So i guess the question is -- what are people doing with these Android phones if they aren't browsing the web or using apps? Do they just use it for e-mail, contacts, and making phone calls?
It's a phone. That's its freakin' purpose. Btw, it's browser usage, not App usage.
Quote:
Originally Posted by markbyrn
It's simple math - instead of actually using their device, the Fandroids are jumping on their PCs to shill for Google and cry about Apple.
Makes sense. iPad was designed for this. I rarely use my notebook now and my iPhone is virtually redundant for browsing.
So convenient, quick and simple.
We're not talking Netbooks here. We're talking the vaunted, celebrated, iPhone killing Android (heads bowed in respect)! The article mentioned that even though there are more Android devices in the hands of consumers than iPads, the iPad shows up on the internet more. The question is why is that the case. iPhone users I know are constantly piddling on the net with their device. Android supporters babble on about 60,000 or 100,00 of those devices being sold per day. Yet less of them are on the net than the iPad according to this report.
The speculations could be many. Are Android users walking around with iPads to access the net instead of their phones? Are Android devices harder to use on the net than iDevices? Are there not enough apps available to make it worthwhile being on the net?
This is an interesting report and I'm not sure what it means exactly.
Makes sense. iPad was designed for this. I rarely use my notebook now and my iPhone is virtually redundant for browsing.
So convenient, quick and simple."
Quote:
Originally Posted by lkrupp
We're not talking Netbooks here. We're talking the vaunted, celebrated, iPhone killing Android (heads bowed in respect)! The article mentioned that even though there are more Android devices in the hands of consumers than iPads, the iPad shows up on the internet more. The question is why is that the case. iPhone users I know are constantly piddling on the net with their device. Android supporters babble on about 60,000 or 100,00 of those devices being sold per day. Yet less of them are on the net than the iPad according to this report.
The speculations could be many. Are Android users walking around with iPads to access the net instead of their phones? Are Android devices harder to use on the net than iDevices? Are there not enough apps available to make it worthwhile being on the net?
This is an interesting report and I'm not sure what it means exactly.
Whatever it is, iPad web browsing is really convenient. Once I'm done with work, I just leave my 13" Macbook Aluminium upstairs and just wander around the house with my iPad. Great for browsing/etc. while in front of the TV.
I'm actually still in awe of the iPad, now being able to experience it myself. Clearly I'm not a fanboy. Or maybe I am. Or not.
Who knows nowadays. I guess we're just people that use various products, some of them made by Apple.
phones even show up at all is a testament to their power of this still emerging market.
We also have to consider other ways these devices are getting onto the internet. With so many apps in play ? 2149 which can be displayed on the iPhone before you have to access via Spotlight*? it's likely many things people use a web browser for on a desktop OS they use a dedicated app on their smartphone.
I never thought about this so I did some testing.
A common way for an app to access a web page is:
Code:
-(void) loadURL {
NSURL *url = [[NSURL alloc] initWithString: urlField.text]; // format the URL
[webView loadRequest: request]; // request the web page
[request release];
[url release];
}
This gets sent to the web server as a normal HTML page request and, thus, has the normal browser info:
Code:
10.0.1.1 - - [03/Jul/2010:05:06:30 -0700] "GET / HTTP/1.1" 200 44 "-" "Mozilla/5.0 (iPhone Simulator; U; CPU iPhone OS 4_0 like Mac OS X; en-us) AppleWebKit/532.9 (KHTML, like Gecko) Mobile/8A293"
That means an iOS app that accesses the web, will, likely, be counted as if Mobile Safari had issued the request.
There are lower-level means to access the web, but you would need a reason to bother with the extra work-- multi-player game play, for instance as opposed to just accessing scores/rules/registration.
I don't have an iPhone (yet. not sure when). I also don't have a laptop (no real need). I've only three Macs since I started using a computer back in 1995 (Performa 6200CD, Blue/White G3, Intel White iMac).
The iPad is my first mobile device to check mail, go online which are my main needs. I luv my iPad.
