i don't know if "poor" is exactly the right word. Me, i'm not poor?exactly?but i've got the cheapest cellphone i can get, on the cheapest contract, and it wouldn't take much of a change in my work or family situation for me to take great pleasure in flushing it down the toilet. I hate cell phones, i hate the way the business is organized, i don't want to be on call 24/7...but unfortunately, it's a necessity right now. I'll bet there are millions more like me.
Technology has advanced. Smart phones are the new dumb phones. A lot of people the last year have run out their contracts on their old dumb phones and have been offered a "smart" phone (the quotes are because some of them aren't that smart) "buy one get one free", "buy one get five free" in one case, or outright free with a contract they were going to sign up for anyway. Why wouldn't they take it?
It's just a fact of life that right now 99.9999999% of those "free" "smart" phones run one of the hundreds of mutually incompatible oss that fandroids and ignorant people lump together as "android". That's why gartner's prediction of 49% for "android" is quite believable?but who cares? The aforementioned fandroids and ignorant people. (sorry for repeating myself.)
The thing that keeps Apple from permanently leapfrogging all competitors is... Apple. Make the iPhone available to ALL cell companies and Android will be lost to the dustbin of time.
That would be smartphone unit marketshare. They reportedly sell between 3 and 4% of the world?s handsets yet make take in between 39% to over 50% of the world?s handset profits. That?s handsets and not limited just to smartphones.
The thing that keeps Apple from permanently leapfrogging all competitors is... Apple. Make the iPhone available to ALL cell companies and Android will be lost to the dustbin of time.
You might see that when there's a single chip that can handle 2G and 3G at all the frequencies that are in use worldwide with a power envelope that will preserve the iPhone's battery life...not before.
I would have said 4G, too, but that's too far in the future. Judging by the Thunderbolt reviews I've seen, the 4G-only chips are real power-guzzlers.
First off, my experience. Flash sucks. Gotta love it but I'd prefer something more dependable
Andriod to me is like Windows (Have not worked with windows 7 though)
They are good open operation systems but require heavy upkeep and user knowledge. As well as time consuming to keep straight.
I recently bought an iPad for college because it's useful when I dont need my laptop. The iPad does what I want, it works. Taking what is equal to 20.5 hours on te semester system. I don't have time to be keeping my Andriod tablet working.
Andriod is nice for those who like specs and to mess with things (I used to).
Unnamed sources at unnamed manufactuers cite "unstable performance" yet provide no further details. Is there a story here other than that DigiTimes wrote an article?
My friend ordered his Motorola Xoom (yes, it does go on sale in a country other than the USA this weekend) a few weeks ago. Looks like there were a lot of people before him though, as the retailer has informed him that they have had high demand and are delaying his order.
Seems like it's not just iPad that will be hard to find in the coming weeks.
yeah right. the xoom is in high demand??? They only sold 100,000, is your head under the sand. Read the news story already, your friend must best dumb to order that crap.
I am so poor, that in the past 5 years I have purchased and Used various smart phone running Windows Mobile, Palm and Blackberry. I now am using an Android. My first real computer was a Macintosh and I spend 13 years from 1984 to 197 working with and for apple computer vendors. I understand the loyalty to the brand and I understand the problems inherent with evolving technologies.
After having my hands on an Android for the past 4 months and seeing the previews of the oncoming Android 3.0 Honeycomb, I can tell you that whatever "issues" they are having will eventually be worked out, but in the meanwhile it is by far the slickest most user friendly, OS I have ever had the delight to experience (yes including IOS as well).
I doubt that one technology can "own" the consumer market place for any length of time the way Microsoft has dominated the desktop market, but it seems obvious that Android will be the dominant smart phone platform for the foreseeable future.
I depend on my smart phone to perform time critical tasks that must be performed with no notice and finished on a web app within 30 seconds. My Android does the job, where Blackberry, Palm and Windows were generally only about 50% effective, in accomplishing the same tasks. As for the I-Phone, well I would never even consider it, I spent too many years buying the latest and greatest Apple equipment and in 97 when they released millions of defective computers with the 603e processor and wouldn't own up to it, I decided Apple's idea of brand loyalty is you buy from them at over inflated prices and when they do something wrong and you are paying for it you will be the last to know.
