I thought quite a while about that semicolon, actually. A comma would leave a run-on of two whole clauses, and so that was not an option. The only choice was to make two sentences. I didn't take that route because I thought the clauses were too closely related. If you'd prefer the two-sentence solution, I couldn't argue. Just personal preference.
Silly is, of course, in the eye of the beholder. I think the "L" problem would kick in only in sans-serif faces. Otherwise, the "I" looks like, well, an "I." Indeed, the rules may change, but the marketing gimmick of starting product names with a lower-case letter will likely be long past before that mountain begins to move.
Like any good editor, I would rewrite it to avoid the whole issue! Given a choice, I'd do that with iProduct names, too.
Online grammar fight! How could I resist?
My choice for the controversial semicolon would be to break off that last "linguistic construction" modifying phrase, since I think it dilutes your main thought. Making the further clarification of construction its own man saves you from the run-on and makes for a more manageable flow.
Thus,
I don't care how cool these gadgets are (and, yeah, they're pretty cool), or how influential Apple aesthetics are at the moment, they do not trump centuries of linguistic construction. Such construction has a pretty vital purpose: to alert readers to a new chunk of thought.
Not surprising, when the iPhone is strongly rumored to appear on Verizon as soon as next month. Watch iOS take off and Android dip when it happens. Why would anyone in their right mind choose Android on Verizon right now?
You're kidding, right? Features, customizability, openness, more options, more hardware, a better OS, faster, and on and on.
Sure, iPHone looks nice and has a beautiful UI, but it all ends there.
I really hope Apple opens up and offers the iPhone to all carriers worldwide. if they are going to compete for market-share they should address every audience and not make arbitrary restrictions to growth.
I also think to better compete with Android Apple should be will to offer a larger form factor - bigger screen. Maybe it is not Job's preference but the larger screen do seem attractive.
The US is the ONLY remaining country where the iPhone isn't on every carrier. We're the exception.
Given that Google had already answered that question and given the vast number of Android phones that carriers stripped out Google stuff (and put Bing on them) --- we may be under-counting Android activations numbers by quite a bit.
That's actually quite true. In fact, in China, they use their own version of Android which isn't counted in the overall total. Millions have been sold there alone.
That's actually quite true. In fact, in China, they use their own version of Android which isn't counted in the overall total. Millions have been sold there alone.
Well, yes, but if it has all the Google stuff stripped out, is it still Android? Basically the same as asking, should Ubuntu installations be counted as Debian Installations? I don't think so. OPhone is an Android descendant, but it isn't Android.
BS. That is what you say when you don't have high market-share. The Mac makes a lot of money as a niche product. Fine. Would Apple be happier with more market-share? Of course they would. They announce it every time their market-share goes up.
Apple cares about market-share. That is why they have 4 different types of iPod at different price points and were very aggressive about being competitive on price and being in every store - including Costco and WalMart. That is what you do when you care about market-share, and they still profit and have high customer satisfaction.
You really think Apple is happy to see Android copy their ideas and tear into the market? Uh right. That is why they sued HTC. That is why Jobs freaked out on Google. Apple wants iPhone to rule the market. There is nothing wrong with that. iPhone redefined the category - it should rule the market.
Apple has to care about market-share because they know so well that if you don't pay attention to holding market-share you can get locked into being a niche product.
But really your point doesn't make sense because supporting other carriers does not reduce customer satisfaction - it will increase it - and, I would argue, there is more money to be made supporting 100% of the market instead of the 30% of the market who are prisoners of ATT.
Um, Google copied Apple? I don't think so. They're all copying each other. The only thing Apple really brought to the market was true multi-touch. Just about everything else already existed in some fashion. The patent wars going on right now reflect just what is happening: HTC sues Apple, Microsoft sues HTC; Motorola sues Apple, Apple sues Motorola and on and on ad nauseum.
You could say that Apple "copied" Google by putting multi-tasking on the latest iPhone because Google had it since the beginning. Or, that Google copied Blackberry because they had it before Android even existed. No one is really "copying" (i.e., "stealing") anything.
You're kidding, right? Features, customizability, openness, more options, more hardware, a better OS, faster, and on and on.
Sure, iPHone looks nice and has a beautiful UI, but it all ends there.
Since you've padded your list of half a dozen or so bullet points with redundancies (more options/more hardware), an entirely meaningless term (openness) and a few purely subjective ones ("better", "faster") I kind of doubt that "on and on" goes anywhere but back up where it came from.