So count me in doing my small part in that whole "Apple's iPad passes Google Android in total browser usage share!
Yeah, it's kinda' funny-- wherever I go around the house I take my iPad with me. I have a laptop. but never did that with it.
I've had lots of computers over the years, and the iPad hits set sweet spot for most things.
I always found it suspicious and erroneous for all the reports showing Android "installs" catching up to iPhone. Installs are a shady measurement, an install isn't the same as an actual purchase, and a purchase certainly isn't the same as actual usage. Not to mention they also usually left out the iPod Touch as a legitimate part of the iPhone OS ecosystem.
Google's Android is supposed to be an amazing multi-manufacturer, multi-device platform in addition to their own hardware (before they gave up on it), so it should be running circles around Apple's closed platform right? Well it isn't. Where are all those tablet/slates that people were boasting about that were supposed to run Android/Chrome? Don't get me wrong, I think Android is a great also-ran platform; and it's not a matter of all or nothing between Android and Apple. But this isn't going to be Windows vs. Mac again. Regardless of how you count, Apple's single mobile platform is selling more and – more importantly - being used more than Google's. And that's mostly because Apple does it better. Apple may do it closed - but they do it better.
I think one of the reasons that the Android tablet/slates haven't emerged is because every competitor misjudged the iPad-- they (we) were expecting a starting price of $1,000 and maybe a 7" diagonal screen. They figured they would compete by bolting on features and undercutting price-- and they can't! And then, there is the iPad battery....
IMO, the only potential iPad competition will come from HP/Palm! HP/Palm can do the HW and SW, but they lack the iTunes ecosystem.
That upside coming when iPad TWO comes out. To be perfectly honest I'm holding off on an iPad because I don't think the curreent model, as configure, can realize it's full potential. For one the current model doesn't have enough RAM. More so the base model needs the GPS and Gyro. On top of all of that a much faster processor would be a huge advantage.
It would be extremely nice if Apple could get such a platform out by November. Frankly it has been extremely hard to resist this version one device, in many ways it is excellent for a version one device and using one is most impressive (magical). It is easy to see why Steve Jobs said more than a year and a half ago that he was most impressed with things he didn't release which was later revealed to be a comment about the iPad.
IPad is one seriously nice piece of hardware with a few quirks. One being tying the GPS to the 3G model. GPS should really be base line functionally on such devices. On top of that a simple USB port would have solved many issues including the availability of a web cam.
On the otherhand I avoid the Apple stores just to make sure a snap purchase is not made. I'm still more impressed by iPad than iPhone 4 as I think it will fit my needs better.
Dave
Ha Ha Ha... especially the last sentence!
I don't think you'll see a new iPad before January, for a couple of reasons:
1) the current model is supply constrained... what, me worry?
2) Apple needs to use its resources (read consumer product launches) efficiently. This includes human resources, manufacturing lines, and component supplies.
3) Apple is trying to space these launches throughout the year so they/we/and our wallets have some breathing room between the last and next big thing.
4) If they accomplish 3), they will always be in the news (reviews of the last, speculation about the next).
5) doing 3) and 4) will keep us customers occupied/pacified, and the competition churning to react/catch up.
Here is what I think will be Apple's major events for a typical calendar year.
Q1 == iPad
Q2 == iMacs, Power Macs
Q3 == iPhone
Q4 == laptops, iPods, iPod Touch
I suspect the iPad 2 will be announced in early-mid Jan, delivery in late Jan-early Feb.
The current iPads will continue to be offered, starting at $199-$299.
Makes sense. iPad was designed for this. I rarely use my notebook now and my iPhone is virtually redundant for browsing.
So convenient, quick and simple."
Whatever it is, iPad web browsing is really convenient. Once I'm done with work, I just leave my 13" Macbook Aluminium upstairs and just wander around the house with my iPad. Great for browsing/etc. while in front of the TV.
I'm actually still in awe of the iPad, now being able to experience it myself. Clearly I'm not a fanboy. Or maybe I am. Or not.
