Which is essentially a meaningless statistic because prior to the period included sales of Android devices were insignificant.
It might be considered meaningless if it wasn't for the fact that Android smartphones now outsell iPhones, and even the Q1 to Q2 2010 figures show a significant acceleration in growth of Android's share. And thanks for the opportunity to remind you of that.
so if my actions are creation trolls, then you're a troll! ROFL!
ok... let's break this down, ok?
Assumption: You infer that I am a Troll
1: Your definition of Troll is anyone who doesn't hate android
2: You post the things you do to "give trolls a taste of their own medicine"
3. Posters like myself joined sites like this because of idiotic posts like yours.
So, your posts cause MORE people who don't hate android to join this site and post about it. By your definition, that means you're CREATING people you call trolls, not fighting them.
But you see, I don't define everyone who disagrees with me as a troll, and neither do most people. I'm only a Troll if your assumption is true, which it isn't. But the fact remains that more people are joining this site because of posts like yours (and like this "article") that don't hate android than you could ever drive away with them.
No, your posts, the ones I am responding to were saying the article he linked was invalid because it was a limited sample base. that was 9/10ths of the post I originally responded to.
It's not that hard to figure out what I'm responding to since YOU wrote it.
Clearly, we were in the midst of a discussion regarding his "just as common" comment, so, obviously, any comments I made were in that context. Your argument would seem to have been in some other context, so unrelated to the discussion, and, therefore, a complete waste of time.
No, the original article was about Andriod vs iPhone (Dilger's words, not mine) so take it up with him. However your point is irrelevant since the word "devices" as used, as far as Android is concerned, means smartphone handsets, which is exactly what Dilger's reference to iPhones meant. No discrepancy, and you already knew that before you decided to play at semantics.
Well, if there's a semantic play here, it's you hiding behind them. My point stands, regardless of the title of the article. In the context of a discussion related to developers, the important issue is iOS vs. Android -- i.e., platforms. If you want to talk phones, it's Droid vs. iPhone 3GS, or pick whichever you like. If we are talking manufacturers, it's Apple vs HTC, or which ever manufacturer you wish.
This sort of muddled talk that you insist on isn't useful. I mean, we all know of your zealous dislike for Mr. Dilger, but try to be relevant, at least, in your criticisms. Otherwise, what's the difference between you and the picture you paint of him.
Clearly, we were in the midst of a discussion regarding his "just as common" comment, so, obviously, any comments I made were in that context. Your argument would seem to have been in some other context, so unrelated to the discussion, and, therefore, a complete waste of time.
So you have hard evidence on how common piracy is for android then? In order to argue who has a bigger issue with piracy you need numbers from both camps.
He provided a link, you didn't. That would make your counter argument also a waste of time, especially if you think his argument was unfounded. Because if his is, yours is.
It might be considered meaningless if it wasn't for the fact that Android smartphones now outsell iPhones, and even the Q1 to Q2 2010 figures show a significant acceleration in growth of Android's share. And thanks for the opportunity to remind you of that.
Well, no, it's still a meaningless number. Bit of hypocrisy, don't you think, to complain of Dilger misrepresenting facts when you do it all the time yourself. How do those sales numbers look this quarter? How did they look the previous quarters when you rightly include all iOS devices. Not as good as you are portraying.
So you have hard evidence on how common piracy is for android then? In order to argue who has a bigger issue with piracy you need numbers from both camps.
He provided a link, you didn't. That would make your counter argument also a waste of time, especially if you think his argument was unfounded. Because if his is, yours is.
I didn't make a counter argument, I simply pointed out why his statement (calling it an "argument" gives it more weight than it deserves) was baseless -- i.e., he had no evidence to support it. I really don't know why you are having so much trouble understanding that.
I've done lots of reading. Now you should do some thinking.
Those figures are irrelevant. All they show is that the same people who steal music are (as a group) the same people who buy CDs. So younger people are the ones who buy CDs and also the ones who steal CDs.
