"Dishonest" and "deceptive" means that they knew and were intentionally misleading in their report. Everytime anyone says anything non-positive, and even sometimes when they say something positive but use a word like "overkill", you instantly assume that they are out to get Apple, that they are Apple haters and have a chip on their shoulder. It's a very paranoid world you live in.
Did they make a mistake? Yes. Did they admit that their test didn't test Safari? Yes. And they were open about it by putting the disclaimer on their orignal story. Let's see AI be as forthcoming about the deceptive writing by DED (deceptive or delusional, take your pick). As of the time I'm writing this, DED still has not acknowledged that Blaze discovered the error in their testing and has added a disclaimer on their story. And he probably never will. He doesn't even included a link to Blaze's orignial article. Why? Oh right, because then people would also see the disclaimer.
So just who is being deceptive and dishonest here?
Once poor facts are released, they can't be taken back. For instance, once people started claiming that Obama was Muslim, or not an American or whatnot. Even though they were "retracted" there's still plenty of people who believe the misinformation.
And you are correct that DED is often wildly biased. Two wrongs don't make a right. Further, he doesn't necessarily need a "disclaimer" (I believe you mean "update") because his story is that Blaze published a flawed study. The fact that they issued an amendment doesn't alter that fact, and thus doesn't change DED's point.
Although it is nice to have that information; my appreciation to the posters who linked us to it
Once poor facts are released, they can't be taken back. For instance, once people started claiming that Obama was Muslim, or not an American or whatnot. Even though they were "retracted" there's still plenty of people who believe the misinformation.
And you are correct that DED is often wildly biased. Two wrongs don't make a right. Further, he doesn't necessarily need a "disclaimer" (I believe you mean "update") because his story is that Blaze published a flawed study. The fact that they issued an amendment doesn't alter that fact, and thus doesn't change DED's point.
Although it is nice to have that information; my appreciation to the posters who linked us to it
Did Apple come out and say upon the release of iOS 4.3 that, "For the first time, Safari and UIWebView will not perform identically. We have made changes to Safari that we haven't included in UIWebView such that third-party browsers and iPhone apps that take advantage of UIWebView will no run 2.5x slower than if the same code was run in Safari. All of the optimizations from Nitro that you were expecting to improve the performance of apps since Nitro was announced will not apply". I think this is important information. It impacts directly on tens of thousands of apps in the app store that use UIWebView.
Assuming Blaze is telling the truth - and there is no evidence that they weren't - would they have published this "flawed" study - or framed their conclusions in the same way - if Apple had been forthcoming about changes that they made to iOS? I would argue that they wouldn't. Apple have only themselves to blame for not being forthcoming in the first place.
I'd like to know the truth about Apple's intentions in this regard. They've made no statements on whether this is a permanent difference, an oversight, or just requires more security testing. There's only speculation. It directly impacts on me because we've been advising a client that we can build a HTML5 web app and then create a native app with PhoneGap, Titanium, etc. With this and the UIWebView caching issues, we're no longer sure if this is an option from a performance and functionality perspective.
You do realize this "real world of computer performance testing" is different than the "real world," right?
Statistics and the benchmarks generated by performance testing are meaningless without correct analysis and interpretation.
As stated, the article said "iPhone v. Android: 45000 tests prove which browser is faster."
Not which "embedded" browser is faster. And they certainly didn't put it in real world terms, eg, this affects third party browsers, not the safari browser (which is the browser used by the vast majority of users).
Their poor interpretation and presentation did a disservice to the real and useful statistics that they produced.
I don't think that's quite accurate. They are using Apple's embedded browser engine, just not Apple's UI (which uses a different engine). From AI's own story last night(http://www.appleinsider.com/articles...s_ios_4_3.html):
Quote:
This appears to be the case because the new Nitro JavaScript engine released as part of iOS 4.3 does not activate when launching full screen web apps saved as Home screen icons. (Full screen means the web browser user interface goes away, leaving a web app that is virtually indistinguishable from a native app; it is a feature unique to Apple's iOS).
Quote:
In addition to web apps saved to the Home screen, the performance issues and limitations also affect native iOS free or paid apps listed in the App Store that use the UIWebView API to create an HTML app within a native app.
So if you have a web app (not just limited to native applications) and view it in Safari, you get the speed benefit. But if you then save it to your home screen and run the same app, you don't get the performance increase of Nitro.
Its not Javascript that is the direct problem. Its the way just in time compilation works. It allows memory pages stored in RAM to be remarked from read only to executable. This technique significantly speeds up the rendering of web pages but also provides a serious security hole.
Apple directly controls the way Safari handles just in time compilation, they do not control the way third party web apps would handle the capability.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gwydion
And what is the difference of running Facebook JS code in Safari and in UIwebview? Or any other web app, for that matter?