Who knows nowadays. I guess we're just people that use various products, some of them made by Apple.
I thought there was only 3 or 4 million iPads sold so far.
The stats are measuring traffic, not unique IPs.
For traffic, consider the caching scheme: Android's cache is persistent, while iOS needs to re-download everything between sessions. Also, the limit on the size of objects cached and the total cache size is appreciable smaller on iOS than on Android, requiring even more redundant downloads:
[webView loadRequest: request]; // request the web page
[request release];
[url release];
}
This gets sent to the web server as a normal HTML page request and, thus, has the normal browser info:
Code:
10.0.1.1 - - [03/Jul/2010:05:06:30 -0700] "GET / HTTP/1.1" 200 44 "-" "Mozilla/5.0 (iPhone Simulator; U; CPU iPhone OS 4_0 like Mac OS X; en-us) AppleWebKit/532.9 (KHTML, like Gecko) Mobile/8A293"
That means an iOS app that accesses the web, will, likely, be counted as if Mobile Safari had issued the request.
There are lower-level means to access the web, but you would need a reason to bother with the extra work-- multi-player game play, for instance as opposed to just accessing scores/rules/registration.
Does this take into account browsers that don't give the correct os to a website (to force the desktop version)? Many android browsers tell a website its a desktop to force the full version not the mobile version, and websites would have no idea the user is using android. Can this even be done on the ipad?
We're not talking Netbooks here. We're talking the vaunted, celebrated, iPhone killing Android (heads bowed in respect)! The article mentioned that even though there are more Android devices in the hands of consumers than iPads, the iPad shows up on the internet more. The question is why is that the case. iPhone users I know are constantly piddling on the net with their device. Android supporters babble on about 60,000 or 100,00 of those devices being sold per day. Yet less of them are on the net than the iPad according to this report.
The speculations could be many. Are Android users walking around with iPads to access the net instead of their phones? Are Android devices harder to use on the net than iDevices? Are there not enough apps available to make it worthwhile being on the net?
Or maybe it's simply that the numbers claimed by Android fans are wrong. There were two sources of numbers. One was from a handset vendor (I forget which one) and was already shown to be off by a huge number. The second number is from Google - but with absolutely no data to back it up - simply "160,000 android phones are being sold every day". Frankly, if Google presents hard data, then it might be believable, but their grasp of reality is tenuous enough that I'm not interested in their fluff numbers.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dr Millmoss
Maybe they should teach people to not use line graphs when a bar chart more accurately represents the data.
The line graph presents the data just as accurately as the bar chart, but gives a much better indication of trends- which is why it was used. In this situation, a line chart is absolutely the best presentation to use - people need to learn some basic math before criticizing the people who created the chart.
The REAL problem is people who insist on publicizing criticism on topics that they don't understand.
[webView loadRequest: request]; // request the web page
[request release];
[url release];
}
This gets sent to the web server as a normal HTML page request and, thus, has the normal browser info:
Code:
10.0.1.1 - - [03/Jul/2010:05:06:30 -0700] "GET / HTTP/1.1" 200 44 "-" "Mozilla/5.0 (iPhone Simulator; U; CPU iPhone OS 4_0 like Mac OS X; en-us) AppleWebKit/532.9 (KHTML, like Gecko) Mobile/8A293"
That means an iOS app that accesses the web, will, likely, be counted as if Mobile Safari had issued the request.
There are lower-level means to access the web, but you would need a reason to bother with the extra work-- multi-player game play, for instance as opposed to just accessing scores/rules/registration.
I had to read that several times to wrap my head around it. Programming simply isn't my thing. MY background is networking design. CCIE twice over, which makes perfect sense to me, but that code above took me way too long to figure out. Maybe I'll take C programming class this summer to keep my mind active.
I had to read that several times to wrap my head around it. Programming simply isn't my thing. MY background is networking design. CCIE twice over, which makes perfect sense to me, but that code above took me way too long to figure out. Maybe I'll take C programming class this summer to keep my mind active.