Since you've padded your list of half a dozen or so bullet points with redundancies (more options/more hardware), an entirely meaningless term (openness) and a few purely subjective ones ("better", "faster") I kind of doubt that "on and on" goes anywhere but back up where it came from.
Ok, fair enough. Let these articles do the talking:
Great and informative video from CNET, a well-known iPhone loving site:
Um, Google copied Apple? I don't think so. They're all copying each other. The only thing Apple really brought to the market was true multi-touch. Just about everything else already existed in some fashion. The patent wars going on right now reflect just what is happening: HTC sues Apple, Microsoft sues HTC; Motorola sues Apple, Apple sues Motorola and on and on ad nauseum.
You could say that Apple "copied" Google by putting multi-tasking on the latest iPhone because Google had it since the beginning. Or, that Google copied Blackberry because they had it before Android even existed. No one is really "copying" (i.e., "stealing") anything.
Except that before the iPhone smart phones all pretty much looked and functioned alike and sold to a narrow niche, and now they pretty much all look and function like the iPhone and smart phones are selling like mad.
Like any good editor, I would rewrite it to avoid the whole issue!
Yeah, I noticed that Wiki did that in their article on e.e. Thanks for the nice response. Other posters should note that it is possible to have a disagreement without being disagreeable. Love a nice civilized discussion!
Except that before the iPhone smart phones all pretty much looked and functioned alike and sold to a narrow niche, and now they pretty much all look and function like the iPhone and smart phones are selling like mad.
Which I'm sure is coincidental.
Sorry, but the facts and the reviews speak for themselves. Oh, I forgot CNET's latest "10 Best Smartphones of 2010" where iPhone4 is #4 and Android makes the top 3 and 7 out of 10.
I'm not sure what point you're trying to make-- there are, of course, articles online that prefer one phone over another. Is it your contention that it's somehow an authoritatively settled matter that Android is vastly better than the iPhone? Because that is, not to put too fine a point on it, ridiculous.
Quote:
And, for the record, more options isn't redundant with more hardware--"options" can include carriers and features.
So it's redundant with "features." Like I say, you've teased out overlapping areas to pad a list that you end by claiming "goes on and on."
Yeah, the notoriously iPhone loving "Android Weekly."
I'm not sure what point you're trying to make-- there are, of course, articles online that prefer one phone over another. Is it your contention that it's somehow an authoritatively settled matter that Android is vastly better than the iPhone? Because that is, not to put too fine a point on it, ridiculous.
So it's redundant with "features." Like I say, you've teased out overlapping areas to pad a list that you end by claiming "goes on and on."
Sorry, but the facts and the reviews speak for themselves. Oh, I forgot CNET's latest "10 Best Smartphones of 2010" where iPhone4 is #4 and Android makes the top 3 and 7 out of 10.
That would be the notoriously iPhone loving Cnet again?
The "facts" and "reviews", or course, say any number of things. I wasn't aware that Cnet had become the final arbiter of quality, and there are, of course, any number of reviews and users that find the all over experience of the iPhone to be preferable ("better", if you prefer) to Android, "features" notwithstanding.
Moreover, I'm not sure why your'e responding to the observation that the iPhone has become the template for every smartphone out there with "Nuh uh, Android is so better." Kind of a non sequitur.
Since Nokia doesn't publish per month data, I assume that Daniel took Nokia's Q3 numbers and divided them equally between the three months. With no other data points on the graph, it looks like Nokia's activations are remaining level. However, from historical data, we know that this is not the case and that Nokia's smartphone business is expanding at about industry average (~45% YoY).
Essentially, Daniel has tried to extrapolate a trend from a single data point.
If you actually read the article, you'll find that Nokia itself claimed to have sold an average of that many phones throughout the summer. If there was growth to be claimed, Nokia would have. That is not extrapolation, it is reporting what Nokia said.
This is Daniel we are taking about, Mr. "I'm always dead on with my predictions", claiming Natal would be a still born vaporware to it would flop to uh oh, empirical evidence of sales of 2.5 million in 25 days, not shipped, sold.
I did a Google search of RoughlyDrafted.com and couldn't find any mention of Kinect. I did see a half dozen references of Project Natal, the code name of Kinect. Nowhere did Daniel "predict" that this would be "still born [sic] vaporware" or that it would "flop." Are you intentionally lying, or does it come natural?
