nospam wrote on [Thu, 27 May 2010 10:47:34 -0700]:
> In article <htm9k2$33b$2@news.eternal-september.org>, Justin
> <nospam@insightbb.com> wrote:
>
>> Who cares if an iDevice user that can't run flash wants to visit them.
>
> web site owners will want their site to be usable by 100 million users
> who represent over 2/3rds of mobile web traffic. in other words, the
> majority of mobile users *don't* have flash.
The majority of users aren't using mobile browsers, either
>> That doesn't matter. What matters are all the sites that they can't
>> use properly due to no Flash support. The number of sites that run Flash
>> is irrelevant, it's the number of popular sites that matters.
>
> again, it's not that many sites and a lot work without needing flash,
> including youtube.
Flash is more than just video.
>> >> I don't want native app games, I want the flash games that will never
>> >> be ported to native apps.
>> >
>> > such as? and how do you know they won't ever be ported? and what makes
>>
>> Visit a lot of the flash game sites, there are thousands of these games
>> out there
>
> only thousands? there are tens of thousands of games at the apps store,
> but i asked specifically *which ones* will never be ported? i bet some
> of them already have been ported.
Of course there are more than only thousands, you moron.
Steambirds isn't in the istore, and it would work great with a touch
screen
>> >> I want to be able to use restaurant websites that are flash based
>> >> Hint: That's a lot of sites.
>> >
>> > actually it isn't, and the number is dropping.
>>
>> Prove it? I don't see that at all
>
> more and more web sites announce html5 support. that means they'll work
> on the iphone, no flash needed.
Just because something supports html5 it doesn't mean it doesn't have Flash
components. The two are not mutually exclusive.
nospam wrote on [Thu, 27 May 2010 10:47:37 -0700]:
> In article <htm9p0$33b$3@news.eternal-september.org>, Justin
> <nospam@insightbb.com> wrote:
>
>> > the simple concept, is that so far, it's only available for the nexus
>> > one, a phone that sold in very small numbers, and that's via manual
>> > update. it's not available yet for the motorola droid, htc evo (the
>>
>> Yet, it's available. What a hard concept to understand
>
> to nexus one owners.
See, it's released and therefore not vapour.
>> > As I said at the beginning, Android 2.2 will be here soon, and some
>> > devices will get the update in the coming weeks.
>>
>> And some have it, so IT IS RELEASED TO CONSUMERS
>> I know, it's hard to wrap your mind around this FACT.
>
> it has not been released to consumers who bought phones *other* than
> the nexus one and it may never be, depending on the phone and the
And that doesn't matter, catch up already
>> > developer sdk (sounds familiar), 'soon' and 'coming weeks' = not
>> > released yet.
>>
>> Huh, I have the developer SDK already, so soon is long past
>
> soon is for the end user release. do keep up.
In article <htmcuq$sgc$2@news.eternal-september.org>, Justin
<nospam@insightbb.com> wrote:
> >> Who cares if an iDevice user that can't run flash wants to visit them.
> >
> > web site owners will want their site to be usable by 100 million users
> > who represent over 2/3rds of mobile web traffic. in other words, the
> > majority of mobile users *don't* have flash.
>
> The majority of users aren't using mobile browsers, either
they are on mobile devices, which is where the flash issue exists.
> >> That doesn't matter. What matters are all the sites that they can't
> >> use properly due to no Flash support. The number of sites that run Flash
> >> is irrelevant, it's the number of popular sites that matters.
> >
> > again, it's not that many sites and a lot work without needing flash,
> > including youtube.
>
> Flash is more than just video.
i never said otherwise. do keep up.
> > more and more web sites announce html5 support. that means they'll work
> > on the iphone, no flash needed.
>
> Just because something supports html5 it doesn't mean it doesn't have Flash
> components. The two are not mutually exclusive.
all that matters is that it works on an iphone. both can coexist.
In article <htmd1n$sgc$3@news.eternal-september.org>, Justin
<nospam@insightbb.com> wrote:
> >> Yet, it's available. What a hard concept to understand
> >
> > to nexus one owners.
>
> See, it's released and therefore not vapour.
iphone os 4 is released too. sign up as a developer and download it.
therefore it is not vapor either.
> > it has not been released to consumers who bought phones *other* than
> > the nexus one and it may never be, depending on the phone and the
>
> And that doesn't matter, catch up already
yes, it definitely matters. nearly all android owners can't upgrade and
may never be able to upgrade.