Sorry! I just included it to illustrate my point for those who understand coding or care!
Taking a C class prolly won't help much. While you can program in C for the Mac or iOS devices, all the API access is in Objective-C, as shown above.
Better, you should learn to program in Flash... it's coming to mobile RSN!
The line graph presents the data just as accurately as the bar chart, but gives a much better indication of trends- which is why it was used. In this situation, a line chart is absolutely the best presentation to use - people need to learn some basic math before criticizing the people who created the chart.
The REAL problem is people who insist on publicizing criticism on topics that they don't understand.
Nope. The data is a monthly aggregate, but the line chart used to display it implies an intra-month trend. Note the confusion this caused, which produced the entire debate. One of the first things I learned in statistics is the importance of proper data representations (assuming the intent is to accurately represent them, naturally).
This has nothing at all to do with a knowledge of math, or your implication that you are just smarter than most people. It's easy to fool virtually anyone into seeing something in a set statistics which doesn't exist. Sometimes this is done on purpose, sometimes by accident. In this case, a bar chart would have represented the data, and the trend, without any visual deception.
32 years ago I bought my first personal computer, an Apple ][. They were called microcomputers back then.
This amazing machine was about the size of an attaché case, laid flat. It contained a built-in keyboard and a top cover that popped off to show the innards.
It was self-contained, except it had no way to display information or save what you keyed into the keyboard. For display, you needed to add a TV adapter and a TV set. For saving information you needed to add a Cassette tape player/recorded. The Cassette deck plugged into built-in microphone and speaker ports.
The machine I bought included 8K of RAM memory -- enough to store 8,000 characters or digits. The "computer" was an 8-bit, 1 MHz 6502. CPU made by Mostek. The circuitry was capable of displaying 24 lines of 40 monochrome uppercase-only characters.
There were two modes of displaying graphics. The low-resolution mode was 40x48 8-color pixels. The high-resolution mode was 280x194 4-color pixels.
The base machine cost $2,000. After adding a TV adapter, small TV, Cassette deck, the total investment was about $2,500. Those were 1978 dollars-- it would cost more than twice that much in 2010 dollars.
The machine came with a comprehensive manual (the red book), which included instructions and programs that you could enter into the keyboard. In addition, a cassette tape was included that contained several example programs-- including "Breakout", Apple's color version of the popular Pong game.
I was empowered! I brought this baby home, placed it on some new furniture bought especially for the computer, the TV and cassette deck. I fired it up! I heard my neighbor yell "what the he'll" from over the side yard fence. He had been watching the Notre Dame game and the Apple ][ frazzled his TV reception. Sigh! I was able to resolve the problem a few days later by feeding any free wires through torrid cores to minimize their capacity to radiate RF signals.
At some point in the 15-year lifespan of the Apple ][, the VanLove's catalog listed over 1,500 software programs for the machine.
The iPad on which I write this is 32 years "younger" than that Apple ][, but what a difference.
In many ways, the iPad is hundreds (even thousands) of times better than that first Apple ][-- at a fraction of the cost, size and weight. You can compare the specs as well as I. But that won't tell the whole story.
I am empowered again, after 32 years... And I can take the iPad along wherever I go,
Does this take into account browsers that don't give the correct os to a website (to force the desktop version)? Many android browsers tell a website its a desktop to force the full version not the mobile version, and websites would have no idea the user is using android. Can this even be done on the ipad?
Yes. You just have to use one of the other many browsers that let you alter the User Agent.
Comments
So i guess the question is -- what are people doing with these Android phones if they aren't browsing the web or using apps? Do they just use it for e-mail, contacts, and making phone calls?
It's a phone. That's its freakin' purpose. Btw, it's browser usage, not App usage.
It's simple math - instead of actually using their device, the Fandroids are jumping on their PCs to shill for Google and cry about Apple.
-Sent from my iPad
Right, like you guys don't cry over Google?
Makes sense. iPad was designed for this. I rarely use my notebook now and my iPhone is virtually redundant for browsing.