If it's insecure on uiwebview it's also insecure on Safari
Indeed! I would be the first to point out that all OSs, regardless of the company attached, have positives and negatives against the other OSs. I love aspects of the webOS, and I love aspects of the iOS, and love aspects of the Android OS (I have not had experience with the newest WinMobile OS, so I can't vouch there). There are also aspects I hate on all. Its a to each their own, and respect the decisions and argument points. Studies like this I feel just increase a "Mine is Better/Bigger than Yours" when in the real world, its all about personal preference. Just cause a study says that the thing you have is now "devalued", doesn't mean it really is. If it works great for you, and you like how it works, then the study doesn't mean anything for you. If you happen to have issues that a study shows, then that's something different.
Of course there is a simple way they could have found this out. They could have actually run a speed test on Safari and seen the huge performance difference between the native browser and embedded browser.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Wiggin
Short of reverse engineering the OS, is there any reasonable why they could have known prior to Apple's statements?
Did Apple come out and say upon the release of iOS 4.3 that, "For the first time, Safari and UIWebView will not perform identically. We have made changes to Safari that we haven't included in UIWebView such that third-party browsers and iPhone apps that take advantage of UIWebView will no run 2.5x slower than if the same code was run in Safari. All of the optimizations from Nitro that you were expecting to improve the performance of apps since Nitro was announced will not apply". I think this is important information. It impacts directly on tens of thousands of apps in the app store that use UIWebView...
I'd like to know the truth about Apple's intentions in this regard. They've made no statements on whether this is a permanent difference, an oversight, or just requires more security testing. There's only speculation. It directly impacts on me because we've been advising a client that we can build a HTML5 web app and then create a native app with PhoneGap, Titanium, etc. With this and the UIWebView caching issues, we're no longer sure if this is an option from a performance and functionality perspective.
First, they made improvements to improve safari. This means that the embedded browser is not slower than it used to be. It's as fast as it ever was. Theres no requirement to make an announcement on something that *wasn't* done.
It would of course be possible to declare their intentions but apple never does that, and many companies choose to not declare their intentions before theyre ready to release it.
Once poor facts are released, they can't be taken back. For instance, once people started claiming that Obama was Muslim, or not an American or whatnot. Even though they were "retracted" there's still plenty of people who believe the misinformation.
And you are correct that DED is often wildly biased. Two wrongs don't make a right. Further, he doesn't necessarily need a "disclaimer" (I believe you mean "update") because his story is that Blaze published a flawed study. The fact that they issued an amendment doesn't alter that fact, and thus doesn't change DED's point.
Although it is nice to have that information; my appreciation to the posters who linked us to it
Yikes, I hope nobody here thinks I was putting them in the same category as folks who still think Obama is a Muslim or not a natural born citizen! Those people are WAY off the deep end!
Your points are fair. I just don't like it when one day someone is pointing out a single word, "overkill," in an article yesterday as proof of an Apple-hater, and then so carelessly throws around words like "deceptive" and "dishonest" in response to this story. Reading negative intent into something simply because you don't like it or because they made a mistake is a fairly paranoid view of the world (in my opinion).
But then again, that seems to be the direction so many things go these days...
Sophistry and pathetic? Which was the difference 2 weeks ago between Safari and uiwebview?
I don't believe that's the case. It's always been faster to load pages in Safari than to open a URL within FaceBook or Twitter or Reddit or some other app that loads web pages within the app using UIWebView.
In addition to the faster Nitro JS engine, Safari uses more sophisticated caching and other tricks to improve performance, some of which can't be done on a scale that can be added to other apps where the environment is unknown.
That's likely one reason why Apple built iOS around its browser, and opened up third party development a year later, with the limitation on third party browsers. It's not that they don't want competition as much as that they don't want to integrate other company's stuff deeply into iOS in a way that will make it difficult to move iOS forward.
I don't care about this test. I don't own an iPhone or an Android phone.
However, what confuses me is the response from the Apple fansites to this test. It seems that they see it almost as their "duty" to defend Apple against what they see as inaccurate information. If the test is inaccurate, then why post about it at all? By doing that, all you do is draw MORE attention to this test (I hadn't heard about the test until I visited this site today) and giving MORE traffic to a website you think isn't capable of performing tests like this, thus giving them the ability to release more data in the future.
I don't care about this test. I don't own an iPhone or an Android phone.
However, what confuses me is the response from the Apple fansites to this test. It seems that they see it almost as their "duty" to defend Apple against what they see as inaccurate information. If the test is inaccurate, then why post about it at all? By doing that, all you do is draw MORE attention to this test (I hadn't heard about the test until I visited this site today) and giving MORE traffic to a website you think isn't capable of performing tests like this, thus giving them the ability to release more data in the future.