In one article, he describes MS' Xbox division as "a home entertainment business that has rarely made any money despite billions in investment. Its brightest star is an imitative effort to copy the interactive controller that Nintendo debuted for the Wii back in 2006. When you hear vaporware incantations of ?Project Natal,? it means you?ve stumbled into a seance of the faithful trying to reanimate Microsoft?s relevance as the god of imitations."
So rather than calling Kinect a "flop," he called it Microsoft's' "brightest star," albeit an imitative effort to copy the Wii controller.
Also, a year ago, he said of pundits: "It also gets tedious to try to string along a pretense of excitement about such duds as Surface and the vaporware dreams of a year or two out: Project Natal, Windows 7 SP1, and Windows ?we?re getting serious now? Mobile 7, while still maintaining a straight face."
Calling Natal "vaporware of a year or two out" was certainly accurate to do a year ago.
Shortly before that, he wrote "Microsoft is also well known for advertising bullshit it can?t deliver. Bill Gates talked up OS/2, floated a vision of Cairo that never materialized, falsely proclaimed himself the Moses of tablet computing, and blew so much vaporware at competitors (Bob, ActiveMovie, DirectMovie, Surround Video, Chromeffects, WinFS, SPOT, Mira, PlaysForSure, Advanced Streaming Format, Soapbox, Longhorn, Surface, Natal, Courier) that it wouldn?t exactly be a surprise if the company decided that the best way to compete with bad news was to generate some distracting good news that just never seemed to materialize after people?s attention spans moved on."
Project Natal was certainly "vaporware aimed at competitors," even it if eventually materialized in what must be a nearly profitless product more than a year later. The company has managed to sell it to a tiny fraction of the Xbox 360 installed base (2 million of about 45 million Xbox 360s).
But since Daniel never referred to Kinect as being a "flop," you should certainly stop repeating the lie that he once did.
Comments
I thought quite a while about that semicolon, actually. A comma would leave a run-on of two whole clauses, and so that was not an option. The only choice was to make two sentences. I didn't take that route because I thought the clauses were too closely related. If you'd prefer the two-sentence solution, I couldn't argue. Just personal preference.
Silly is, of course, in the eye of the beholder. I think the "L" problem would kick in only in sans-serif faces. Otherwise, the "I" looks like, well, an "I." Indeed, the rules may change, but the marketing gimmick of starting product names with a lower-case letter will likely be long past before that mountain begins to move.
Like any good editor, I would rewrite it to avoid the whole issue!
Online grammar fight! How could I resist?
My choice for the controversial semicolon would be to break off that last "linguistic construction" modifying phrase, since I think it dilutes your main thought. Making the further clarification of construction its own man saves you from the run-on and makes for a more manageable flow.
Thus,
I don't care how cool these gadgets are (and, yeah, they're pretty cool), or how influential Apple aesthetics are at the moment, they do not trump centuries of linguistic construction. Such construction has a pretty vital purpose: to alert readers to a new chunk of thought.
Stronger, no?
Not surprising, when the iPhone is strongly rumored to appear on Verizon as soon as next month. Watch iOS take off and Android dip when it happens. Why would anyone in their right mind choose Android on Verizon right now?
You're kidding, right? Features, customizability, openness, more options, more hardware, a better OS, faster, and on and on.
Sure, iPHone looks nice and has a beautiful UI, but it all ends there.
I really hope Apple opens up and offers the iPhone to all carriers worldwide. if they are going to compete for market-share they should address every audience and not make arbitrary restrictions to growth.
I also think to better compete with Android Apple should be will to offer a larger form factor - bigger screen. Maybe it is not Job's preference but the larger screen do seem attractive.
The US is the ONLY remaining country where the iPhone isn't on every carrier. We're the exception.
Given that Google had already answered that question and given the vast number of Android phones that carriers stripped out Google stuff (and put Bing on them) --- we may be under-counting Android activations numbers by quite a bit.
That's actually quite true. In fact, in China, they use their own version of Android which isn't counted in the overall total. Millions have been sold there alone.
That's actually quite true. In fact, in China, they use their own version of Android which isn't counted in the overall total. Millions have been sold there alone.
Well, yes, but if it has all the Google stuff stripped out, is it still Android? Basically the same as asking, should Ubuntu installations be counted as Debian Installations? I don't think so. OPhone is an Android descendant, but it isn't Android.
BS. That is what you say when you don't have high market-share. The Mac makes a lot of money as a niche product. Fine. Would Apple be happier with more market-share? Of course they would. They announce it every time their market-share goes up.