Google may not be any better when put to the test but just the fact that there is an alternative to Apple/IOS ought to be enough to convince million of abused Apple loyal to jump ship
Nice try dude, but you should definitely practice a bit more before you try to do any real-world astroturfing.
I'll give you one hint: if you sign up on an Apple-centric blog, to post your first comment ever, in a topic about a Honeycomb tablet, telling an obviously crafted, lengthy story about how you owned everything in the world the last 10 years, except any Apple products or a Honeycomb tablet, and which serves no other purpose besides being a prologue to some unrelated rant about how bad Apple is and how great Android works out for you, nobody will take you seriously.
You're not an Apple fan... you probably never had any loyalties to any thing. Using the Sculley years as a excuse is disingenuous. If you had any balls you'd just tell the true. You're a PC who hasn't any real reason to diss Mac so you make up fantasies to be cool. It doesn't work I see through you. You are a closet wanna be!
I usually depreciate ad hominems, but "a closet wanna be" enriches the English language.
Those of us who struggled gamely through the Scully years remember well the post-traumatic stress induced by simply upgrading the operating system.
MAC addresses are part of lower level networking layers than IP addresses, which means basically that TCP/IP packets are encapsulated in Ethernet packets. When those packets hit the router on your local network, the TCP/IP data is pulled out of the Ethernet packet and repackaged for transmission on the outside network. In other words, Web servers never see your MAC address.
MAC addresses are part of lower level networking layers than IP addresses, which means basically that TCP/IP packets are encapsulated in Ethernet packets. When those packets hit the router on your local network, the TCP/IP data is pulled out of the Ethernet packet and repackaged for transmission on the outside network. In other words, Web servers never see your MAC address.
For every new user that's registering look at the arp cache just like how u are tracking the ip for the mac addresses. Match the IP & MAC combo when blocking a ID.
First off, my experience. Flash sucks. Gotta love it but I'd prefer something more dependable
Andriod to me is like Windows (Have not worked with windows 7 though)
They are good open operation systems but require heavy upkeep and user knowledge. As well as time consuming to keep straight.
I recently bought an iPad for college because it's useful when I dont need my laptop. The iPad does what I want, it works. Taking what is equal to 20.5 hours on te semester system. I don't have time to be keeping my Andriod tablet working.
Andriod is nice for those who like specs and to mess with things (I used to).
My dad uses an original Motorola Droid. He's not tech savvy at all (he works at a metal foundry that manufactures parts for Mac's ironically) He doesn't need any specific upkeep to keep his phone running, and the number of times he's called me to tech support help (beyond the "what was that app you showed me" calls is a rather small number.
For a majority of users, no matter what platform they choose, their phones are "set it an forget it" devices. It's only when you try doing more advanced things that you'll really start to gripe about one platform or another, and even then, if you spend a bit of time learning your phone initially, you won't have to worry about it. The problem comes when you go from one OS to the next and expect it to act EXACTLY the same as your old device.
For my father? You give him ANY phone with pandora, a decent web browser and a passable camera and he'll be happy. He's the average consumer. If I got him a iPhone he would most likely be just as happy as he currently is with his droid. It might take him a bit to get used to the new menu navigation, but he could do it.
The "it's ease of use" argument might sound nice on paper, but in reality it's not as significant as anyone makes it to be. Does iOS have a more consistent UI across the platform? Yes. Will most people, new to both platforms, care enough about it to make it a deal breaker? Not really.
...Amazon could easily create yet another splinter of Android to use on some future Kindle. And Amazon, unlike Google, has tons of content plus at least a hundred million credit card-owning customers in their database.
And most importantly, Amazon has vast experience in actually delivering media and goods to end-users. Something that Google is just barely getting a grip on. So yes, Google wants to keep the Amazons of the world from turning Android into a Google-killer. It could happen.
Your absolutely right, Amazon is the dark horse in this race. They are the only player with a fully blown content/commerce ecosystem to compete with Apples iStores. You can already consider their Kindle to be the second most successful 'tablet' in the market place (although they do not release sales numbers) and you can bet they will continue the evolve its feature set from a reader, to fully blown post-PC. Their launch of a Android App store is clear indication that they are ready and willing to play. Amazon, not Google, is the biggest threat to Apples financial dominance of the mobile computing market.