Ahh, so the way to fight misinformation is to ignore it and let people think it's the truth, BRILLIANT!
The biggest issue is mainstream "news" sites presenting the information as valid without anyone bothering to actually look into the veracity of the statements being made.
It's been an odd week for that. First the "downgrade" because a company who happens to supply Apple is warning of weakness (even though Apple only accounts for 20-25% of their revenue for some reason the "analyst" chose to focus only on Apple, never mind the other 75-80% that they supply to others, sheesh). Now this "Android browser is faster than iOS Safari, well sorta, and not really in a way that 99% of users would ever notice" report.
You don't have to be a "fanboi" of any particular platform to shake your head at the "I must report my news 13 milliseconds before anyone else correctness or thoroughness be damned" attitude that most news outlets take.
What was the status of the network when the tests were made?
Were individual tests repeated?
If so, how were representative results selected?
How did they measure and mitigate the events outside the control of the browser?
Will they publish the detail parameters results of all the tests.
Here's another interesting question:
The iPhone iOS 4.3 Golden Master download for developers, ios_4-1.3_gm_seed__iphone_4__8f190.dmg, is dated: Monday, February 28, 2011 2:31 PM.
It was available to developers, then the public some time after that -- I can't determine exactly when.
Is it possible to setup an iPhone (or iPhones) with the new iOS, setup a meaningful and realistic testing environment, run 45,000 valid tests, analyze the results then document and publish the report -- all within 17 days?
Yikes, I hope nobody here thinks I was putting them in the same category as folks who still think Obama is a Muslim or not a natural born citizen! Those people are WAY off the deep end!
Your points are fair. I just don't like it when one day someone is pointing out a single word, "overkill," in an article yesterday as proof of an Apple-hater, and then so carelessly throws around words like "deceptive" and "dishonest" in response to this story. Reading negative intent into something simply because you don't like it or because they made a mistake is a fairly paranoid view of the world (in my opinion).
But then again, that seems to be the direction so many things go these days...
Unfortuntely the hyperbole was the only example I could think of
And you're definitely right. People are pretty dumb like that.
I don't really think they had deceptive intent. At worst, they were overzealous android fans. Maybe they didn't have a bias either way. It was simply incorrect and perpetuated incomplete information.
So I agree that it's paranoid to look for malfeasance which likely isn't there
There goes customer satisfaction, then again maybe not
Five in a row!
"Press Release\t
\tContact:
Syvetril Perryman
(805) 418-8103
John Tews
(248) 312-4119
J.D. Power and Associates Reports:
Social Media Use Drives Higher Satisfaction among Owners of
Smartphones and Traditional Mobile Phones
Apple Ranks Highest in Customer Satisfaction among Smartphone Manufacturers,
While Sanyo Ranks Highest among Traditional Mobile Phone Manufacturers
WESTLAKE VILLAGE, Calif.: 17 March 2011 — Overall satisfaction with smartphones and traditional mobile phones is considerably higher among owners who use their devices for social media activity, compared with satisfaction among owners who do not access social media platforms on their phones, according to the J.D. Power and Associates 2011 U.S. Wireless Smartphone Customer Satisfaction StudySM—Volume 1 and the J.D. Power and Associates 2011 U.S. Wireless Traditional Mobile Phone Satisfaction StudySM—Volume 1, both released today.
Among smartphone owners who use their device to access social media sites such as Twitter, LinkedIn and Facebook, satisfaction averages 783 on a 1,000-point scale—nearly 22 points higher than among those smartphone owners who do not often use social media sites on their device. Currently, more than one-half of smartphone owners report having used their device to access social media sites via the mobile Web or mobile applications. While rates of mobile social media site usage are not nearly as high among owners of traditional mobile phones (9%, on average), satisfaction among traditional handset owners who use their device for social media is notably higher than that of traditional handset owners who don’t access social media (754 vs. 696).
“It’s not unexpected that smartphone owners access social media sites from their device more frequently than traditional mobile phone owners due to features such as larger screens and QWERTY keyboards,” said Kirk Parsons, senior director of wireless services at J.D. Power and Associates. “However, these findings demonstrate that equipping devices with powerful features and service is key to creating positive customer experiences with wireless devices.”
The study finds that wireless users who engage in mobile social media activity on their mobile device also tend to use it more often for calls, texts and data; are more likely to purchase additional wireless services in the future; and are also more likely to provide positive recommendations for their handset brand and service provider, compared with users who don’t use social media on their device.
“It’s clear that the gap in satisfaction between customers who use social media applications on their device and those who don’t is driven by several factors, but the critical ingredient is whether the user has a positive experience with the wireless device itself,” said Parsons. “Providing features that facilitate social networking activity and make it easy for users to communicate and share information between various social media sites may be an effective way for service providers to further engage customers and increase loyalty.”
