7 Ways Android 2.2 Froyo Tops Apple's iPhone

[Thomas T. Veldhouse]

In alt.cellular.attws nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> wrote:
>
> 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?
>

FYI ... Silverlight is DEFINITELY NO CLONE of Flash in either function or
implementation.

>
> based on what? that's quite an assumption. they're not being bought by
> exclusively apple fanatics, you know.

I bought two iPod Touch devices [sold the first one to upgrade to the second
one] and I DO WANT FLASH. I wouldn't mind Silverlight either as far as that
goes, but isn't that widespread [yet].

--
Thomas T. Veldhouse

Religion is a crutch, but that's okay... humanity is a cripple.

[Thomas T. Veldhouse]

In alt.cellular.attws Paul Miner <pminer@elrancho.invalid> wrote:
>
> 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.
>

It's good if people are buying from the iTunes store. It is good if people
are getting attached to the Apple branded products and will buy future
products. It is good, because they maintain marketshare (due to the owners of
these devices not buying from a competitor). Do you need more reasons why it
is good for Apple? True, ideally, they would love for you to upgrade, but
also ideally, they want you to keep the Apple device you upgraded from in
service either personally or with somebody else.

--
Thomas T. Veldhouse

Religion is a crutch, but that's okay... humanity is a cripple.

[nospam]

In article <htm1dg$i1d$4@news.eternal-september.org>, Justin
<nospam@insightbb.com> wrote:

> > 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.

it doesn't skew the numbers. if there are millions of small sites
without flash, they count too. what makes you think an iphone user
won't visit any of them?

> 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
you think they'll work well on a touch device when they're designed for
a mouse/keyboard and larger 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.

> >> 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

if people block it, they don't want it.

> > 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

that's not part of flash. that's yet *another* piece.

[nospam]

In article <htm118$i1d$2@news.eternal-september.org>, Justin
<nospam@insightbb.com> wrote:

> > 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.

except, it isn't a fact.

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
phone google gave out), droid incredible and other android phones. it
won't be available for a lot of android phones including ones still
being sold new, today.

<http://www.pcworld.com/article/19699...droid_line_up_
for_android_22_update.html>

Motorola Droid users should get treated to Android 2.2 "in the near
future" as well...

The HTC Desire, Droid Incredible and EVO 4G are set to go Android 2.2
"in the second half of the year...

<http://android-developers.blogspot.c...-and-developer
s-goodies.html>

Developers can now download the Android 2.2 SDK and Android NDK,
Revision 4 from the Android developer site.

As I said at the beginning, Android 2.2 will be here soon, and some
devices will get the update in the coming weeks.

developer sdk (sounds familiar), 'soon' and 'coming weeks' = not
released yet.

in a couple of weeks, iphone os 4 will be out, while android 2.2 will
still be 'soon' for most of its user base.

[nospam]

In article <htm15p$i1d$3@news.eternal-september.org>, Justin
<nospam@insightbb.com> wrote:

> Of course, 3-10% is far from very very few.
> Very very few is under 1%

it's not enough to bother, especially when most of them will probably
want to upgrade anyway, whether or not it was supported.

> But, since APple is famous for orphaning products that are only a couple
> of years old, it's not unexpected.

but it's perfectly ok for google to orphan the t-mobile g1, a phone
that's just 18 months old and *still being sold* today, or for htc to
orphan anything sold prior to 2010, less than six months ago.

[Thomas T. Veldhouse]

In alt.cellular.attws John Navas <jnspam1@navasgroup.com> wrote:
> On 26 May 2010 21:40:58 GMT, "Thomas T. Veldhouse" <veldy71@gmail.com>
> wrote in <865iraF4vaU4@mid.individual.net>:
>
>>In alt.cellular.verizon John Navas <jnspam1@navasgroup.com> wrote:
>>> On 26 May 2010 18:57:09 GMT, "Thomas T. Veldhouse" <veldy71@gmail.com>
>>> wrote in <865985FubgU6@mid.individual.net>:
>>>
>>>>In alt.cellular.verizon John Navas <jnspam1@navasgroup.com> wrote:
>>>>> On 26 May 2010 14:17:04 GMT, "Thomas T. Veldhouse" <veldy71@gmail.com>
>>>>
>>>>Have we all had enough fun with the triviality of stupid semantics? The whole
>>>>point is that a comparison between 2.2 and the iPod OS needs to include OS
>>>>4.0. Who gives a crap what you call it ... semantics aside, my point is made.
>>>
>>> You declare victory just like Dubya, and with just as much validity. :D
>>
>>I didn't declare any victory. I said simply that android 2.2 will be compared
>>to apple's OS 4.0 and historically that will be the only comparison of meaning
>>[any comparison to 3.1 is pretty much pointless]. If you call that victory,
>>then I guess so. I call it getting back on point.
>
> I call this a disingenuous scramble.
>