In article <6udtv5d26q3r9dlln7ceto8jvk5h8pm6rc@4ax.com>, John Navas
<jnspam1@navasgroup.com> wrote:
> >> I call this a disingenuous scramble.
> >
> >You would. What will you call it in June ...
>
> That will be then. This is now.
so for about a 10 day window, you can compare android 2.2 that only
exists on one android phone to iphone 3.1.3 that exists for all
iphones. however, it's very disingenuous to do so since android 2.2 is
vapor for everyone other than nexus one owners, i.e., nearly all
android users.
nospam wrote on [Thu, 27 May 2010 11:35:37 -0700]:
> In article <htmd1n$sgc$3@news.eternal-september.org>, Justin
> <nospam@insightbb.com> wrote:
>
>> >> Yet, it's available. What a hard concept to understand
>> >
>> > to nexus one owners.
>>
>> See, it's released and therefore not vapour.
>
> iphone os 4 is released too. sign up as a developer and download it.
> therefore it is not vapor either.
developers are not end users. I know it's hard. your little bwain must be
tiwed
>> > it has not been released to consumers who bought phones *other* than
>> > the nexus one and it may never be, depending on the phone and the
>>
>> And that doesn't matter, catch up already
>
> yes, it definitely matters. nearly all android owners can't upgrade and
> may never be able to upgrade.
Irrelevant when it comes to whether something is vapour or not.
On Thu, 27 May 2010 10:03:54 -0700, nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid>
wrote:
>In article <ai8tv5lluofgcvi4r9jjfiql1r7n6rlh52@4ax.com>, Paul Miner
><pminer@elrancho.invalid> wrote:
>
>> Assuming you're right that 2.2 is available for the Nexus One, then
>> it's obviously not vaporware.
>
>it's not vaporware only to a tiny subset of android users.
Thanks for (finally) conceding the point!
>> The yes/no dividing line between vapor or not is availability to end
>> users, whoever they may be. Limited availability versus widespread
>> availability, small numbers versus large numbers, announcements versus
>> no announcements, rumors versus no rumors, all of those have nothing
>> to do with it.
>
>define it any way you want, the fact remains that android 2.2 is only
>available for one model phone that didn't sell very well and by manual
>installation.
It wasn't me who defined anything. I'm using the definition that's
been around for decades. The only thing I was objecting to was a
distortion of that definition.
>as far as most people are concerned, 2.2 is not available yet, not even
>to google i/o attendees with their htc evo!
>
>in any event this entire conversation is moot in a couple of weeks when
>iphone os 4 ships to everyone, none of this 'soon' on the droid or 'end
>of the year' with htc products.
A discussion about the definition of vaporware cannot be made moot by
the release of anything. Examples of vaporware will continue to exist
long after OS 4 ships.
In article <20gtv59248g8qpm9digoi2od2i149u6vol@4ax.com>, Paul Miner
<pminer@elrancho.invalid> wrote:
> >> Assuming you're right that 2.2 is available for the Nexus One, then
> >> it's obviously not vaporware.
> >
> >it's not vaporware only to a tiny subset of android users.
>
> Thanks for (finally) conceding the point!
it's still vapor for the vast majority of android users. some don't
even know if they'll get it or not since the manufacturer has not yet
decided.
In alt.cellular.verizon Paul Miner <pminer@elrancho.invalid> wrote:
>
> I guess I'm just wired to think differently. To me, when I see a group
> of products with "very, very few" still in use after just 3 years, I
> congratulate myself for not owning anything from that group. I think
> it's extremely shortsighted for a manufacturer to be comfortable with
> such a short lifespan of their products, as well. Sure, the high
> turnover helps the revenue, but at some point it seems like people
> would wake up and realize what they're buying and what a poor value it
> is.
Here you go assuming that they are designing for such a short lifespan. My
old phone from 5 or 6 years back can be activated on Sprint [if I care to ever
use them again] and it will work on their mobile web just fine. Apple also
designs the devices to last and they don't design them with a three year
lifespan; if they did, I think they would lose a lot of customers who simply
can't afford or can't justify an upgrade that often. The iPod Touch Gen 1 is
still and will remain a VERY USABLE platform for the forseeable future and
probably several more years and it will remain USABLE [with apps that simply
can't be upgraded due to hardware requirements] for even longer.