Read the studies again. It clearly shows purchasing patterns for those who pirate vs. those who don't, and breaks those numbers down by age groups as well. Young people who don't pirate buy less music than young people who do. At any age, those who pirate buy significantly more music than those who don't.
I didn't make a counter argument, I simply pointed out why his statement (calling it an "argument" gives it more weight than it deserves) was baseless -- i.e., he had no evidence to support it. I really don't know why you are having so much trouble understanding that.
Because you provided no evidence that showed WHY his argument was baseless.
Saying "That's obviously false" doesn't make it so
Well, if there's a semantic play here, it's you hiding behind them. My point stands, regardless of the title of the article. In the context of a discussion related to developers, the important issue is iOS vs. Android -- i.e., platforms. If you want to talk phones, it's Droid vs. iPhone 3GS, or pick whichever you like. If we are talking manufacturers, it's Apple vs HTC, or which ever manufacturer you wish.
This sort of muddled talk that you insist on isn't useful. I mean, we all know of your zealous dislike for Mr. Dilger, but try to be relevant, at least, in your criticisms. Otherwise, what's the difference between you and the picture you paint of him.
You're either being deliberately obtuse or you have a comprehension problem.
The terms of reference are Dilger's, not mine. I'll repeat that since it seems to be the point you don't get. The terms of reference are Dilger's.
Your glib dismissal of the title of the 'article' being germain to the point is your logic gymnastics in full cry. If he wrote it that way, he intended it to be read that way. Your selective dissection of his 'article' does not change that fact. He was talking about the iPhone vs Android phones and no amount of your attempted obfuscation will ever change that.
I don't know Dilger so disliking him doesn't enter into it - I believe he's using his position as AI's news page contributor to deliberately skew his pieces to the promotion of Apple and to the detriment of Apple's opposition, real or imagined. Am I zealous about calling that as it is? Absolutely.
And unlike the many posts you have written in this thread, I do try to be relevant. The difference between Dilger and myself, since you ask, is that his contribution pretends to be news and AI features it on the news page. My contribution is limited to the forums and comments.
... Your glib dismissal of the title of the 'article' being germain to the point is your logic gymnastics in full cry. If he wrote it that way, he intended it to be read that way. Your selective dissection of his 'article' do not change that fact. He was talking about the iPhone vs Android phones and no amount of your attempted obfuscation will ever change that. ...
You contradict yourself. First you tell us that Mr. Dilger is full of it, then, you tell us that he defines the boundaries of our conversation. So, which is it? Or are you, as I've suggested, simply here to play the game of which you accuse him?
Well, no, it's still a meaningless number. Bit of hypocrisy, don't you think, to complain of Dilger misrepresenting facts when you do it all the time yourself. How do those sales numbers look this quarter? How did they look the previous quarters when you rightly include all iOS devices. Not as good as you are portraying.
To quote your own word, according to you Android's share was "insignificant", yet it's now greater than the iPhone's. No misrepresenting facts there. Which completely undermines your "meaningless number" assertion, since Android has gained share from "insignificant" to more than the immensely successful iPhone in a single year.
Why is it so hard for you to accept the obvious truth here? Android's smartphone take-up is growing faster than the iPhone's. Your continuing semantics cannot change that.
You want to add in all iOS devices? Fine. But we'll address that in the future context of whatever 'article' Dilger submits on the subject. Meantime, you try to change the terms of this debate because you have rightfully concluded that you can't hope to win it without doing so.
You contradict yourself. First you tell us that Mr. Dilger is full of it, then, you tell us that he defines the boundaries of our conversation. So, which is it? Or are you, as I've suggested, simply here to play the game of which you accuse him?
Amazing non-sequitur. How desperate are you getting anonymouse?
1: Dilger is a disingenuous Apple apologist.
2: Dilger's words are the issue here, and naturally the meaning he attempts to convey does define the "boundaries" of this conversation, otherwise the conversation would not have taken place.