Apple cares about market-share. That is why they have 4 different types of iPod at different price points and were very aggressive about being competitive on price and being in every store - including Costco and WalMart. That is what you do when you care about market-share, and they still profit and have high customer satisfaction.
You really think Apple is happy to see Android copy their ideas and tear into the market? Uh right. That is why they sued HTC. That is why Jobs freaked out on Google. Apple wants iPhone to rule the market. There is nothing wrong with that. iPhone redefined the category - it should rule the market.
Apple has to care about market-share because they know so well that if you don't pay attention to holding market-share you can get locked into being a niche product.
But really your point doesn't make sense because supporting other carriers does not reduce customer satisfaction - it will increase it - and, I would argue, there is more money to be made supporting 100% of the market instead of the 30% of the market who are prisoners of ATT.
Um, Google copied Apple? I don't think so. They're all copying each other. The only thing Apple really brought to the market was true multi-touch. Just about everything else already existed in some fashion. The patent wars going on right now reflect just what is happening: HTC sues Apple, Microsoft sues HTC; Motorola sues Apple, Apple sues Motorola and on and on ad nauseum.
You could say that Apple "copied" Google by putting multi-tasking on the latest iPhone because Google had it since the beginning. Or, that Google copied Blackberry because they had it before Android even existed. No one is really "copying" (i.e., "stealing") anything.
You're kidding, right? Features, customizability, openness, more options, more hardware, a better OS, faster, and on and on.
Sure, iPHone looks nice and has a beautiful UI, but it all ends there.
Since you've padded your list of half a dozen or so bullet points with redundancies (more options/more hardware), an entirely meaningless term (openness) and a few purely subjective ones ("better", "faster") I kind of doubt that "on and on" goes anywhere but back up where it came from.
The US is the ONLY remaining country where the iPhone isn't on every carrier. We're the exception.
Japan and Korea are still single iphone carrier.
Since you've padded your list of half a dozen or so bullet points with redundancies (more options/more hardware), an entirely meaningless term (openness) and a few purely subjective ones ("better", "faster") I kind of doubt that "on and on" goes anywhere but back up where it came from.
Ok, fair enough. Let these articles do the talking:
Great and informative video from CNET, a well-known iPhone loving site:
http://cnettv.cnet.com/ep-20-5-reaso...-50094365.html
And Fortune magazine:
http://money.cnn.com/galleries/2010/...une/index.html
And, for the record, more options isn't redundant with more hardware--"options" can include carriers and features.
Um, Google copied Apple? I don't think so. They're all copying each other. The only thing Apple really brought to the market was true multi-touch. Just about everything else already existed in some fashion. The patent wars going on right now reflect just what is happening: HTC sues Apple, Microsoft sues HTC; Motorola sues Apple, Apple sues Motorola and on and on ad nauseum.
You could say that Apple "copied" Google by putting multi-tasking on the latest iPhone because Google had it since the beginning. Or, that Google copied Blackberry because they had it before Android even existed. No one is really "copying" (i.e., "stealing") anything.
Except that before the iPhone smart phones all pretty much looked and functioned alike and sold to a narrow niche, and now they pretty much all look and function like the iPhone and smart phones are selling like mad.
Which I'm sure is coincidental.
Like any good editor, I would rewrite it to avoid the whole issue!
Yeah, I noticed that Wiki did that in their article on e.e. Thanks for the nice response. Other posters should note that it is possible to have a disagreement without being disagreeable. Love a nice civilized discussion!
Thanks to Addabox for his/her contributions too.
Except that before the iPhone smart phones all pretty much looked and functioned alike and sold to a narrow niche, and now they pretty much all look and function like the iPhone and smart phones are selling like mad.
Which I'm sure is coincidental.
Sorry, but the facts and the reviews speak for themselves. Oh, I forgot CNET's latest "10 Best Smartphones of 2010" where iPhone4 is #4 and Android makes the top 3 and 7 out of 10.
Ok, fair enough. Let these articles do the talking:
Great and informative video from CNET, a well-known iPhone loving site:
http://cnettv.cnet.com/ep-20-5-reaso...-50094365.html
Yeah, the notoriously iPhone loving "Android Weekly."
And Fortune magazine:
http://money.cnn.com/galleries/2010/...une/index.html
I'm not sure what point you're trying to make-- there are, of course, articles online that prefer one phone over another. Is it your contention that it's somehow an authoritatively settled matter that Android is vastly better than the iPhone? Because that is, not to put too fine a point on it, ridiculous.