>
> Then again, these are Apple products we're talking about, and Apple
> customers seem to be 'different'.
>
I don't think so. Any electronic device pretty much fits the scenario. Not
everybody feels like they have to chase the latest and greatest; in fact, many
people who have been around the block several times understand the risks of
early adoption and thus, they enter the market a little later in the game, but
stay in it as long as the bleeding edge new users do.
If you look at just mobile phones, other than smart phones, they have
struggled to add any new meaningful features for the better part of the last 5
years (so what, they have better cameras, nicer screens and faster internet
.... the basic functionality remains the same for the most part). Thus, many
people keep the same phone for five years or more. The only reason some of
these people have changed phones is because either their phone didn't have 911
location ability or they lost or broke the phone. I find myself wishing for
my old trusty and sturdy Sanyo phone I had from Sprint (I don't recall the
model number off hand), as I don't really use any features beyond SMS (been
around for a LONG time), occassional MMS, occassional picture [usually the
license plate of somebody parked too close to me], once a month at most
Internet browsing (I do that with my iPod Touch) and of course the MAIN
FEATURE ... TALKING ON THE PHONE.
With the exception of perhaps the iPhone, all this smart phone stuff is
largely gimmicky. I exclude the iPhone only because it is essentially an iPod
Touch with phone, camera and GPS ability. It really isn't primarily a phone.
Whatever though ... if mobile gimmicks are what people are willing to pay
$360/year for or more, then a smart phone is the product for them.
--
Thomas T. Veldhouse
Religion is a crutch, but that's okay... humanity is a cripple.
On Thu, 27 May 2010 12:37:54 -0700, nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid>
wrote:
>In article <20gtv59248g8qpm9digoi2od2i149u6vol@4ax.com>, Paul Miner
><pminer@elrancho.invalid> wrote:
>
>> >> Assuming you're right that 2.2 is available for the Nexus One, then
>> >> it's obviously not vaporware.
>> >
>> >it's not vaporware only to a tiny subset of android users.
>>
>> Thanks for (finally) conceding the point!
>
>it's still vapor for the vast majority of android users. some don't
>even know if they'll get it or not since the manufacturer has not yet
>decided.
You still don't understand what vaporware is. If it's available to any
end users, (not necessarily ALL end users), then it's no longer
vaporware. It's a simple concept.
In article <i31uv55mm6i5t3gl2pj2gjpd9eh1s34sg1@4ax.com>, Paul Miner
<pminer@elrancho.invalid> wrote:
> You still don't understand what vaporware is. If it's available to any
> end users, (not necessarily ALL end users), then it's no longer
> vaporware. It's a simple concept.
then iphone os 4 isn't vaporware either since it's available to some
end users, but not all (yet). very simple.
On 27/05/10 4:48 PM, Paul Miner wrote:
> On Thu, 27 May 2010 12:37:54 -0700, nospam<nospam@nospam.invalid>
> wrote:
>
>> In article<20gtv59248g8qpm9digoi2od2i149u6vol@4ax.com>, Paul Miner
>> <pminer@elrancho.invalid> wrote:
>>
>>>>> Assuming you're right that 2.2 is available for the Nexus One, then
>>>>> it's obviously not vaporware.
>>>>
>>>> it's not vaporware only to a tiny subset of android users.
>>>
>>> Thanks for (finally) conceding the point!
>>
>> it's still vapor for the vast majority of android users. some don't
>> even know if they'll get it or not since the manufacturer has not yet
>> decided.
>
> You still don't understand what vaporware is. If it's available to any
> end users, (not necessarily ALL end users), then it's no longer
> vaporware. It's a simple concept.
Or as we say about our competitor, "they're shipping data sheets in volume."
On Thu, 27 May 2010 17:05:28 -0700, nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid>
wrote:
>In article <i31uv55mm6i5t3gl2pj2gjpd9eh1s34sg1@4ax.com>, Paul Miner
><pminer@elrancho.invalid> wrote:
>
>> You still don't understand what vaporware is. If it's available to any
>> end users, (not necessarily ALL end users), then it's no longer
>> vaporware. It's a simple concept.
>
>then iphone os 4 isn't vaporware either since it's available to some
>end users, but not all (yet). very simple.
That's a change then. Earlier in this thread you said it was not yet
available to end users.