So convenient, quick and simple.
We're not talking Netbooks here. We're talking the vaunted, celebrated, iPhone killing Android (heads bowed in respect)! The article mentioned that even though there are more Android devices in the hands of consumers than iPads, the iPad shows up on the internet more. The question is why is that the case. iPhone users I know are constantly piddling on the net with their device. Android supporters babble on about 60,000 or 100,00 of those devices being sold per day. Yet less of them are on the net than the iPad according to this report.
The speculations could be many. Are Android users walking around with iPads to access the net instead of their phones? Are Android devices harder to use on the net than iDevices? Are there not enough apps available to make it worthwhile being on the net?
This is an interesting report and I'm not sure what it means exactly.
Makes sense. iPad was designed for this. I rarely use my notebook now and my iPhone is virtually redundant for browsing.
So convenient, quick and simple."
We're not talking Netbooks here. We're talking the vaunted, celebrated, iPhone killing Android (heads bowed in respect)! The article mentioned that even though there are more Android devices in the hands of consumers than iPads, the iPad shows up on the internet more. The question is why is that the case. iPhone users I know are constantly piddling on the net with their device. Android supporters babble on about 60,000 or 100,00 of those devices being sold per day. Yet less of them are on the net than the iPad according to this report.
The speculations could be many. Are Android users walking around with iPads to access the net instead of their phones? Are Android devices harder to use on the net than iDevices? Are there not enough apps available to make it worthwhile being on the net?
This is an interesting report and I'm not sure what it means exactly.
Whatever it is, iPad web browsing is really convenient. Once I'm done with work, I just leave my 13" Macbook Aluminium upstairs and just wander around the house with my iPad. Great for browsing/etc. while in front of the TV.
I'm actually still in awe of the iPad, now being able to experience it myself. Clearly I'm not a fanboy. Or maybe I am. Or not.
Who knows nowadays. I guess we're just people that use various products, some of them made by Apple.
phones even show up at all is a testament to their power of this still emerging market.
We also have to consider other ways these devices are getting onto the internet. With so many apps in play ? 2149 which can be displayed on the iPhone before you have to access via Spotlight*? it's likely many things people use a web browser for on a desktop OS they use a dedicated app on their smartphone.
I never thought about this so I did some testing.
A common way for an app to access a web page is:
-(void) loadURL {
NSURL *url = [[NSURL alloc] initWithString: urlField.text]; // format the URL
NSURLRequest *request = [[NSURLRequest alloc] initWithURL: url]; // setup the page request
[webView loadRequest: request]; // request the web page
[request release];
[url release];
}
This gets sent to the web server as a normal HTML page request and, thus, has the normal browser info:
10.0.1.1 - - [03/Jul/2010:05:06:30 -0700] "GET / HTTP/1.1" 200 44 "-" "Mozilla/5.0 (iPhone Simulator; U; CPU iPhone OS 4_0 like Mac OS X; en-us) AppleWebKit/532.9 (KHTML, like Gecko) Mobile/8A293"
That means an iOS app that accesses the web, will, likely, be counted as if Mobile Safari had issued the request.
There are lower-level means to access the web, but you would need a reason to bother with the extra work-- multi-player game play, for instance as opposed to just accessing scores/rules/registration.
.
I don't have an iPhone (yet. not sure when). I also don't have a laptop (no real need). I've only three Macs since I started using a computer back in 1995 (Performa 6200CD, Blue/White G3, Intel White iMac).
The iPad is my first mobile device to check mail, go online which are my main needs. I luv my iPad.
So count me in doing my small part in that whole "Apple's iPad passes Google Android in total browser usage share!
Yeah, it's kinda' funny-- wherever I go around the house I take my iPad with me. I have a laptop. but never did that with it.
I've had lots of computers over the years, and the iPad hits set sweet spot for most things.
.
I always found it suspicious and erroneous for all the reports showing Android "installs" catching up to iPhone. Installs are a shady measurement, an install isn't the same as an actual purchase, and a purchase certainly isn't the same as actual usage. Not to mention they also usually left out the iPod Touch as a legitimate part of the iPhone OS ecosystem.