These two studies measure customer satisfaction with traditional wireless handsets and smartphones among owners who have used their current mobile phone for less than two years, by examining several key factors. In order of importance, the key factors of overall satisfaction with traditional wireless handsets are: operation (30%); physical design (30%); features (20%); and battery function (20%). For smartphones, the key factors are: ease of operation (26%); operating system (24%); physical design (23%); features (19%); and battery function (8%).
For a fifth consecutive time, Apple ranks highest among manufacturers of smartphones in customer satisfaction with a score of 795 and performs particularly well in ease of operation, operating system, features and physical design. Motorola (763) and HTC (762) follow Apple in the smartphone rankings.
Sanyo ranks highest in overall wireless customer satisfaction with traditional handsets with a score of 715. Sanyo performs well in three factors: physical design, battery functionality and operation. LG (711) and Samsung (703) follow Sanyo in the traditional handset rankings.
The studies also find the following key wireless handset usage patterns:
The average price of a traditional wireless mobile phone continues to decline and averages $73 in 2011, compared with an average of $81 at the beginning of 2009. The decline is primarily due to discounts provided by handset providers and wireless service carriers to incentivize sales. Currently, 46 percent of owners report having received a free mobile phone when subscribing to a wireless service, which is a historical high.
Mobile applications continue to enhance the smartphone user experience. Two-thirds of owners say they have downloaded games and social networking applications to their device. More than one-half (54%) say they have downloaded travel software, such as maps and weather applications, while 53 percent indicate having downloaded entertainment-oriented applications. This indicates that smartphone owners are continuing to integrate their device usage into both their business and personal lives.
Ownership tenure impacts overall satisfaction with the device experience. Those who report owning their device less than one year are significantly more likely to be more satisfied than those who have owned their wireless phone for a longer period of time (773 vs. 728). Newer devices tend to offer more features, services and better quality than older phones.
The 2011 U.S. Wireless Smartphone Customer Satisfaction Study—Volume 1 and the 2011 U.S. Wireless Traditional Mobile Phone Satisfaction Study—Volume 1 are based on experiences reported by 7,275 smartphone owners and 11,347 traditional mobile phone owners. The studies were fielded between July and December 2010.
For more information on customer satisfaction with wireless service, wireless retail sales, cell phone handsets, customer care, prepaid wireless service and business wireless service, please visit JDPower.com.
About J.D. Power and Associates
Headquartered in Westlake Village, Calif., J.D. Power and Associates is a global marketing information services company providing forecasting, performance improvement, social media and customer satisfaction insights and solutions. The company’s quality and satisfaction measurements are based on responses from millions of consumers annually. For more information on car reviews and ratings, car insurance, health insurance, cell phone ratings, and more, please visit JDPower.com. J.D. Power and Associates is a business unit of The McGraw-Hill Companies.
About The McGraw-Hill Companies
Founded in 1888, The McGraw-Hill Companies is a leading global financial information and education company that helps professionals and students succeed in the Knowledge Economy. Leading brands include Standard & Poor’s, McGraw-Hill Education, Platts energy information services and J.D. Power and Associates. The Corporation has approximately 21,000 employees with more than 280 offices in 40 countries. Sales in 2010 were $6.2 billion. Additional information is available at http://www.mcgraw-hill.com.";
... I just don't like it when one day someone is pointing out a single word, "overkill," in an article yesterday as proof of an Apple-hater, and then so carelessly throws around words like "deceptive" and "dishonest" in response to this story. Reading negative intent into something simply because you don't like it or because they made a mistake is a fairly paranoid view of the world (in my opinion). ...
The "overkill" guy is being dishonest when he says things like that, and he's doing it because he has an axe to grind or for self aggrandizement. These guys are being intentionally deceptive in their headline to draw attention to themselves and maybe because they have an axe to grind too. Pointing out that people are tossing bullshit around isn't being paranoid, it's being disgusted with the level of bullshit that has become acceptable.
But maybe i'm wasting my time explaining that to someone who claimed these guys never said they were comparing Safari to Chrome, just the iOS browser to the Android browser. I don't know how you can have any sense of self respect when you say something like that, then try to defend it. That's taking dishonesty to the level of a complete contempt for the truth.
To add another layer of deception to this non-story: This only applies to web apps running full-screen. If they run inside Safari, they use the Nitro engine.
Quote:
Web apps running from home screen but not in full-screen mode (which launch inside Safari) run Nitro fine.
However, what confuses me is the response from the Apple fansites to this test. It seems that they see it almost as their "duty" to defend Apple against what they see as inaccurate information.
You might be surprised to see just how many people are invested in Apple's success... and I'm not talking about investing time and effort, they are actually financially invested.
It's not just the Wall Street gurus messing around with play money either. Plenty of small time (or once were small time) investors essentially have their nest eggs wrapped up and riding on the back of Apple's fortunes.