The only thing "open" about droid is that Google is openly trying to copy Apple's successful OS model. Yes, any random droid fan can download and 'make' their own private copy of Android. Which they can dick around with to their heart's content. Knock yourselves out.
Google doesn't care about droid hobbyists. But the do care about high-profile developers like Amazon. Amazon could easily create yet another splinter of Android to use on some future Kindle. And Amazon, unlike Google, has tons of content plus at least a hundred million credit card-owning customers in their database.
And most importantly, Amazon has vast experience in actually delivering media and goods to end-users. Something that Google is just barely getting a grip on. So yes, Google wants to keep the Amazons of the world from turning Android into a Google-killer. It could happen.
There is nothing preventing amazon from doing that, and nothing google is currently doing will prevent that. (see the Nook Color, which is Android).
The only thing Google can do is deny that Amazon device access to the Android Marketplace, as well as access to closed source apps like Gmail, Google Maps, voice, etc.
But Amazon already has their own marketplace. And they can use another version of maps if they want (or work out a payment system to get Google's)
Amazon could even update the OS of the device whenever the source code becomes available. Sure, they might not get early access, but neither do those small developers. Once code is AOSP, anyone can use it (even Apple/Rim/whoever, if they wanted to)
And if amazon goes this route, they're not the Google killer. Remember, Google makes their money from advertising on the web more than anything else. They don't make money from people putting Android on devices. As long as there are multiple players in the field, Google wins. The danger of their only being one player (like Apple) is that they could create their own ad platform and lock out Google, like Apple's trying to do with iAds on mobile apps.
My dad uses an original Motorola Droid. He's not tech savvy at all (he works at a metal foundry that manufactures parts for Mac's ironically) He doesn't need any specific upkeep to keep his phone running, and the number of times he's called me to tech support help (beyond the "what was that app you showed me" calls is a rather small number.
For a majority of users, no matter what platform they choose, their phones are "set it an forget it" devices. It's only when you try doing more advanced things that you'll really start to gripe about one platform or another, and even then, if you spend a bit of time learning your phone initially, you won't have to worry about it. The problem comes when you go from one OS to the next and expect it to act EXACTLY the same as your old device.
For my father? You give him ANY phone with pandora, a decent web browser and a passable camera and he'll be happy. He's the average consumer. If I got him a iPhone he would most likely be just as happy as he currently is with his droid. It might take him a bit to get used to the new menu navigation, but he could do it.
The "it's ease of use" argument might sound nice on paper, but in reality it's not as significant as anyone makes it to be. Does iOS have a more consistent UI across the platform? Yes. Will most people, new to both platforms, care enough about it to make it a deal breaker? Not really.
It don't see that as being entirely true. It depends on just how easy or difficult it is. WebOS is difficult. Android, being to a certain extent a copy of iOS, is about as easy as iOS itself on the basic level.
But when moving to tablets, it's different. If Google kept the basic Android UI it would have been better. There's no evidence yet that people want something noticeably more complex for the little extra it gives them. About the only thing I found better in Honeycomb was notifications, and I'm willing to bet that for most people the way Apple has been doing it is just fine. That doesn't mean that it can't be better, or that it shouldn't be better, just that most people don't care that much.
With so many people used to the way Android and iOS works and looks, I would imagine that given the fact of how poorly, if at all, Android apps work on Honeycomb, the advantage to Android users moving to that platform will be slight. Apple may have an advantage for Android users because the iPad is more similar to Android that Honeycomb itself is. At least on the basic level which is really what you are talking about.
It's nice to be able to get another device and just start using it rather than having to figure a number of things out all over again.
I'm not seeing Amazon helping Android yet. It may even make it more confusing for people. Apples advantages in the tablet space may negate Amazon's role.
Comments
i don't know if "poor" is exactly the right word. Me, i'm not poor?exactly?but i've got the cheapest cellphone i can get, on the cheapest contract, and it wouldn't take much of a change in my work or family situation for me to take great pleasure in flushing it down the toilet. I hate cell phones, i hate the way the business is organized, i don't want to be on call 24/7...but unfortunately, it's a necessity right now. I'll bet there are millions more like me.
