reasons, they've been mentioned in
this and other threads, and it has nothing to do with promoting
HTML5.)
>as for flash ads, i doubt very many users miss those.
Nor do many miss any other kind of ads, I suspect. Again, I ask,
what's your point? Flash isn't required for ads. Why bring ads into
it?
>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.
You have the nerve to mention proprietary grip and Adobe in the same
question, while completely overlooking proprietary grip and Apple?
On Wed, 26 May 2010 10:17:39 -0700, nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid>
wrote:
>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.
>
>why isn't it good?
The answer to your question might become obvious if you decide to
answer mine first.
In article <6l6rv590ojrf48mpiec9i8oj7l8oqr5jfj@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.
> >
> >why isn't it good?
>
> The answer to your question might become obvious if you decide to
> answer mine first.
In article <fs5rv51thskp4q0thqep1bikc05e3pe35g@4ax.com>, Paul Miner
<pminer@elrancho.invalid> wrote:
> >> 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
>
> That's an unsupportable statement.
Surveying more than 3.5 million pages, the Opera (browser) developer
center found that somewhere between 30% and 40% of all pages tested
contained Flash files.
30-40% is not what i'd call 'ubiquitous'.
most of what users want flash for work quite well on an iphone. youtube
videos automatically stream h.264 with no extra work from the user.
vimeo and other sites support h.264. native app games are readily
available and work better than the flash versions.
the lack of flash has not adversely affected sales of the iphone, ipod
touch or the ipad. people who bought them do not complain about the
lack of flash, they complain about the battery life and at&t.
> >and a lot of people use
> >plugins that block it.
>
> And many more than "a lot" don't. What's your point?
that not everyone wants flash.
> >not supporting it has more to do with the user
> >experience and long term goals. by allowing flash, html5 adoption will
> >stagnate.
>
> Mind boggling logic, and just plain wrong, too.
it's exactly correct. without flash, people have to use html 5 if they
want to support iphone users, who make up roughly 2/3rds of mobile web
traffic. html 5 adoption will be faster, as a result.
look at the demo of flash on a nexus one. it stutters and battery life
is shot. adobe says 3 hours total, that's horrible for a phone. the
controls are too tiny and he has trouble pausing the video. the nexus
one even reported a memory error. the browser goes from fastest without
flash to slowest with flash. yep, that's a fantastic user experience.
<http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PtGCaKyd_co>
on the joojoo, battery life drops in half, to 2.5 hours, and that's a
tablet with a much bigger battery than in a phone.
> >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.
>
> Sure, and since flash is so common, blocking it hurts the user
> experience. Why not let the end users decide if they want to enable
> flash or not?
because having to toggle flash on/off all the time is a royal pain.
most users will not do that. they'll leave it on and suffer with a
slower buggier browser and lower battery life, or they'll leave it off
and be exactly the same of how the iphone currently is.
> (We both know the reasons, they've been mentioned in
> this and other threads, and it has nothing to do with promoting
> HTML5.)
it most certainly does.
> >as for flash ads, i doubt very many users miss those.
>
> Nor do many miss any other kind of ads, I suspect. Again, I ask,
> what's your point? Flash isn't required for ads. Why bring ads into
> it?
ads are one of the uses of flash. web sites are not going to be overly
happy about ads not showing up. dpreview, for instance, gets very
annoyed when forum users explain how to block ads.
> >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.
>
> You have the nerve to mention proprietary grip and Adobe in the same
> question, while completely overlooking proprietary grip and Apple?
can't have it both ways. why is adobe's proprietary ok when apple's is
not?
bottom line: flash has seen its day. it's time to move forward to the
next big thing.
On Wed, 26 May 2010 14:42:34 -0700, John Navas
<jnspam1@navasgroup.com> wrote:
>On Wed, 26 May 2010 16:30:36 -0500, Paul Miner <pminer@elrancho.invalid>
>wrote in <4i4rv55peon1qbiic92fsj3bgnqvqtn6vf@4ax.com>:
>
>>On Wed, 26 May 2010 10:32:43 -0700, nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid>
>>wrote:
>>
>>>In article <f0mqv5920dnd7odg242l5bv4nbldc2k21i@4ax.com>, Paul Miner
>>><pminer@elrancho.invalid> wrote:
>>>
>>>> The key word is 'announced'. It's vapor until it ships.
>>>
>>>it *has* shipped. anyone who wants it can sign up as a developer and
>>>get a beta version. the public release is imminent.
>>>
>>>but if you want to call it vapor, android 2.2 is also vapor, and even
>>>more so.
>>
>>Agreed. The definition of vapor applies universally. Both are
>>vaporware until they ship, and "to developers" doesn't count.
>
>Wrong. Android 2.2 for Nexus One is already available for download.