There's no "which is it". You appear to have lost your reason.
If you choose to invent some meaning that patently is not intended in Dilger's piece, then that's your issue.
I've made it quite clear why I'm here many times. Some would probably say too many times. So I have no agenda to hide.
... You want to add in all iOS devices? Fine. But we'll address that in the future context of whatever 'article' Dilger submits on the subject. Meantime, you try to change the terms of this debate because you have rightfully concluded that you can't hope to win it without doing so. ...
There you go again with your rather schizophrenic insistence that Mr. Dilger's article defines the boundaries of discussion while in other posts you tell us he's a hack who doesn't know what he's talking about. Confusing to say the least. But, as long as we're clear that you're here to scoring talking points, and not interested in the truth, that's fine.
... 2: Dilger's words are the issue here, and naturally the meaning he attempts to convey do define the "boundaries" of this conversation, otherwise the conversation would not have taken place. ...
Well, clearly you have a rather unhealthy obsession with Mr. Dilger. But, the rest of us are no so mentally locked in on a target as you are.
There you go again with your rather schizophrenic insistence that Mr. Dilger's article defines the boundaries of discussion while in other posts you tell us he's a hack who doesn't know what he's talking about. Confusing to say the least. But, as long as we're clear that you're here to scoring talking points, and not interested in the truth, that's fine.
You're simply demonstrating that your intellect isn't up to the task if you can't grasp that the conversation has been about Dilger's use of language to spin whatever 'articles' he posts in Apple's favour, regardless of the "truth". If the discussion is about what he wrote, then sticking to what he wrote is surely the point?
But since that simple concept is apparently beyond you, I'll stop wasting my time and bail out of the conversation to let you have your parting insult. Fill your boots.
Comments
Ballmer must be the source of all wisdom since he's usually correct 99.999% of the time.
right over your head.
not surprising.
Which is essentially a meaningless statistic because prior to the period included sales of Android devices were insignificant.
It might be considered meaningless if it wasn't for the fact that Android smartphones now outsell iPhones, and even the Q1 to Q2 2010 figures show a significant acceleration in growth of Android's share. And thanks for the opportunity to remind you of that.
so if my actions are creation trolls, then you're a troll! ROFL!
ok... let's break this down, ok?
Assumption: You infer that I am a Troll
1: Your definition of Troll is anyone who doesn't hate android
2: You post the things you do to "give trolls a taste of their own medicine"
3. Posters like myself joined sites like this because of idiotic posts like yours.
So, your posts cause MORE people who don't hate android to join this site and post about it. By your definition, that means you're CREATING people you call trolls, not fighting them.
But you see, I don't define everyone who disagrees with me as a troll, and neither do most people. I'm only a Troll if your assumption is true, which it isn't. But the fact remains that more people are joining this site because of posts like yours (and like this "article") that don't hate android than you could ever drive away with them.
No, your posts, the ones I am responding to were saying the article he linked was invalid because it was a limited sample base. that was 9/10ths of the post I originally responded to.
It's not that hard to figure out what I'm responding to since YOU wrote it.
Clearly, we were in the midst of a discussion regarding his "just as common" comment, so, obviously, any comments I made were in that context. Your argument would seem to have been in some other context, so unrelated to the discussion, and, therefore, a complete waste of time.
No, the original article was about Andriod vs iPhone (Dilger's words, not mine) so take it up with him. However your point is irrelevant since the word "devices" as used, as far as Android is concerned, means smartphone handsets, which is exactly what Dilger's reference to iPhones meant. No discrepancy, and you already knew that before you decided to play at semantics.
Well, if there's a semantic play here, it's you hiding behind them. My point stands, regardless of the title of the article. In the context of a discussion related to developers, the important issue is iOS vs. Android -- i.e., platforms. If you want to talk phones, it's Droid vs. iPhone 3GS, or pick whichever you like. If we are talking manufacturers, it's Apple vs HTC, or which ever manufacturer you wish.