Technology has advanced. Smart phones are the new dumb phones. A lot of people the last year have run out their contracts on their old dumb phones and have been offered a "smart" phone (the quotes are because some of them aren't that smart) "buy one get one free", "buy one get five free" in one case, or outright free with a contract they were going to sign up for anyway. Why wouldn't they take it?
It's just a fact of life that right now 99.9999999% of those "free" "smart" phones run one of the hundreds of mutually incompatible oss that fandroids and ignorant people lump together as "android". That's why gartner's prediction of 49% for "android" is quite believable?but who cares? The aforementioned fandroids and ignorant people. (sorry for repeating myself.)
+1 +1 +1
The thing that keeps Apple from permanently leapfrogging all competitors is... Apple. Make the iPhone available to ALL cell companies and Android will be lost to the dustbin of time.
and cheap!!
That would be smartphone unit marketshare. They reportedly sell between 3 and 4% of the world?s handsets yet make take in between 39% to over 50% of the world?s handset profits. That?s handsets and not limited just to smartphones.
Ouch, LG. Sucks to be you
The thing that keeps Apple from permanently leapfrogging all competitors is... Apple. Make the iPhone available to ALL cell companies and Android will be lost to the dustbin of time.
You might see that when there's a single chip that can handle 2G and 3G at all the frequencies that are in use worldwide with a power envelope that will preserve the iPhone's battery life...not before.
I would have said 4G, too, but that's too far in the future. Judging by the Thunderbolt reviews I've seen, the 4G-only chips are real power-guzzlers.
+1 +1 +1
¡Muchas Gracias!
(If it should be "Muito Obrigado" please forgive me.)
Honeybomb.
LOLz.
Mmmm sounds like a tasty new cereal...
Honeybombs... try it today!
First off, my experience. Flash sucks. Gotta love it but I'd prefer something more dependable
Andriod to me is like Windows (Have not worked with windows 7 though)
They are good open operation systems but require heavy upkeep and user knowledge. As well as time consuming to keep straight.
I recently bought an iPad for college because it's useful when I dont need my laptop. The iPad does what I want, it works. Taking what is equal to 20.5 hours on te semester system. I don't have time to be keeping my Andriod tablet working.
Andriod is nice for those who like specs and to mess with things (I used to).
Can't you use the MAC address?
I have nothing to do with the software. I don't know exactly how it works.
uh, why is this news? So you're saying "when a company stumbles, their competitors benefit"? Shocking.
The writer wants to put the words "unstable performance" into the Apple's fans vocabulary.
Cant you see the subliminal message?
HP ain;t build sh**! They bought Palm for the sole purpose of riding the tablet bandwagon.
Apple's iSO is the real effing deal.
Google, please. Just spare me. They are just trying to get more damn clicks.
Unnamed sources at unnamed manufactuers cite "unstable performance" yet provide no further details. Is there a story here other than that DigiTimes wrote an article?
My friend ordered his Motorola Xoom (yes, it does go on sale in a country other than the USA this weekend) a few weeks ago. Looks like there were a lot of people before him though, as the retailer has informed him that they have had high demand and are delaying his order.
Seems like it's not just iPad that will be hard to find in the coming weeks.
yeah right. the xoom is in high demand??? They only sold 100,000, is your head under the sand. Read the news story already, your friend must best dumb to order that crap.
I am so poor, that in the past 5 years I have purchased and Used various smart phone running Windows Mobile, Palm and Blackberry. I now am using an Android. My first real computer was a Macintosh and I spend 13 years from 1984 to 197 working with and for apple computer vendors. I understand the loyalty to the brand and I understand the problems inherent with evolving technologies.
After having my hands on an Android for the past 4 months and seeing the previews of the oncoming Android 3.0 Honeycomb, I can tell you that whatever "issues" they are having will eventually be worked out, but in the meanwhile it is by far the slickest most user friendly, OS I have ever had the delight to experience (yes including IOS as well).
I doubt that one technology can "own" the consumer market place for any length of time the way Microsoft has dominated the desktop market, but it seems obvious that Android will be the dominant smart phone platform for the foreseeable future.