You would. What will you call it in June when OS 4.0 comes out and 2.2 is
essentially unreleased for all intents and purposes [NexusOne sales have been
pulled by Google]. OS 4.0 will be market dominant compared to 2.2 the day
after the release. What I have said all along, is that Apple OS 4.0 should be
compared to Google's 2.2 [which will release someday for some platform other
than the minute NexusOne]. These will be what is compared for the next long
while [and OS 4.1 will likely follow before 2.2 is actually broadly available
if Apple's history of minor upgrades remains the same].

--
Thomas T. Veldhouse

Religion is a crutch, but that's okay... humanity is a cripple.

[Thomas T. Veldhouse]

In alt.cellular.attws Paul Miner <pminer@elrancho.invalid> wrote:
> On 26 May 2010 18:57:09 GMT, "Thomas T. Veldhouse" <veldy71@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
>>In alt.cellular.verizon John Navas <jnspam1@navasgroup.com> wrote:
>>> On 26 May 2010 14:17:04 GMT, "Thomas T. Veldhouse" <veldy71@gmail.com>
>>
>>Have we all had enough fun with the triviality of stupid semantics? The whole
>>point is that a comparison between 2.2 and the iPod OS needs to include OS
>>4.0. Who gives a crap what you call it ... semantics aside, my point is made.
>
> Yes, but for the record, your point was thoroughly discredited.
>

Which point is that, the use of the term "vaporware"? That wasn't my point to
begin with, that was a semantic diversion by another to divert the thread from
the point I actually made and that is that OS 4.0 will be compared to Google's
2.2 (primarily).

--
Thomas T. Veldhouse

Religion is a crutch, but that's okay... humanity is a cripple.

[Paul Miner]

On 27 May 2010 15:50:12 GMT, "Thomas T. Veldhouse" <veldy71@gmail.com>
wrote:

>In alt.cellular.attws Paul Miner <pminer@elrancho.invalid> wrote:
>>
>> 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.
>>
>
>It's good if people are buying from the iTunes store. It is good if people
>are getting attached to the Apple branded products and will buy future
>products. It is good, because they maintain marketshare (due to the owners of
>these devices not buying from a competitor). Do you need more reasons why it
>is good for Apple? True, ideally, they would love for you to upgrade, but
>also ideally, they want you to keep the Apple device you upgraded from in
>service either personally or with somebody else.

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.

Then again, these are Apple products we're talking about, and Apple
customers seem to be 'different'.

--
Paul Miner

[Paul Miner]

On Thu, 27 May 2010 08:56:45 -0700, nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid>
wrote:

>In article <htm118$i1d$2@news.eternal-september.org>, Justin
><nospam@insightbb.com> wrote:
>
>> > 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.
>
>except, it isn't a fact.

Apparently it *is* a fact, as you go on to say in the very next
paragraph.

>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
>phone google gave out), droid incredible and other android phones. it
>won't be available for a lot of android phones including ones still
>being sold new, today.

Assuming you're right that 2.2 is available for the Nexus One, then
it's obviously not vaporware.

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.

--
Paul Miner

[nospam]

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.

> 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.

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.