Google's Android is supposed to be an amazing multi-manufacturer, multi-device platform in addition to their own hardware (before they gave up on it), so it should be running circles around Apple's closed platform right? Well it isn't. Where are all those tablet/slates that people were boasting about that were supposed to run Android/Chrome? Don't get me wrong, I think Android is a great also-ran platform; and it's not a matter of all or nothing between Android and Apple. But this isn't going to be Windows vs. Mac again. Regardless of how you count, Apple's single mobile platform is selling more and – more importantly - being used more than Google's. And that's mostly because Apple does it better. Apple may do it closed - but they do it better.
I think one of the reasons that the Android tablet/slates haven't emerged is because every competitor misjudged the iPad-- they (we) were expecting a starting price of $1,000 and maybe a 7" diagonal screen. They figured they would compete by bolting on features and undercutting price-- and they can't! And then, there is the iPad battery....
IMO, the only potential iPad competition will come from HP/Palm! HP/Palm can do the HW and SW, but they lack the iTunes ecosystem.
.
That upside coming when iPad TWO comes out. To be perfectly honest I'm holding off on an iPad because I don't think the curreent model, as configure, can realize it's full potential. For one the current model doesn't have enough RAM. More so the base model needs the GPS and Gyro. On top of all of that a much faster processor would be a huge advantage.
It would be extremely nice if Apple could get such a platform out by November. Frankly it has been extremely hard to resist this version one device, in many ways it is excellent for a version one device and using one is most impressive (magical). It is easy to see why Steve Jobs said more than a year and a half ago that he was most impressed with things he didn't release which was later revealed to be a comment about the iPad.
IPad is one seriously nice piece of hardware with a few quirks. One being tying the GPS to the 3G model. GPS should really be base line functionally on such devices. On top of that a simple USB port would have solved many issues including the availability of a web cam.
On the otherhand I avoid the Apple stores just to make sure a snap purchase is not made. I'm still more impressed by iPad than iPhone 4 as I think it will fit my needs better.
Dave
Ha Ha Ha... especially the last sentence!
I don't think you'll see a new iPad before January, for a couple of reasons:
1) the current model is supply constrained... what, me worry?
2) Apple needs to use its resources (read consumer product launches) efficiently. This includes human resources, manufacturing lines, and component supplies.
3) Apple is trying to space these launches throughout the year so they/we/and our wallets have some breathing room between the last and next big thing.
4) If they accomplish 3), they will always be in the news (reviews of the last, speculation about the next).
5) doing 3) and 4) will keep us customers occupied/pacified, and the competition churning to react/catch up.
Here is what I think will be Apple's major events for a typical calendar year.
Q1 == iPad
Q2 == iMacs, Power Macs
Q3 == iPhone
Q4 == laptops, iPods, iPod Touch
I suspect the iPad 2 will be announced in early-mid Jan, delivery in late Jan-early Feb.
The current iPads will continue to be offered, starting at $199-$299.
.
"Originally Posted by Mr Underhill
Makes sense. iPad was designed for this. I rarely use my notebook now and my iPhone is virtually redundant for browsing.
So convenient, quick and simple."
Whatever it is, iPad web browsing is really convenient. Once I'm done with work, I just leave my 13" Macbook Aluminium upstairs and just wander around the house with my iPad. Great for browsing/etc. while in front of the TV.
I'm actually still in awe of the iPad, now being able to experience it myself. Clearly I'm not a fanboy. Or maybe I am. Or not.
Who knows nowadays. I guess we're just people that use various products, some of them made by Apple.
... everything that you said... You nailed it!
.
Somewhat surprising, given that Android devices allow p0rn.
I know that's a popular Steve talking point, but really, how many people actually believe you can't view porn any on the web with an iPhone or iPad?
Makes no sense to me. something is off here.
I thought there was only 3 or 4 million iPads sold so far.