This sort of muddled talk that you insist on isn't useful. I mean, we all know of your zealous dislike for Mr. Dilger, but try to be relevant, at least, in your criticisms. Otherwise, what's the difference between you and the picture you paint of him.
... If you think my posts round like rants, then I've simply failed to convince you through force of my argument. ...
Rants would be a kind description.
Clearly, we were in the midst of a discussion regarding his "just as common" comment, so, obviously, any comments I made were in that context. Your argument would seem to have been in some other context, so unrelated to the discussion, and, therefore, a complete waste of time.
So you have hard evidence on how common piracy is for android then? In order to argue who has a bigger issue with piracy you need numbers from both camps.
He provided a link, you didn't. That would make your counter argument also a waste of time, especially if you think his argument was unfounded. Because if his is, yours is.
It might be considered meaningless if it wasn't for the fact that Android smartphones now outsell iPhones, and even the Q1 to Q2 2010 figures show a significant acceleration in growth of Android's share. And thanks for the opportunity to remind you of that.
Well, no, it's still a meaningless number. Bit of hypocrisy, don't you think, to complain of Dilger misrepresenting facts when you do it all the time yourself. How do those sales numbers look this quarter? How did they look the previous quarters when you rightly include all iOS devices. Not as good as you are portraying.
So you have hard evidence on how common piracy is for android then? In order to argue who has a bigger issue with piracy you need numbers from both camps.
He provided a link, you didn't. That would make your counter argument also a waste of time, especially if you think his argument was unfounded. Because if his is, yours is.
I didn't make a counter argument, I simply pointed out why his statement (calling it an "argument" gives it more weight than it deserves) was baseless -- i.e., he had no evidence to support it. I really don't know why you are having so much trouble understanding that.
I've done lots of reading. Now you should do some thinking.
Those figures are irrelevant. All they show is that the same people who steal music are (as a group) the same people who buy CDs. So younger people are the ones who buy CDs and also the ones who steal CDs.
Read the studies again. It clearly shows purchasing patterns for those who pirate vs. those who don't, and breaks those numbers down by age groups as well. Young people who don't pirate buy less music than young people who do. At any age, those who pirate buy significantly more music than those who don't.
I didn't make a counter argument, I simply pointed out why his statement (calling it an "argument" gives it more weight than it deserves) was baseless -- i.e., he had no evidence to support it. I really don't know why you are having so much trouble understanding that.
Because you provided no evidence that showed WHY his argument was baseless.
Saying "That's obviously false" doesn't make it so
Well, if there's a semantic play here, it's you hiding behind them. My point stands, regardless of the title of the article. In the context of a discussion related to developers, the important issue is iOS vs. Android -- i.e., platforms. If you want to talk phones, it's Droid vs. iPhone 3GS, or pick whichever you like. If we are talking manufacturers, it's Apple vs HTC, or which ever manufacturer you wish.
This sort of muddled talk that you insist on isn't useful. I mean, we all know of your zealous dislike for Mr. Dilger, but try to be relevant, at least, in your criticisms. Otherwise, what's the difference between you and the picture you paint of him.
You're either being deliberately obtuse or you have a comprehension problem.
The terms of reference are Dilger's, not mine. I'll repeat that since it seems to be the point you don't get. The terms of reference are Dilger's.
Your glib dismissal of the title of the 'article' being germain to the point is your logic gymnastics in full cry. If he wrote it that way, he intended it to be read that way. Your selective dissection of his 'article' does not change that fact. He was talking about the iPhone vs Android phones and no amount of your attempted obfuscation will ever change that.
I don't know Dilger so disliking him doesn't enter into it - I believe he's using his position as AI's news page contributor to deliberately skew his pieces to the promotion of Apple and to the detriment of Apple's opposition, real or imagined. Am I zealous about calling that as it is? Absolutely.
And unlike the many posts you have written in this thread, I do try to be relevant. The difference between Dilger and myself, since you ask, is that his contribution pretends to be news and AI features it on the news page. My contribution is limited to the forums and comments.
