So you feel that Coby Kryos tablets are an accurate representation of the Android tablet market as a whole?
Comparing the reported Android tablet sales v Android tablet usage it sure looks that way. It's certainly not the latest Samsung tablets that are setting the sales trend throughout the world.
Comparing the reported Android tablet sales v Android tablet usage it sure looks that way. It's certainly not the latest Samsung tablets that are setting the sales trend throughout the world.
If Coby Kryos tablets are a fair example of Android tablets and Samsung tablets aren't, would you care to share a source which shows that Coby Kryos tablets are outselling Samsung tablets? Just one would do.
If Coby Kryos tablets are a fair example of Android tablets and Samsung tablets aren't, would you care to share a source which shows that Coby Kryos tablets are outselling Samsung tablets? Just one would do.
Moving the goalposts yet again, I see. Now you want not just this brand, but this particular model by this brand to show that it's outselling all Samsung tablets even though the argument stated is that cheap Android tablets (like this one example) are why Android-based tablet sales are high and yet their usage reports are so very low. Fucking pathetic!
Moving the goalposts yet again, I see. Now you want not just this brand, but this particular model by this brand to show that it's outselling all Samsung tablets even though the argument stated is that cheap Android tablets (like this one example) are why Android-based tablet sales are high and yet their usage reports are so very low. Fucking pathetic!
No no no. You misunderstand. I thought we were talking all Coby Kryos tablets vs. all Samsung Tablets too. Where are you getting this individual model stuff from? It should also be noted that you've been the one to name these companies. You're the one who brought both of them up. You brought up Coby Kryos as being a fair representation of an Android tablet while claiming that Samsung tablets aren't. These are your statements. I'm merely asking you to back up your statements with evidence. I don't feel that asking for evidence to back up your claims is "fucking pathetic"
The issue of set top boxes may not be what Apple is up to at all. Given the net "out of band" model that is talked about there is another option. Apple headend device(s) to provide many of the services "locked" into other hardware products. Think about it. If Apple has been building out this network that is now known to deliver their exclusive content, why not circumvent most of the hardware upgrade cycle?
If I can upgrade services "in network" without hardware upgrades I can focus on revenue from content and enhanced services for my revenue stream. No less true for the cellular market where such a method is essential. This is a plan that makes sense and one the cable companies are all to familiar with in their endless incremental network upgrades. (The cable issues related to cable protocols.) The issue is not all IP or not, but service prioritization. In a more IP like structure MPLS would be a good architecture. ATM to cable head end to MPLS where traffic gets prioritized and on to the home or business. No need for a messy cable architecture that, while it is working, it is not consistent with other non cable networks and services.
Let's face it, ALL network traffic gets prioritized. It is the way the communications infrastructure works. Cable lacks many basic communication protocols that would benefit neutrality without the mess.
No no no. You misunderstand. I thought we were talking all Coby Kryos tablets vs. all Samsung Tablets. It should also be noted that you've been the one to name these companies. You're the one who brought both of them up. You brought up Coby Kryos as a fair representation of an Android tablet while claiming that Samsung tablets aren't. These are your statements. I'm merely asking you to back up your statements with evidence. I don't feel that asking for evidence to back up your claims is "fucking pathetic"
Oh, I understand what yore trying to do with your shell game logic but it's not going to work here. We are talking why Android tablets are mostly sold for well under $100 worldwide with old HW that predates the original iPad and using an version of Android that was designed and released for a smartphone many years ago. I clearly referred to various vendors and supplied an example because I like to back up my arguments with proof.
You can't just disown the cousin you think brings embarrassment to the family name.
Agreed, you can't just say that the cousin isn't a part of the family, but you also can't say that the cousin is a fair representation of the whole family name.
Quote:
Originally Posted by SolipsismX
Oh, I understand what yore trying to do with your shell game logic but it's not going to work here. We are talking why Android tablets are mostly sold for well under $100 worldwide with old HW that predates the original iPad and using an version of Android that was designed and released for a smartphone many years ago. I clearly referred to various vendors and supplied an example because I like to back up my arguments with proof.
So we're back to the 'tablets that run on yesterdays HW with yesterdays OS are crap' argument? I agree with that one. I believe I even said as much earlier.
So you feel that Coby Kryos tablets are an accurate representation of the Android tablet market as a whole?
You are deliberately being obtuse, right?
You said you can buy a first generation iPad, which won't run iOS 7.1 officially.
The point SolipsismX is making is that you cannot 'officially' buy a first gen. iPad since Apple does not sell any.
Your point is about as valid as buying an Apple ][ from somewhere and saying it doesn't run Mavericks and then say the Apple ][ is crap.
SolipsismX gave you a link to a tablet that is manufactured by a company that has been on sale since less than a year ago, which runs Android 2.3.
You are implying that it isn't representative of Android as a whole, but isn't each one of these tablets sold by Coby counted in the Android Market Share?
Your initial argument was about how iPads are also crap tablets since they do not have the latest iOS and you provide a throwaway line that you can get a 1st gen. iPad as proof of your shaky claim.
Once you have been called out, you work overtime to move the goal posts, while deliberately appearing obtuse as you try to come up with something that resembles a sound argument.
You said you can buy a first generation iPad, which won't run iOS 7.1 officially.
The point SolipsismX is making is that you cannot 'officially' buy a first gen. iPad since Apple does not sell any.
Your point is about as valid as buying an Apple ][ from somewhere and saying it doesn't run Mavericks and then say the Apple ][ is crap.
SolipsismX gave you a link to a tablet that is manufactured by a company that has been on sale since less than a year ago, which runs Android 2.3.