And, for the record, more options isn't redundant with more hardware--"options" can include carriers and features.
So it's redundant with "features." Like I say, you've teased out overlapping areas to pad a list that you end by claiming "goes on and on."
Yeah, the notoriously iPhone loving "Android Weekly."
I'm not sure what point you're trying to make-- there are, of course, articles online that prefer one phone over another. Is it your contention that it's somehow an authoritatively settled matter that Android is vastly better than the iPhone? Because that is, not to put too fine a point on it, ridiculous.
So it's redundant with "features." Like I say, you've teased out overlapping areas to pad a list that you end by claiming "goes on and on."
Denial ain't a river in Egypt.
Sorry, but the facts and the reviews speak for themselves. Oh, I forgot CNET's latest "10 Best Smartphones of 2010" where iPhone4 is #4 and Android makes the top 3 and 7 out of 10.
That would be the notoriously iPhone loving Cnet again?
The "facts" and "reviews", or course, say any number of things. I wasn't aware that Cnet had become the final arbiter of quality, and there are, of course, any number of reviews and users that find the all over experience of the iPhone to be preferable ("better", if you prefer) to Android, "features" notwithstanding.
Moreover, I'm not sure why your'e responding to the observation that the iPhone has become the template for every smartphone out there with "Nuh uh, Android is so better." Kind of a non sequitur.
Denial ain't a river in Egypt.
Ah. I hadn't realized we were gonna go all highbrow and shit. See ya.
That's one hell of a misleading graph.
Since Nokia doesn't publish per month data, I assume that Daniel took Nokia's Q3 numbers and divided them equally between the three months. With no other data points on the graph, it looks like Nokia's activations are remaining level. However, from historical data, we know that this is not the case and that Nokia's smartphone business is expanding at about industry average (~45% YoY).
Essentially, Daniel has tried to extrapolate a trend from a single data point.
If you actually read the article, you'll find that Nokia itself claimed to have sold an average of that many phones throughout the summer. If there was growth to be claimed, Nokia would have. That is not extrapolation, it is reporting what Nokia said.
This is Daniel we are taking about, Mr. "I'm always dead on with my predictions", claiming Natal would be a still born vaporware to it would flop to uh oh, empirical evidence of sales of 2.5 million in 25 days, not shipped, sold.
I did a Google search of RoughlyDrafted.com and couldn't find any mention of Kinect. I did see a half dozen references of Project Natal, the code name of Kinect. Nowhere did Daniel "predict" that this would be "still born [sic] vaporware" or that it would "flop." Are you intentionally lying, or does it come natural?
In one article, he describes MS' Xbox division as "a home entertainment business that has rarely made any money despite billions in investment. Its brightest star is an imitative effort to copy the interactive controller that Nintendo debuted for the Wii back in 2006. When you hear vaporware incantations of ?Project Natal,? it means you?ve stumbled into a seance of the faithful trying to reanimate Microsoft?s relevance as the god of imitations."
So rather than calling Kinect a "flop," he called it Microsoft's' "brightest star," albeit an imitative effort to copy the Wii controller.
Also, a year ago, he said of pundits: "It also gets tedious to try to string along a pretense of excitement about such duds as Surface and the vaporware dreams of a year or two out: Project Natal, Windows 7 SP1, and Windows ?we?re getting serious now? Mobile 7, while still maintaining a straight face."
Calling Natal "vaporware of a year or two out" was certainly accurate to do a year ago.
Shortly before that, he wrote "Microsoft is also well known for advertising bullshit it can?t deliver. Bill Gates talked up OS/2, floated a vision of Cairo that never materialized, falsely proclaimed himself the Moses of tablet computing, and blew so much vaporware at competitors (Bob, ActiveMovie, DirectMovie, Surround Video, Chromeffects, WinFS, SPOT, Mira, PlaysForSure, Advanced Streaming Format, Soapbox, Longhorn, Surface, Natal, Courier) that it wouldn?t exactly be a surprise if the company decided that the best way to compete with bad news was to generate some distracting good news that just never seemed to materialize after people?s attention spans moved on."
Project Natal was certainly "vaporware aimed at competitors," even it if eventually materialized in what must be a nearly profitless product more than a year later. The company has managed to sell it to a tiny fraction of the Xbox 360 installed base (2 million of about 45 million Xbox 360s).
But since Daniel never referred to Kinect as being a "flop," you should certainly stop repeating the lie that he once did.
deleted
deleted