I depend on my smart phone to perform time critical tasks that must be performed with no notice and finished on a web app within 30 seconds. My Android does the job, where Blackberry, Palm and Windows were generally only about 50% effective, in accomplishing the same tasks. As for the I-Phone, well I would never even consider it, I spent too many years buying the latest and greatest Apple equipment and in 97 when they released millions of defective computers with the 603e processor and wouldn't own up to it, I decided Apple's idea of brand loyalty is you buy from them at over inflated prices and when they do something wrong and you are paying for it you will be the last to know.
Google may not be any better when put to the test but just the fact that there is an alternative to Apple/IOS ought to be enough to convince million of abused Apple loyal to jump ship
Nice try dude, but you should definitely practice a bit more before you try to do any real-world astroturfing.
I'll give you one hint: if you sign up on an Apple-centric blog, to post your first comment ever, in a topic about a Honeycomb tablet, telling an obviously crafted, lengthy story about how you owned everything in the world the last 10 years, except any Apple products or a Honeycomb tablet, and which serves no other purpose besides being a prologue to some unrelated rant about how bad Apple is and how great Android works out for you, nobody will take you seriously.
You're not an Apple fan... you probably never had any loyalties to any thing. Using the Sculley years as a excuse is disingenuous. If you had any balls you'd just tell the true. You're a PC who hasn't any real reason to diss Mac so you make up fantasies to be cool. It doesn't work I see through you. You are a closet wanna be!
I usually depreciate ad hominems, but "a closet wanna be" enriches the English language.
Those of us who struggled gamely through the Scully years remember well the post-traumatic stress induced by simply upgrading the operating system.
'OSX rules OK'
Can't you use the MAC address?
MAC addresses are part of lower level networking layers than IP addresses, which means basically that TCP/IP packets are encapsulated in Ethernet packets. When those packets hit the router on your local network, the TCP/IP data is pulled out of the Ethernet packet and repackaged for transmission on the outside network. In other words, Web servers never see your MAC address.
MAC addresses are part of lower level networking layers than IP addresses, which means basically that TCP/IP packets are encapsulated in Ethernet packets. When those packets hit the router on your local network, the TCP/IP data is pulled out of the Ethernet packet and repackaged for transmission on the outside network. In other words, Web servers never see your MAC address.
For every new user that's registering look at the arp cache just like how u are tracking the ip for the mac addresses. Match the IP & MAC combo when blocking a ID.
I love the arguments Andriod vs Apple.
First off, my experience. Flash sucks. Gotta love it but I'd prefer something more dependable
Andriod to me is like Windows (Have not worked with windows 7 though)
They are good open operation systems but require heavy upkeep and user knowledge. As well as time consuming to keep straight.
I recently bought an iPad for college because it's useful when I dont need my laptop. The iPad does what I want, it works. Taking what is equal to 20.5 hours on te semester system. I don't have time to be keeping my Andriod tablet working.
Andriod is nice for those who like specs and to mess with things (I used to).
My dad uses an original Motorola Droid. He's not tech savvy at all (he works at a metal foundry that manufactures parts for Mac's ironically) He doesn't need any specific upkeep to keep his phone running, and the number of times he's called me to tech support help (beyond the "what was that app you showed me" calls is a rather small number.
For a majority of users, no matter what platform they choose, their phones are "set it an forget it" devices. It's only when you try doing more advanced things that you'll really start to gripe about one platform or another, and even then, if you spend a bit of time learning your phone initially, you won't have to worry about it. The problem comes when you go from one OS to the next and expect it to act EXACTLY the same as your old device.
For my father? You give him ANY phone with pandora, a decent web browser and a passable camera and he'll be happy. He's the average consumer. If I got him a iPhone he would most likely be just as happy as he currently is with his droid. It might take him a bit to get used to the new menu navigation, but he could do it.
The "it's ease of use" argument might sound nice on paper, but in reality it's not as significant as anyone makes it to be. Does iOS have a more consistent UI across the platform? Yes. Will most people, new to both platforms, care enough about it to make it a deal breaker? Not really.
...Amazon could easily create yet another splinter of Android to use on some future Kindle. And Amazon, unlike Google, has tons of content plus at least a hundred million credit card-owning customers in their database.
And most importantly, Amazon has vast experience in actually delivering media and goods to end-users. Something that Google is just barely getting a grip on. So yes, Google wants to keep the Amazons of the world from turning Android into a Google-killer. It could happen.