[Justin]

nospam wrote on [Thu, 27 May 2010 08:56:48 -0700]:
> In article <htm15p$i1d$3@news.eternal-september.org>, Justin
> <nospam@insightbb.com> wrote:
>
>> Of course, 3-10% is far from very very few.
>> Very very few is under 1%
>
> it's not enough to bother, especially when most of them will probably
> want to upgrade anyway, whether or not it was supported.
>
>> But, since APple is famous for orphaning products that are only a couple
>> of years old, it's not unexpected.
>
> but it's perfectly ok for google to orphan the t-mobile g1, a phone
> that's just 18 months old and *still being sold* today, or for htc to
> orphan anything sold prior to 2010, less than six months ago.

They are not mutually exclusive items. They are both wrong.

[Justin]

nospam wrote on [Thu, 27 May 2010 08:56:35 -0700]:
> In article <htm1dg$i1d$4@news.eternal-september.org>, Justin
> <nospam@insightbb.com> wrote:
>
>> > 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.
>
> it doesn't skew the numbers. if there are millions of small sites
> without flash, they count too. what makes you think an iphone user
> won't visit any of them?

Who cares if an iDevice user that can't run flash wants to visit them.
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.

>> 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

>> 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

>> >> 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
>
> if people block it, they don't want it.

They don't want certain 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
>
> that's not part of flash. that's yet *another* piece.

Yes, a browser piece, it's pretty damn simple. Just like browing with images turned off in the 90s

[Justin]

nospam wrote on [Thu, 27 May 2010 08:56:45 -0700]:
> In article <htm118$i1d$2@news.eternal-september.org>, Justin
> <nospam@insightbb.com> wrote:
>
>> > 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.
>
> except, it isn't a fact.
>
> 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

> 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.

> developer sdk (sounds familiar), 'soon' and 'coming weeks' = not
> released yet.

Huh, I have the developer SDK already, so soon is long past

[Justin]

nospam wrote on [Thu, 27 May 2010 10:03:54 -0700]:
> 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.

So, it's not vaporware then.
Simple, you lose

> 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.

Yes, it's available.

[nospam]

In article <htm9vo$33b$4@news.eternal-september.org>, Justin
<nospam@insightbb.com> 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.
>
> So, it's not vaporware then.

iphone os 4 is available to a subset of users too and probably to more
users than nexus one owners.

> Simple, you lose

nope.

> > 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.
>
> Yes, it's available.

so is iphone os 4.

[nospam]

In article <htm9bf$33b$1@news.eternal-september.org>, Justin
<nospam@insightbb.com> wrote:

> > but it's perfectly ok for google to orphan the t-mobile g1, a phone
> > that's just 18 months old and *still being sold* today, or for htc to
> > orphan anything sold prior to 2010, less than six months ago.
>
> They are not mutually exclusive items. They are both wrong.

neither is wrong.

here's the g1, still available at t-mobile, and no mention that it's a
dead end. only $99 with a contract. what a deal.
<http://www.t-mobile.com/shop/phones/...?cell-phone=T-
Mobile-G1-with-Google-White>

[nospam]

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.

> 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.

> >> 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.

> >> 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.

[nospam]

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

only to nexus one owners.

> > 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
manufacturer's decision to support it. i keep posting links that
explain this very clearly, have you not read any of them?

> > 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.

developers have had iphone os 4 for nearly two months now.

[Justin]

nospam wrote on [Thu, 27 May 2010 10:47:30 -0700]:
> In article <htm9bf$33b$1@news.eternal-september.org>, Justin
> <nospam@insightbb.com> wrote:
>
>> > but it's perfectly ok for google to orphan the t-mobile g1, a phone
>> > that's just 18 months old and *still being sold* today, or for htc to
>> > orphan anything sold prior to 2010, less than six months ago.
>>
>> They are not mutually exclusive items. They are both wrong.
>
> neither is wrong.

Perhaps your reading comprehension is faulty.

[Thomas T. Veldhouse]

In alt.cellular.verizon nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> wrote:
> In article <htm1dg$i1d$4@news.eternal-september.org>, Justin
> <nospam@insightbb.com> wrote:
>
>> > 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.
>
> it doesn't skew the numbers. if there are millions of small sites
> without flash, they count too. what makes you think an iphone user
> won't visit any of them?

What matters is what percentage of hits are hits to pages that contain Flash.
I think that was the point.

--
Thomas T. Veldhouse

Religion is a crutch, but that's okay... humanity is a cripple.