In article <rnkuv5lqnbic8h8c6jr64s00baeu31qmhg@4ax.com>, Paul Miner
<pminer@elrancho.invalid> wrote:
> >> You still don't understand what vaporware is. If it's available to any
> >> end users, (not necessarily ALL end users), then it's no longer
> >> vaporware. It's a simple concept.
> >
> >then iphone os 4 isn't vaporware either since it's available to some
> >end users, but not all (yet). very simple.
>
> That's a change then. Earlier in this thread you said it was not yet
> available to end users.
i said it's available to developers, who are a subset of end users.
anyone that wants it can sign up and download it.
In article <bn5rv5tlq2jvdna8111kuip5tohr5rajsf@4ax.com>,
Paul Miner <pminer@elrancho.invalid> wrote:
> 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.
Sorry about the misattribution. In my household, we run a variety of
products, new and old. We replace as needed and sometimes as the new
technology overtakes the old in interesting ways, but we are not a "new
car every year" household.
Steve
--
steve <at> w0x0f <dot> com
"Life should not be a journey to the grave with the intention of
arriving safely in an attractive and well preserved body, but rather to
skid in sideways, chocolate in one hand, sidecar in the other, body thoroughly
used up, totally worn out and screaming "WOO HOO what a ride!"
On Thu, 27 May 2010 22:31:13 -0700, nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid>
wrote:
>In article <rnkuv5lqnbic8h8c6jr64s00baeu31qmhg@4ax.com>, Paul Miner
><pminer@elrancho.invalid> wrote:
>
>> >> You still don't understand what vaporware is. If it's available to any
>> >> end users, (not necessarily ALL end users), then it's no longer
>> >> vaporware. It's a simple concept.
>> >
>> >then iphone os 4 isn't vaporware either since it's available to some
>> >end users, but not all (yet). very simple.
>>
>> That's a change then. Earlier in this thread you said it was not yet
>> available to end users.
>
>i said it's available to developers, who are a subset of end users.
>anyone that wants it can sign up and download it.
Thanks for the clarification. Developers aren't end users, so I'd say
it's back in the vapor category.
On Thu, 27 May 2010 23:31:25 -0700, Steve Fenwick
<nospam@nospam.invalid> wrote:
>Sorry about the misattribution. In my household, we run a variety of
>products, new and old. We replace as needed and sometimes as the new
>technology overtakes the old in interesting ways, but we are not a "new
>car every year" household.
>
>Steve
On 28/05/2010 3:31 PM, nospam wrote:
> In article<rnkuv5lqnbic8h8c6jr64s00baeu31qmhg@4ax.com>, Paul Miner
> <pminer@elrancho.invalid> wrote:
>
>>>> You still don't understand what vaporware is. If it's available to any
>>>> end users, (not necessarily ALL end users), then it's no longer
>>>> vaporware. It's a simple concept.
>>>
>>> then iphone os 4 isn't vaporware either since it's available to some
>>> end users, but not all (yet). very simple.
>>
>> That's a change then. Earlier in this thread you said it was not yet
>> available to end users.
>
> i said it's available to developers, who are a subset of end users.
> anyone that wants it can sign up and download it.
Developers are NOT end users. They are the "creators" of software, those
people who write software for the end users to use. Developers typically
do not have to "buy" the product but the end users most certainly will
have to fork out the hard cash.
Beta testers "may" be considered a special subset of end users who also
won't have to pay for the product but you didn't mention them in your post.
That said, many software companies are treating end users like beta
testers given the bugs that so many finished products are riddled with!
On Thu, 27 May 2010 22:31:13 -0700, nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid>
wrote:
>In article <rnkuv5lqnbic8h8c6jr64s00baeu31qmhg@4ax.com>, Paul Miner
><pminer@elrancho.invalid> wrote:
>
>> >> You still don't understand what vaporware is. If it's available to any
>> >> end users, (not necessarily ALL end users), then it's no longer
>> >> vaporware. It's a simple concept.
>> >
>> >then iphone os 4 isn't vaporware either since it's available to some
>> >end users, but not all (yet). very simple.
>>
>> That's a change then. Earlier in this thread you said it was not yet
>> available to end users.
>
>i said it's available to developers, who are a subset of end users.
>anyone that wants it can sign up and download it.
Right, so that puts it squarely in the vaporware camp.
Reply With Quote
Bookmarks