When a negative story is actually a direct assault on blogger's 401k you're going to see flames... lots and lots of flames.
Comments
"Dishonest" and "deceptive" means that they knew and were intentionally misleading in their report. Everytime anyone says anything non-positive, and even sometimes when they say something positive but use a word like "overkill", you instantly assume that they are out to get Apple, that they are Apple haters and have a chip on their shoulder. It's a very paranoid world you live in.
Did they make a mistake? Yes. Did they admit that their test didn't test Safari? Yes. And they were open about it by putting the disclaimer on their orignal story. Let's see AI be as forthcoming about the deceptive writing by DED (deceptive or delusional, take your pick). As of the time I'm writing this, DED still has not acknowledged that Blaze discovered the error in their testing and has added a disclaimer on their story. And he probably never will. He doesn't even included a link to Blaze's orignial article. Why? Oh right, because then people would also see the disclaimer.
So just who is being deceptive and dishonest here?
Once poor facts are released, they can't be taken back. For instance, once people started claiming that Obama was Muslim, or not an American or whatnot. Even though they were "retracted" there's still plenty of people who believe the misinformation.
And you are correct that DED is often wildly biased. Two wrongs don't make a right. Further, he doesn't necessarily need a "disclaimer" (I believe you mean "update") because his story is that Blaze published a flawed study. The fact that they issued an amendment doesn't alter that fact, and thus doesn't change DED's point.
Although it is nice to have that information; my appreciation to the posters who linked us to it
Once poor facts are released, they can't be taken back. For instance, once people started claiming that Obama was Muslim, or not an American or whatnot. Even though they were "retracted" there's still plenty of people who believe the misinformation.
And you are correct that DED is often wildly biased. Two wrongs don't make a right. Further, he doesn't necessarily need a "disclaimer" (I believe you mean "update") because his story is that Blaze published a flawed study. The fact that they issued an amendment doesn't alter that fact, and thus doesn't change DED's point.
Although it is nice to have that information; my appreciation to the posters who linked us to it
Did Apple come out and say upon the release of iOS 4.3 that, "For the first time, Safari and UIWebView will not perform identically. We have made changes to Safari that we haven't included in UIWebView such that third-party browsers and iPhone apps that take advantage of UIWebView will no run 2.5x slower than if the same code was run in Safari. All of the optimizations from Nitro that you were expecting to improve the performance of apps since Nitro was announced will not apply". I think this is important information. It impacts directly on tens of thousands of apps in the app store that use UIWebView.
Assuming Blaze is telling the truth - and there is no evidence that they weren't - would they have published this "flawed" study - or framed their conclusions in the same way - if Apple had been forthcoming about changes that they made to iOS? I would argue that they wouldn't. Apple have only themselves to blame for not being forthcoming in the first place.
I'd like to know the truth about Apple's intentions in this regard. They've made no statements on whether this is a permanent difference, an oversight, or just requires more security testing. There's only speculation. It directly impacts on me because we've been advising a client that we can build a HTML5 web app and then create a native app with PhoneGap, Titanium, etc. With this and the UIWebView caching issues, we're no longer sure if this is an option from a performance and functionality perspective.
You do realize this "real world of computer performance testing" is different than the "real world," right?
Statistics and the benchmarks generated by performance testing are meaningless without correct analysis and interpretation.
As stated, the article said "iPhone v. Android: 45000 tests prove which browser is faster."
Not which "embedded" browser is faster. And they certainly didn't put it in real world terms, eg, this affects third party browsers, not the safari browser (which is the browser used by the vast majority of users).
Their poor interpretation and presentation did a disservice to the real and useful statistics that they produced.
I don't think that's quite accurate. They are using Apple's embedded browser engine, just not Apple's UI (which uses a different engine). From AI's own story last night(http://www.appleinsider.com/articles...s_ios_4_3.html):
This appears to be the case because the new Nitro JavaScript engine released as part of iOS 4.3 does not activate when launching full screen web apps saved as Home screen icons. (Full screen means the web browser user interface goes away, leaving a web app that is virtually indistinguishable from a native app; it is a feature unique to Apple's iOS).
In addition to web apps saved to the Home screen, the performance issues and limitations also affect native iOS free or paid apps listed in the App Store that use the UIWebView API to create an HTML app within a native app.
So if you have a web app (not just limited to native applications) and view it in Safari, you get the speed benefit. But if you then save it to your home screen and run the same app, you don't get the performance increase of Nitro.
Apple directly controls the way Safari handles just in time compilation, they do not control the way third party web apps would handle the capability.
And what is the difference of running Facebook JS code in Safari and in UIwebview? Or any other web app, for that matter?