><http://apexnewsnetwork.com/21787/google-nexus-one-gets-android-2-2-update-upgrade/>
Thanks, I stand corrected. I was actually trying to avoid the part of
the discussion dealing with what is released or not, since I don't
know or care. I was mainly correcting the false impression a couple of
folks (not you) had where they thought announcements meant something
had moved beyond vaporware, when in fact most vaporware *starts* with
an announcement.
On Wed, 26 May 2010 15:02:43 -0700, nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid>
wrote:
>In article <gk5rv517sjjnumjo32oom774q7kj4lp5d4@4ax.com>, Paul Miner
><pminer@elrancho.invalid> wrote:
>
>> >doesn't matter, there aren't enough of them out there to bother
>> >supporting. it's about 3-4% of the install base.
>>
>> Hence, my question. What happened to them? Why are "very, very few"
>> still in use after 3 years? Are they that fragile, or is it something
>> else?
>
>not that many were sold. 6 million original iphones, out of 50 million
>total iphones sold to date (early april numbers). apple doesn't give
>breakdowns for ipods, but they did say 35 million ipod touches sold to
>date. given that ratio, it's reasonable to conclude that there are
>about 4 million ipod touch 1st gens.
>
>thus, there are about 10 million sold, out of roughly 100 million
>devices by the time iphone os 4 actually ships, based on current sales
>rates. thus, at *best*, only 10% are orphaned. that's not a large
>amount, and far less than will be orphaned by android 2.2, including
>some phones that are *still being sold*.
>
>however, not all of those old units are still in use. some have been
>damaged, some lost, etc. some of the iphones are used as ipods, not
>phones. one of the mobile analytics companies shows that about 2
>million of original iphones are still in use, showing up on their logs.
>that's about 1/3rd of what was sold. that's actually on the high side
>for a 3 year old phone, and one which did not have 3g. most of the
>users have upgraded to something else, whether it's an iphone or
>another device.
>
>so it's not bad at all.
Thanks for the explanation. I find it interesting that your estimates
of device population range from a low of 3-4% to 10% to 20%. That's
quite a range, so surely you've covered yourself adequately.
On Wed, 26 May 2010 15:22:28 -0700, nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid>
wrote:
>In article <fs5rv51thskp4q0thqep1bikc05e3pe35g@4ax.com>, Paul Miner
><pminer@elrancho.invalid> wrote:
>
>> >> 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
>>
>> That's an unsupportable statement.
>
><http://www.flashmagazine.com/news/detail/how_many_sites_use_flash/>
>
> Surveying more than 3.5 million pages, the Opera (browser) developer
> center found that somewhere between 30% and 40% of all pages tested
> contained Flash files.
So is that more widespread, or less widespread, than people think? Who
gets to decide what people think? Do you see my point? Your statement
wasn't unsupportable because flash data wasn't available, it was
unsupportable because what people think isn't available.
>30-40% is not what i'd call 'ubiquitous'.
How about the 67% for China? Is that closer to ubiquitous? Where do
you draw the line, and how does even 30% compare to HTML5?
>the lack of flash has not adversely affected sales of the iphone, ipod
>touch or the ipad. people who bought them do not complain about the
>lack of flash, they complain about the battery life and at&t.
I think we both know that the people who buy devices with the Apple
logo will not be dissuaded by anything so minor, so of course they
aren't complaining about lack of flash.
>> >and a lot of people use
>> >plugins that block it.
>>
>> And many more than "a lot" don't. What's your point?
>
>that not everyone wants flash.
>
>> >not supporting it has more to do with the user
>> >experience and long term goals. by allowing flash, html5 adoption will
>> >stagnate.
>>
>> Mind boggling logic, and just plain wrong, too.
>
>it's exactly correct. without flash, people have to use html 5 if they
>want to support iphone users, who make up roughly 2/3rds of mobile web
>traffic. html 5 adoption will be faster, as a result.
Let's get cars off of the roads so that jet packs will be adopted
faster.
>> >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.
>>
>> You have the nerve to mention proprietary grip and Adobe in the same
>> question, while completely overlooking proprietary grip and Apple?
>
>can't have it both ways. why is adobe's proprietary ok when apple's is
>not?
You MUST have it both ways. If you're going to gripe about Adobe being
proprietary, then the same should apply to Apple.
>bottom line: flash has seen its day. it's time to move forward to the
>next big thing.
I don't advocate moving forward by cutting off people's access to
something that's part of millions of web sites, but apparently it's
fine with you.
In article <g3grv594ujmaf9llefpac6laqpjp2gfc6e@4ax.com>, Paul Miner
<pminer@elrancho.invalid> wrote:
> Thanks for the explanation. I find it interesting that your estimates
> of device population range from a low of 3-4% to 10% to 20%. That's
> quite a range, so surely you've covered yourself adequately.