Your absolutely right, Amazon is the dark horse in this race. They are the only player with a fully blown content/commerce ecosystem to compete with Apples iStores. You can already consider their Kindle to be the second most successful 'tablet' in the market place (although they do not release sales numbers) and you can bet they will continue the evolve its feature set from a reader, to fully blown post-PC. Their launch of a Android App store is clear indication that they are ready and willing to play. Amazon, not Google, is the biggest threat to Apples financial dominance of the mobile computing market.
The only thing "open" about droid is that Google is openly trying to copy Apple's successful OS model. Yes, any random droid fan can download and 'make' their own private copy of Android. Which they can dick around with to their heart's content. Knock yourselves out.
Google doesn't care about droid hobbyists. But the do care about high-profile developers like Amazon. Amazon could easily create yet another splinter of Android to use on some future Kindle. And Amazon, unlike Google, has tons of content plus at least a hundred million credit card-owning customers in their database.
And most importantly, Amazon has vast experience in actually delivering media and goods to end-users. Something that Google is just barely getting a grip on. So yes, Google wants to keep the Amazons of the world from turning Android into a Google-killer. It could happen.
There is nothing preventing amazon from doing that, and nothing google is currently doing will prevent that. (see the Nook Color, which is Android).
The only thing Google can do is deny that Amazon device access to the Android Marketplace, as well as access to closed source apps like Gmail, Google Maps, voice, etc.
But Amazon already has their own marketplace. And they can use another version of maps if they want (or work out a payment system to get Google's)
Amazon could even update the OS of the device whenever the source code becomes available. Sure, they might not get early access, but neither do those small developers. Once code is AOSP, anyone can use it (even Apple/Rim/whoever, if they wanted to)
And if amazon goes this route, they're not the Google killer. Remember, Google makes their money from advertising on the web more than anything else. They don't make money from people putting Android on devices. As long as there are multiple players in the field, Google wins. The danger of their only being one player (like Apple) is that they could create their own ad platform and lock out Google, like Apple's trying to do with iAds on mobile apps.
My dad uses an original Motorola Droid. He's not tech savvy at all (he works at a metal foundry that manufactures parts for Mac's ironically) He doesn't need any specific upkeep to keep his phone running, and the number of times he's called me to tech support help (beyond the "what was that app you showed me" calls is a rather small number.
For a majority of users, no matter what platform they choose, their phones are "set it an forget it" devices. It's only when you try doing more advanced things that you'll really start to gripe about one platform or another, and even then, if you spend a bit of time learning your phone initially, you won't have to worry about it. The problem comes when you go from one OS to the next and expect it to act EXACTLY the same as your old device.
For my father? You give him ANY phone with pandora, a decent web browser and a passable camera and he'll be happy. He's the average consumer. If I got him a iPhone he would most likely be just as happy as he currently is with his droid. It might take him a bit to get used to the new menu navigation, but he could do it.
The "it's ease of use" argument might sound nice on paper, but in reality it's not as significant as anyone makes it to be. Does iOS have a more consistent UI across the platform? Yes. Will most people, new to both platforms, care enough about it to make it a deal breaker? Not really.
It don't see that as being entirely true. It depends on just how easy or difficult it is. WebOS is difficult. Android, being to a certain extent a copy of iOS, is about as easy as iOS itself on the basic level.
But when moving to tablets, it's different. If Google kept the basic Android UI it would have been better. There's no evidence yet that people want something noticeably more complex for the little extra it gives them. About the only thing I found better in Honeycomb was notifications, and I'm willing to bet that for most people the way Apple has been doing it is just fine. That doesn't mean that it can't be better, or that it shouldn't be better, just that most people don't care that much.
With so many people used to the way Android and iOS works and looks, I would imagine that given the fact of how poorly, if at all, Android apps work on Honeycomb, the advantage to Android users moving to that platform will be slight. Apple may have an advantage for Android users because the iPad is more similar to Android that Honeycomb itself is. At least on the basic level which is really what you are talking about.
It's nice to be able to get another device and just start using it rather than having to figure a number of things out all over again.
I'm not seeing Amazon helping Android yet. It may even make it more confusing for people. Apples advantages in the tablet space may negate Amazon's role.