If it's insecure on uiwebview it's also insecure on Safari
Indeed! I would be the first to point out that all OSs, regardless of the company attached, have positives and negatives against the other OSs. I love aspects of the webOS, and I love aspects of the iOS, and love aspects of the Android OS (I have not had experience with the newest WinMobile OS, so I can't vouch there). There are also aspects I hate on all. Its a to each their own, and respect the decisions and argument points. Studies like this I feel just increase a "Mine is Better/Bigger than Yours" when in the real world, its all about personal preference. Just cause a study says that the thing you have is now "devalued", doesn't mean it really is. If it works great for you, and you like how it works, then the study doesn't mean anything for you. If you happen to have issues that a study shows, then that's something different.
Well written +1.
Short of reverse engineering the OS, is there any reasonable why they could have known prior to Apple's statements?
Did Apple come out and say upon the release of iOS 4.3 that, "For the first time, Safari and UIWebView will not perform identically. We have made changes to Safari that we haven't included in UIWebView such that third-party browsers and iPhone apps that take advantage of UIWebView will no run 2.5x slower than if the same code was run in Safari. All of the optimizations from Nitro that you were expecting to improve the performance of apps since Nitro was announced will not apply". I think this is important information. It impacts directly on tens of thousands of apps in the app store that use UIWebView...
I'd like to know the truth about Apple's intentions in this regard. They've made no statements on whether this is a permanent difference, an oversight, or just requires more security testing. There's only speculation. It directly impacts on me because we've been advising a client that we can build a HTML5 web app and then create a native app with PhoneGap, Titanium, etc. With this and the UIWebView caching issues, we're no longer sure if this is an option from a performance and functionality perspective.
First, they made improvements to improve safari. This means that the embedded browser is not slower than it used to be. It's as fast as it ever was. Theres no requirement to make an announcement on something that *wasn't* done.
It would of course be possible to declare their intentions but apple never does that, and many companies choose to not declare their intentions before theyre ready to release it.
Once poor facts are released, they can't be taken back. For instance, once people started claiming that Obama was Muslim, or not an American or whatnot. Even though they were "retracted" there's still plenty of people who believe the misinformation.
And you are correct that DED is often wildly biased. Two wrongs don't make a right. Further, he doesn't necessarily need a "disclaimer" (I believe you mean "update") because his story is that Blaze published a flawed study. The fact that they issued an amendment doesn't alter that fact, and thus doesn't change DED's point.
Although it is nice to have that information; my appreciation to the posters who linked us to it
Yikes, I hope nobody here thinks I was putting them in the same category as folks who still think Obama is a Muslim or not a natural born citizen! Those people are WAY off the deep end!
Your points are fair. I just don't like it when one day someone is pointing out a single word, "overkill," in an article yesterday as proof of an Apple-hater, and then so carelessly throws around words like "deceptive" and "dishonest" in response to this story. Reading negative intent into something simply because you don't like it or because they made a mistake is a fairly paranoid view of the world (in my opinion).
But then again, that seems to be the direction so many things go these days...
Sophistry and pathetic? Which was the difference 2 weeks ago between Safari and uiwebview?
I don't believe that's the case. It's always been faster to load pages in Safari than to open a URL within FaceBook or Twitter or Reddit or some other app that loads web pages within the app using UIWebView.
In addition to the faster Nitro JS engine, Safari uses more sophisticated caching and other tricks to improve performance, some of which can't be done on a scale that can be added to other apps where the environment is unknown.
That's likely one reason why Apple built iOS around its browser, and opened up third party development a year later, with the limitation on third party browsers. It's not that they don't want competition as much as that they don't want to integrate other company's stuff deeply into iOS in a way that will make it difficult to move iOS forward.
However, what confuses me is the response from the Apple fansites to this test. It seems that they see it almost as their "duty" to defend Apple against what they see as inaccurate information. If the test is inaccurate, then why post about it at all? By doing that, all you do is draw MORE attention to this test (I hadn't heard about the test until I visited this site today) and giving MORE traffic to a website you think isn't capable of performing tests like this, thus giving them the ability to release more data in the future.
I don't care about this test. I don't own an iPhone or an Android phone.
However, what confuses me is the response from the Apple fansites to this test. It seems that they see it almost as their "duty" to defend Apple against what they see as inaccurate information. If the test is inaccurate, then why post about it at all? By doing that, all you do is draw MORE attention to this test (I hadn't heard about the test until I visited this site today) and giving MORE traffic to a website you think isn't capable of performing tests like this, thus giving them the ability to release more data in the future.
Ahh, so the way to fight misinformation is to ignore it and let people think it's the truth, BRILLIANT!
The biggest issue is mainstream "news" sites presenting the information as valid without anyone bothering to actually look into the veracity of the statements being made.