10% is total sold, the absolute maximum. not all are still in use, and
that will of course drop in the next year.
3-4% is based on mobile analytics, which is what are in use *now*.
In article <jigrv5l15b5g0gpr3uhaursgd7ujejifq8@4ax.com>, Paul Miner
<pminer@elrancho.invalid> wrote:
> >> >flash is not as widespread as people think
> >>
> >> That's an unsupportable statement.
> >
> ><http://www.flashmagazine.com/news/detail/how_many_sites_use_flash/>
> >
> > Surveying more than 3.5 million pages, the Opera (browser) developer
> > center found that somewhere between 30% and 40% of all pages tested
> > contained Flash files.
>
> So is that more widespread, or less widespread, than people think?
less. people say flash is everywhere, which is why they think they want
it on an iphone. 30-40% is not everywhere and most of what it's used
for (video, games) can be done even though there is no flash.
> Who gets to decide what people think?
>
> Do you see my point? Your statement
> wasn't unsupportable because flash data wasn't available, it was
> unsupportable because what people think isn't available.
people complain that there is no flash, but they aren't actually using
flash based on market surveys. what does that tell you?
> >30-40% is not what i'd call 'ubiquitous'.
>
> How about the 67% for China? Is that closer to ubiquitous? Where do
> you draw the line, and how does even 30% compare to HTML5?
what about it? apple is not exclusively targeting the chinese market.
most sites are in english for that matter, why aren't they translated?
as for html5, apple is looking where things are going, not where they
were. even microsoft agrees that html5 is the future.
speaking of which, there's no flash on windows phone 7 either.
microsoft has their own clone called silverlight, even more proprietary
than what adobe is doing. where's the bitching about that?
> >the lack of flash has not adversely affected sales of the iphone, ipod
> >touch or the ipad. people who bought them do not complain about the
> >lack of flash, they complain about the battery life and at&t.
>
> I think we both know that the people who buy devices with the Apple
> logo will not be dissuaded by anything so minor, so of course they
> aren't complaining about lack of flash.
based on what? that's quite an assumption. they're not being bought by
exclusively apple fanatics, you know.
half of ipad buyers use windows and half of mac buyers never owned a
mac before (i.e., windows switchers). i don't have any information on
iphone buyers, at least not that i can easily find, but it's probably
not that much different.
> >it's exactly correct. without flash, people have to use html 5 if they
> >want to support iphone users, who make up roughly 2/3rds of mobile web
> >traffic. html 5 adoption will be faster, as a result.
>
> Let's get cars off of the roads so that jet packs will be adopted
> faster.
straw man.
> >> >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.
> >>
> >> You have the nerve to mention proprietary grip and Adobe in the same
> >> question, while completely overlooking proprietary grip and Apple?
> >
> >can't have it both ways. why is adobe's proprietary ok when apple's is
> >not?
>
> You MUST have it both ways. If you're going to gripe about Adobe being
> proprietary, then the same should apply to Apple.
it's apple's platform. they don't want adobe controlling it.
> >bottom line: flash has seen its day. it's time to move forward to the
> >next big thing.
>
> I don't advocate moving forward by cutting off people's access to
> something that's part of millions of web sites, but apparently it's
> fine with you.
the flaw in that is that people's access is not cut off because they
can still do the stuff they want to do.
plus, adobe is still working on a version of flash that runs on arm
devices, so how could apple have included it? flash 10.1 is only in
beta and the final version is expected sometime by the *end* of 2010.
it needs a recent cpu, which means it will only work on the 3gs and
whatever gets introduced in a couple of weeks (the same limitation
exists for android, older android devices won't be able to run it
either). that means roughly half of the install base of iphones would
not be able to run it.
as i said, alternatives 'just work' and on all iphones. tap on a
youtube video and it plays, *without* flash. mafia wars, a popular
flash game, is a native iphone app and it's free. farmville is coming
soon. users can do *exactly* the same stuff, without flash.
again, users don't care how it's done, just that it can be done. they
want to watch videos and play games, and they can do that without
flash, now. look at iphone sales, they keep going up. the lack of flash
does not matter to most people.
On Wed, 26 May 2010 19:28:41 -0700, John Navas
<jnspam1@navasgroup.com> wrote:
>On Wed, 26 May 2010 19:42:08 -0500, Paul Miner <pminer@elrancho.invalid>
>wrote in <fqfrv557inqckpdpueb009pfgglhelphft@4ax.com>:
>
>>Thanks, I stand corrected. I was actually trying to avoid the part of
>>the discussion dealing with what is released or not, since I don't
>>know or care. I was mainly correcting the false impression a couple of
>>folks (not you) had where they thought announcements meant something
>>had moved beyond vaporware, when in fact most vaporware *starts* with
>>an announcement.