The stats are measuring traffic, not unique IPs.
For traffic, consider the caching scheme: Android's cache is persistent, while iOS needs to re-download everything between sessions. Also, the limit on the size of objects cached and the total cache size is appreciable smaller on iOS than on Android, requiring even more redundant downloads:
http://www.yuiblog.com/blog/2010/06/...-cache-limits/
I never thought about this so I did some testing.
A common way for an app to access a web page is:
-(void) loadURL {
NSURL *url = [[NSURL alloc] initWithString: urlField.text]; // format the URL
NSURLRequest *request = [[NSURLRequest alloc] initWithURL: url]; // setup the page request
[webView loadRequest: request]; // request the web page
[request release];
[url release];
}
This gets sent to the web server as a normal HTML page request and, thus, has the normal browser info:
10.0.1.1 - - [03/Jul/2010:05:06:30 -0700] "GET / HTTP/1.1" 200 44 "-" "Mozilla/5.0 (iPhone Simulator; U; CPU iPhone OS 4_0 like Mac OS X; en-us) AppleWebKit/532.9 (KHTML, like Gecko) Mobile/8A293"
That means an iOS app that accesses the web, will, likely, be counted as if Mobile Safari had issued the request.
There are lower-level means to access the web, but you would need a reason to bother with the extra work-- multi-player game play, for instance as opposed to just accessing scores/rules/registration.
.
We're not talking Netbooks here. We're talking the vaunted, celebrated, iPhone killing Android (heads bowed in respect)! The article mentioned that even though there are more Android devices in the hands of consumers than iPads, the iPad shows up on the internet more. The question is why is that the case. iPhone users I know are constantly piddling on the net with their device. Android supporters babble on about 60,000 or 100,00 of those devices being sold per day. Yet less of them are on the net than the iPad according to this report.
The speculations could be many. Are Android users walking around with iPads to access the net instead of their phones? Are Android devices harder to use on the net than iDevices? Are there not enough apps available to make it worthwhile being on the net?
Or maybe it's simply that the numbers claimed by Android fans are wrong. There were two sources of numbers. One was from a handset vendor (I forget which one) and was already shown to be off by a huge number. The second number is from Google - but with absolutely no data to back it up - simply "160,000 android phones are being sold every day". Frankly, if Google presents hard data, then it might be believable, but their grasp of reality is tenuous enough that I'm not interested in their fluff numbers.
Maybe they should teach people to not use line graphs when a bar chart more accurately represents the data.
The line graph presents the data just as accurately as the bar chart, but gives a much better indication of trends- which is why it was used. In this situation, a line chart is absolutely the best presentation to use - people need to learn some basic math before criticizing the people who created the chart.
The REAL problem is people who insist on publicizing criticism on topics that they don't understand.
I never thought about this so I did some testing.
A common way for an app to access a web page is:
-(void) loadURL {
NSURL *url = [[NSURL alloc] initWithString: urlField.text]; // format the URL
NSURLRequest *request = [[NSURLRequest alloc] initWithURL: url]; // setup the page request
[webView loadRequest: request]; // request the web page
[request release];
[url release];
}
This gets sent to the web server as a normal HTML page request and, thus, has the normal browser info:
10.0.1.1 - - [03/Jul/2010:05:06:30 -0700] "GET / HTTP/1.1" 200 44 "-" "Mozilla/5.0 (iPhone Simulator; U; CPU iPhone OS 4_0 like Mac OS X; en-us) AppleWebKit/532.9 (KHTML, like Gecko) Mobile/8A293"
That means an iOS app that accesses the web, will, likely, be counted as if Mobile Safari had issued the request.
There are lower-level means to access the web, but you would need a reason to bother with the extra work-- multi-player game play, for instance as opposed to just accessing scores/rules/registration.
I had to read that several times to wrap my head around it. Programming simply isn't my thing. MY background is networking design. CCIE twice over, which makes perfect sense to me, but that code above took me way too long to figure out. Maybe I'll take C programming class this summer to keep my mind active.