It's been an odd week for that. First the "downgrade" because a company who happens to supply Apple is warning of weakness (even though Apple only accounts for 20-25% of their revenue for some reason the "analyst" chose to focus only on Apple, never mind the other 75-80% that they supply to others, sheesh). Now this "Android browser is faster than iOS Safari, well sorta, and not really in a way that 99% of users would ever notice" report.
You don't have to be a "fanboi" of any particular platform to shake your head at the "I must report my news 13 milliseconds before anyone else correctness or thoroughness be damned" attitude that most news outlets take.
Ya' know...
I'd like to see more information:
When were these tests done?
What was the status of the network when the tests were made?
Were individual tests repeated?
If so, how were representative results selected?
How did they measure and mitigate the events outside the control of the browser?
Will they publish the detail parameters results of all the tests.
Here's another interesting question:
The iPhone iOS 4.3 Golden Master download for developers, ios_4-1.3_gm_seed__iphone_4__8f190.dmg, is dated: Monday, February 28, 2011 2:31 PM.
It was available to developers, then the public some time after that -- I can't determine exactly when.
Is it possible to setup an iPhone (or iPhones) with the new iOS, setup a meaningful and realistic testing environment, run 45,000 valid tests, analyze the results then document and publish the report -- all within 17 days?
.
Yikes, I hope nobody here thinks I was putting them in the same category as folks who still think Obama is a Muslim or not a natural born citizen! Those people are WAY off the deep end!
Your points are fair. I just don't like it when one day someone is pointing out a single word, "overkill," in an article yesterday as proof of an Apple-hater, and then so carelessly throws around words like "deceptive" and "dishonest" in response to this story. Reading negative intent into something simply because you don't like it or because they made a mistake is a fairly paranoid view of the world (in my opinion).
But then again, that seems to be the direction so many things go these days...
Unfortuntely the hyperbole was the only example I could think of
And you're definitely right. People are pretty dumb like that.
I don't really think they had deceptive intent. At worst, they were overzealous android fans. Maybe they didn't have a bias either way. It was simply incorrect and perpetuated incomplete information.
So I agree that it's paranoid to look for malfeasance which likely isn't there
There goes customer satisfaction, then again maybe not
Five in a row!
"Press Release\t
\tContact:
Syvetril Perryman
(805) 418-8103
John Tews
(248) 312-4119
J.D. Power and Associates Reports:
Social Media Use Drives Higher Satisfaction among Owners of
Smartphones and Traditional Mobile Phones
Apple Ranks Highest in Customer Satisfaction among Smartphone Manufacturers,
While Sanyo Ranks Highest among Traditional Mobile Phone Manufacturers
WESTLAKE VILLAGE, Calif.: 17 March 2011 — Overall satisfaction with smartphones and traditional mobile phones is considerably higher among owners who use their devices for social media activity, compared with satisfaction among owners who do not access social media platforms on their phones, according to the J.D. Power and Associates 2011 U.S. Wireless Smartphone Customer Satisfaction StudySM—Volume 1 and the J.D. Power and Associates 2011 U.S. Wireless Traditional Mobile Phone Satisfaction StudySM—Volume 1, both released today.
Among smartphone owners who use their device to access social media sites such as Twitter, LinkedIn and Facebook, satisfaction averages 783 on a 1,000-point scale—nearly 22 points higher than among those smartphone owners who do not often use social media sites on their device. Currently, more than one-half of smartphone owners report having used their device to access social media sites via the mobile Web or mobile applications. While rates of mobile social media site usage are not nearly as high among owners of traditional mobile phones (9%, on average), satisfaction among traditional handset owners who use their device for social media is notably higher than that of traditional handset owners who don’t access social media (754 vs. 696).
“It’s not unexpected that smartphone owners access social media sites from their device more frequently than traditional mobile phone owners due to features such as larger screens and QWERTY keyboards,” said Kirk Parsons, senior director of wireless services at J.D. Power and Associates. “However, these findings demonstrate that equipping devices with powerful features and service is key to creating positive customer experiences with wireless devices.”
The study finds that wireless users who engage in mobile social media activity on their mobile device also tend to use it more often for calls, texts and data; are more likely to purchase additional wireless services in the future; and are also more likely to provide positive recommendations for their handset brand and service provider, compared with users who don’t use social media on their device.
“It’s clear that the gap in satisfaction between customers who use social media applications on their device and those who don’t is driven by several factors, but the critical ingredient is whether the user has a positive experience with the wireless device itself,” said Parsons. “Providing features that facilitate social networking activity and make it easy for users to communicate and share information between various social media sites may be an effective way for service providers to further engage customers and increase loyalty.”
These two studies measure customer satisfaction with traditional wireless handsets and smartphones among owners who have used their current mobile phone for less than two years, by examining several key factors. In order of importance, the key factors of overall satisfaction with traditional wireless handsets are: operation (30%); physical design (30%); features (20%); and battery function (20%). For smartphones, the key factors are: ease of operation (26%); operating system (24%); physical design (23%); features (19%); and battery function (8%).