>
>Roger that. Sorry if I came across as rude.
Thomas T. Veldhouse wrote on [26 May 2010 21:35:57 GMT]:
> In alt.cellular.verizon John Navas <jnspam1@navasgroup.com> wrote:
>>
>> Until it ships to end users it most certainly *is* vaporware.
>
> Since it exists and is not simply an idea in the vapor, I respectfully
> disagree. If you want to claim victory; it really doesn't matter to me as the
> issue, as I said is one of semantics. The real issue is comparing the correct
> software platforms.
Duke Nukem Forever has been demoed plenty of times, yet it is famous vaporware
nospam wrote on [Wed, 26 May 2010 14:41:42 -0700]:
> In article <865ingF4vaU3@mid.individual.net>, Thomas T. Veldhouse
> <veldy71@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> I am sure he can argue semantics and warp it to his desired result.
>
> that's what he does.
>
>> The
>> simple facts are that android 2.2 will be compared to Apple OS 4.0
>> (iPhone,iPod,iPad). Vaporware be damned.
>
> right. android 2.2 is going to be vapor for a lot longer and for a lot
> more users than iphone os 4.
2.2 has been released to end users, it's not vaporware. I know it's hard
to understand simple concepts like that, but it's a fact.
Paul Miner wrote on [Wed, 26 May 2010 19:46:50 -0500]:
> On Wed, 26 May 2010 15:02:43 -0700, nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid>
> wrote:
>
>>In article <gk5rv517sjjnumjo32oom774q7kj4lp5d4@4ax.com>, Paul Miner
>><pminer@elrancho.invalid> wrote:
>>
>>> >doesn't matter, there aren't enough of them out there to bother
>>> >supporting. it's about 3-4% of the install base.
>>>
>>> Hence, my question. What happened to them? Why are "very, very few"
>>> still in use after 3 years? Are they that fragile, or is it something
>>> else?
>>
>>not that many were sold. 6 million original iphones, out of 50 million
>>total iphones sold to date (early april numbers). apple doesn't give
>>breakdowns for ipods, but they did say 35 million ipod touches sold to
>>date. given that ratio, it's reasonable to conclude that there are
>>about 4 million ipod touch 1st gens.
>>
>>thus, there are about 10 million sold, out of roughly 100 million
>>devices by the time iphone os 4 actually ships, based on current sales
>>rates. thus, at *best*, only 10% are orphaned. that's not a large
>>amount, and far less than will be orphaned by android 2.2, including
>>some phones that are *still being sold*.
>>
>>however, not all of those old units are still in use. some have been
>>damaged, some lost, etc. some of the iphones are used as ipods, not
>>phones. one of the mobile analytics companies shows that about 2
>>million of original iphones are still in use, showing up on their logs.
>>that's about 1/3rd of what was sold. that's actually on the high side
>>for a 3 year old phone, and one which did not have 3g. most of the
>>users have upgraded to something else, whether it's an iphone or
>>another device.
>>
>>so it's not bad at all.
>
> Thanks for the explanation. I find it interesting that your estimates
> of device population range from a low of 3-4% to 10% to 20%. That's
> quite a range, so surely you've covered yourself adequately.
Of course, 3-10% is far from very very few.
Very very few is under 1%
But, since APple is famous for orphaning products that are only a couple
of years old, it's not unexpected.
nospam wrote on [Wed, 26 May 2010 15:22:28 -0700]:
> In article <fs5rv51thskp4q0thqep1bikc05e3pe35g@4ax.com>, Paul Miner
> <pminer@elrancho.invalid> wrote:
>
>> >> 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
>>
>> That's an unsupportable statement.
>
> <http://www.flashmagazine.com/news/detail/how_many_sites_use_flash/>
>
> Surveying more than 3.5 million pages, the Opera (browser) developer
> center found that somewhere between 30% and 40% of all pages tested
> contained Flash files.
>
> 30-40% is not what i'd call 'ubiquitous'.
Is that weighted by popularity if the sites? There are millions of small
flat sites out there that are blogs etc. that skew those numbers.
> most of what users want flash for work quite well on an iphone. youtube
> videos automatically stream h.264 with no extra work from the user.
> vimeo and other sites support h.264. native app games are readily
> available and work better than the flash versions.
I don't want native app games, I want the flash games that will never
be ported to native apps.
I want to be able to use restaurant websites that are flash based
Hint: That's a lot of sites.
>> And many more than "a lot" don't. What's your point?
>
> that not everyone wants flash.
Or people use those blockers to block the unwanted flash
> because having to toggle flash on/off all the time is a royal pain.
No, it's not. The Firefox flashblock extension shows a little play button
where the flash is embedded, when you want to run that item just hit play
Reply With Quote
Bookmarks