I had to read that several times to wrap my head around it. Programming simply isn't my thing. MY background is networking design. CCIE twice over, which makes perfect sense to me, but that code above took me way too long to figure out. Maybe I'll take C programming class this summer to keep my mind active.
Sorry! I just included it to illustrate my point for those who understand coding or care!
Taking a C class prolly won't help much. While you can program in C for the Mac or iOS devices, all the API access is in Objective-C, as shown above.
Better, you should learn to program in Flash... it's coming to mobile RSN!
.
The line graph presents the data just as accurately as the bar chart, but gives a much better indication of trends- which is why it was used. In this situation, a line chart is absolutely the best presentation to use - people need to learn some basic math before criticizing the people who created the chart.
The REAL problem is people who insist on publicizing criticism on topics that they don't understand.
Nope. The data is a monthly aggregate, but the line chart used to display it implies an intra-month trend. Note the confusion this caused, which produced the entire debate. One of the first things I learned in statistics is the importance of proper data representations (assuming the intent is to accurately represent them, naturally).
This has nothing at all to do with a knowledge of math, or your implication that you are just smarter than most people. It's easy to fool virtually anyone into seeing something in a set statistics which doesn't exist. Sometimes this is done on purpose, sometimes by accident. In this case, a bar chart would have represented the data, and the trend, without any visual deception.
Better, you should learn to program in Flash... it's coming to mobile RSN!
32 years ago I bought my first personal computer, an Apple ][. They were called microcomputers back then.
This amazing machine was about the size of an attaché case, laid flat. It contained a built-in keyboard and a top cover that popped off to show the innards.
It was self-contained, except it had no way to display information or save what you keyed into the keyboard. For display, you needed to add a TV adapter and a TV set. For saving information you needed to add a Cassette tape player/recorded. The Cassette deck plugged into built-in microphone and speaker ports.
The machine I bought included 8K of RAM memory -- enough to store 8,000 characters or digits. The "computer" was an 8-bit, 1 MHz 6502. CPU made by Mostek. The circuitry was capable of displaying 24 lines of 40 monochrome uppercase-only characters.
There were two modes of displaying graphics. The low-resolution mode was 40x48 8-color pixels. The high-resolution mode was 280x194 4-color pixels.
The base machine cost $2,000. After adding a TV adapter, small TV, Cassette deck, the total investment was about $2,500. Those were 1978 dollars-- it would cost more than twice that much in 2010 dollars.
The machine came with a comprehensive manual (the red book), which included instructions and programs that you could enter into the keyboard. In addition, a cassette tape was included that contained several example programs-- including "Breakout", Apple's color version of the popular Pong game.
I was empowered! I brought this baby home, placed it on some new furniture bought especially for the computer, the TV and cassette deck. I fired it up! I heard my neighbor yell "what the he'll" from over the side yard fence. He had been watching the Notre Dame game and the Apple ][ frazzled his TV reception. Sigh! I was able to resolve the problem a few days later by feeding any free wires through torrid cores to minimize their capacity to radiate RF signals.
At some point in the 15-year lifespan of the Apple ][, the VanLove's catalog listed over 1,500 software programs for the machine.
The iPad on which I write this is 32 years "younger" than that Apple ][, but what a difference.
In many ways, the iPad is hundreds (even thousands) of times better than that first Apple ][-- at a fraction of the cost, size and weight. You can compare the specs as well as I. But that won't tell the whole story.
I am empowered again, after 32 years... And I can take the iPad along wherever I go,
Written with the Pages app on my iPad!
.
Does this take into account browsers that don't give the correct os to a website (to force the desktop version)? Many android browsers tell a website its a desktop to force the full version not the mobile version, and websites would have no idea the user is using android. Can this even be done on the ipad?
Yes. You just have to use one of the other many browsers that let you alter the User Agent.
Excellent work. Combined with iOS' more limited caching scheme, this mystery is solved.
What mystery? Are you saying that Android doesn't have an easy-to-use high-level API to retrieve web pages?
.