For a fifth consecutive time, Apple ranks highest among manufacturers of smartphones in customer satisfaction with a score of 795 and performs particularly well in ease of operation, operating system, features and physical design. Motorola (763) and HTC (762) follow Apple in the smartphone rankings.
Sanyo ranks highest in overall wireless customer satisfaction with traditional handsets with a score of 715. Sanyo performs well in three factors: physical design, battery functionality and operation. LG (711) and Samsung (703) follow Sanyo in the traditional handset rankings.
The studies also find the following key wireless handset usage patterns:
The average price of a traditional wireless mobile phone continues to decline and averages $73 in 2011, compared with an average of $81 at the beginning of 2009. The decline is primarily due to discounts provided by handset providers and wireless service carriers to incentivize sales. Currently, 46 percent of owners report having received a free mobile phone when subscribing to a wireless service, which is a historical high.
Mobile applications continue to enhance the smartphone user experience. Two-thirds of owners say they have downloaded games and social networking applications to their device. More than one-half (54%) say they have downloaded travel software, such as maps and weather applications, while 53 percent indicate having downloaded entertainment-oriented applications. This indicates that smartphone owners are continuing to integrate their device usage into both their business and personal lives.
Ownership tenure impacts overall satisfaction with the device experience. Those who report owning their device less than one year are significantly more likely to be more satisfied than those who have owned their wireless phone for a longer period of time (773 vs. 728). Newer devices tend to offer more features, services and better quality than older phones.
The 2011 U.S. Wireless Smartphone Customer Satisfaction Study—Volume 1 and the 2011 U.S. Wireless Traditional Mobile Phone Satisfaction Study—Volume 1 are based on experiences reported by 7,275 smartphone owners and 11,347 traditional mobile phone owners. The studies were fielded between July and December 2010.
For more information on customer satisfaction with wireless service, wireless retail sales, cell phone handsets, customer care, prepaid wireless service and business wireless service, please visit JDPower.com.
About J.D. Power and Associates
Headquartered in Westlake Village, Calif., J.D. Power and Associates is a global marketing information services company providing forecasting, performance improvement, social media and customer satisfaction insights and solutions. The company’s quality and satisfaction measurements are based on responses from millions of consumers annually. For more information on car reviews and ratings, car insurance, health insurance, cell phone ratings, and more, please visit JDPower.com. J.D. Power and Associates is a business unit of The McGraw-Hill Companies.
About The McGraw-Hill Companies
Founded in 1888, The McGraw-Hill Companies is a leading global financial information and education company that helps professionals and students succeed in the Knowledge Economy. Leading brands include Standard & Poor’s, McGraw-Hill Education, Platts energy information services and J.D. Power and Associates. The Corporation has approximately 21,000 employees with more than 280 offices in 40 countries. Sales in 2010 were $6.2 billion. Additional information is available at http://www.mcgraw-hill.com.";
Source
... I just don't like it when one day someone is pointing out a single word, "overkill," in an article yesterday as proof of an Apple-hater, and then so carelessly throws around words like "deceptive" and "dishonest" in response to this story. Reading negative intent into something simply because you don't like it or because they made a mistake is a fairly paranoid view of the world (in my opinion). ...
The "overkill" guy is being dishonest when he says things like that, and he's doing it because he has an axe to grind or for self aggrandizement. These guys are being intentionally deceptive in their headline to draw attention to themselves and maybe because they have an axe to grind too. Pointing out that people are tossing bullshit around isn't being paranoid, it's being disgusted with the level of bullshit that has become acceptable.
But maybe i'm wasting my time explaining that to someone who claimed these guys never said they were comparing Safari to Chrome, just the iOS browser to the Android browser. I don't know how you can have any sense of self respect when you say something like that, then try to defend it. That's taking dishonesty to the level of a complete contempt for the truth.
Blaze committed fraud, deliberately releasing misleading test results with no real-world relevance whatsoever. Why are y'all talking like politicians?
Web apps running from home screen but not in full-screen mode (which launch inside Safari) run Nitro fine.
Originally Posted by neiltc13
However, what confuses me is the response from the Apple fansites to this test. It seems that they see it almost as their "duty" to defend Apple against what they see as inaccurate information.
You might be surprised to see just how many people are invested in Apple's success... and I'm not talking about investing time and effort, they are actually financially invested.
It's not just the Wall Street gurus messing around with play money either. Plenty of small time (or once were small time) investors essentially have their nest eggs wrapped up and riding on the back of Apple's fortunes.
When a negative story is actually a direct assault on blogger's 401k you're going to see flames... lots and lots of flames.