That's quite a difference.
Rants would be a kind description.
Ah, the insulting one-liner approach. Am I pissing you off anonymouse? It certainly seems like it...
... Your glib dismissal of the title of the 'article' being germain to the point is your logic gymnastics in full cry. If he wrote it that way, he intended it to be read that way. Your selective dissection of his 'article' do not change that fact. He was talking about the iPhone vs Android phones and no amount of your attempted obfuscation will ever change that. ...
You contradict yourself. First you tell us that Mr. Dilger is full of it, then, you tell us that he defines the boundaries of our conversation. So, which is it? Or are you, as I've suggested, simply here to play the game of which you accuse him?
Ah, the insulting one-liner approach. Am I pissing you off anonymouse? It certainly seems like it...
No, you're amusing me.
Well, no, it's still a meaningless number. Bit of hypocrisy, don't you think, to complain of Dilger misrepresenting facts when you do it all the time yourself. How do those sales numbers look this quarter? How did they look the previous quarters when you rightly include all iOS devices. Not as good as you are portraying.
To quote your own word, according to you Android's share was "insignificant", yet it's now greater than the iPhone's. No misrepresenting facts there. Which completely undermines your "meaningless number" assertion, since Android has gained share from "insignificant" to more than the immensely successful iPhone in a single year.
Why is it so hard for you to accept the obvious truth here? Android's smartphone take-up is growing faster than the iPhone's. Your continuing semantics cannot change that.
You want to add in all iOS devices? Fine. But we'll address that in the future context of whatever 'article' Dilger submits on the subject. Meantime, you try to change the terms of this debate because you have rightfully concluded that you can't hope to win it without doing so.
But I'm not surprised. It's what you do best.
You contradict yourself. First you tell us that Mr. Dilger is full of it, then, you tell us that he defines the boundaries of our conversation. So, which is it? Or are you, as I've suggested, simply here to play the game of which you accuse him?
Amazing non-sequitur. How desperate are you getting anonymouse?
1: Dilger is a disingenuous Apple apologist.
2: Dilger's words are the issue here, and naturally the meaning he attempts to convey does define the "boundaries" of this conversation, otherwise the conversation would not have taken place.
There's no "which is it". You appear to have lost your reason.
If you choose to invent some meaning that patently is not intended in Dilger's piece, then that's your issue.
I've made it quite clear why I'm here many times. Some would probably say too many times. So I have no agenda to hide.
Why are you here?
... You want to add in all iOS devices? Fine. But we'll address that in the future context of whatever 'article' Dilger submits on the subject. Meantime, you try to change the terms of this debate because you have rightfully concluded that you can't hope to win it without doing so. ...
There you go again with your rather schizophrenic insistence that Mr. Dilger's article defines the boundaries of discussion while in other posts you tell us he's a hack who doesn't know what he's talking about. Confusing to say the least. But, as long as we're clear that you're here to scoring talking points, and not interested in the truth, that's fine.
... 2: Dilger's words are the issue here, and naturally the meaning he attempts to convey do define the "boundaries" of this conversation, otherwise the conversation would not have taken place. ...
Well, clearly you have a rather unhealthy obsession with Mr. Dilger. But, the rest of us are no so mentally locked in on a target as you are.
There you go again with your rather schizophrenic insistence that Mr. Dilger's article defines the boundaries of discussion while in other posts you tell us he's a hack who doesn't know what he's talking about. Confusing to say the least. But, as long as we're clear that you're here to scoring talking points, and not interested in the truth, that's fine.
You're simply demonstrating that your intellect isn't up to the task if you can't grasp that the conversation has been about Dilger's use of language to spin whatever 'articles' he posts in Apple's favour, regardless of the "truth". If the discussion is about what he wrote, then sticking to what he wrote is surely the point?
But since that simple concept is apparently beyond you, I'll stop wasting my time and bail out of the conversation to let you have your parting insult. Fill your boots.