You are implying that it isn't representative of Android as a whole, but isn't each one of these tablets sold by Coby counted in the Android Market Share?
Your initial argument was about how iPads are also crap tablets since they do not have the latest iOS and you provide a throwaway line that you can get a 1st gen. iPad as proof of your shaky claim.
Once you have been called out, you work overtime to move the goal posts, while deliberately appearing obtuse as you try to come up with something that resembles a sound argument.
I’ve noticed a fair amount of misrepresenting my position and then trying to claim that I move the goal posts when I don’t stick to the position I’m told that I have. I see you’re misrepresenting my position as well. Allow me to clarify a few things:
1) I never said that iPads are crap tablets. I said that a large number of Android tablets and iPads are crap. There’s a big difference. I don't think iPads are crap tablets.
2) Soli’s point about buying tablets only thru "official" means is completely irrelevant to what was being discussed. Whether someone bought a tablet direct from the maker, from a third party retailer, or a local purchase from a friend has no bearing on the quality of the tablet.
3) RE: Coby tablets being counted in Android Market Share. Yes, I'd imagine that they are. If their tablets connect to the Google Play Store then they’re included in Google’s figures as well. The question then becomes, how much of that share? If Samsung tablets outsell Coby tablets, then wouldn’t Samsung be a better choice to represent your average Android tablet? If you were to go out and ask people to name Android tablet manufacturers, do you think you’ll get names like Samsung or no-names like Coby?
4) My point always was and still is that a tablet running on yesterday's hardware and yesterday's OS can be considered useless crap in comparison to those that are running on today's hardware and today's OS. With that in mind, Eric's claim that "a large number of Android tablets are useless crap" is certainly true, but it doesn't really say much. One could also easily say that a large number of Apple tablets are useless crap and it would also be true. It also wouldn't be saying anything of importance.
I’ve noticed a fair amount of misrepresenting my position and then trying to claim that I move the goal posts when I don’t stick to the position I’m told that I have. I see you’re misrepresenting my position as well. Allow me to clarify a few things:
1) I never said that iPads are crap tablets. I said that a large number of Android tablets and iPads are crap. There’s a big difference. I don't think iPads are crap tablets.
2) Soli’s point about buying tablets only thru "official" means is completely irrelevant to what was being discussed. Whether someone bought a tablet direct from the maker, from a third party retailer, or a local purchase from a friend has no bearing on the quality of the tablet.
3) RE: Coby tablets being counted in Android Market Share. Yes, I'd imagine that they are. If their tablets connect to the Google Play Store then they’re included in Google’s figures as well. The question then becomes, how much of that share? If Samsung tablets outsell Coby tablets, then wouldn’t Samsung be a better choice to represent your average Android tablet? If you were to go out and ask people to name Android tablet manufacturers, do you think you’ll get names like Samsung or no-names like Coby?
4) My point always was and still is that a tablet running on yesterday's hardware and yesterday's OS can be considered useless crap in comparison to those that are running on today's hardware and today's OS. With that in mind, Eric's claim that "a large number of Android tablets are useless crap" is certainly true, but it doesn't really say much. One could also easily say that a large number of Apple tablets are useless crap and it would also be true. It also wouldn't be saying anything of importance.
The major point made by the analysts (I think Gartner started it) was that iPad was outnumbered by White Box cheap pads. Until they invented this category, in my opinion making their statistics pointless because only a fairly minor percentage is named, they reported iPads as owning the market. So far I have not seen any statistics where named Android brands are not outnumbered by iPads. Based on this statistics your Coby vs Samsung comparison makes very little sense as the no-name brands are the typical Android tablets.
I also find your position that iPad, a discontinued product, available second hand at ebay, proves that iPads are not up to date system-wise is hilarious, and event tempting, not worth any further comment!
I also find your position that iPad, a discontinued product, available second hand at ebay, proves that iPads are not up to date system-wise is hilarious, and event tempting, not worth any further comment!
Here we go again with the misrepresenting what I say thing. Instead of continually repeating myself I'll try a different approach. Please show me where I said that iPad's are not up to date system wise.
Simple: nothing. Not only do they target separate market segments with separate price points ($35 versus $99) but they are actually different devices. Chromecast is a mirroring device that cannot operate independently of a smartphone, tablet or PC...
Meanwhile, Google TV is a standalone device...
blah blah blah
Hmmm ... wonder what DED and the Google/Android bashers would have to say about that development. It will be much harder, after all, to Google Internet "a stolen product" ...
Why I expect they would say that Apple TV is both these things, a combination of Chromecast and Google TV in one device.
Coby Kryos? Who's that? I think you may be the one making a stretch for an argument this time if you're trying to paint that Coby Kryos tablet as being a good representation of Android as a whole. Also, it looks like it's running yesterday's HW running on yesterday's OS. That would fall in line with what I was saying above yet somehow you think this doesn't?
Now, if you or Eric would like to go on a "a large number of Coby Kryos tablets are useless crap" campaign, then by all means be my guest. You may not find too much resistance on that one. Heck, you two might even be able to get away with a "most Coby Kryos tablets are useless crap" campaign!
It would fall into the category of "other" where all the growth in Android tablet sales is occurring.
Here we go again with the misrepresenting what I say thing. Instead of continually repeating myself I'll try a different approach. Please show me where I said that iPad's are not up to date system wise.
When you said you can buy an iPad NOW, which won't run the latest version of iOS.
As far as I know the only place to get a first gen iPad is on the second hand market.
I bought a brand new iPad 2 last week for some relatives from Fiji, it came with iOS 7 and updated to iOS 7.1.
It more than exceeded their needs, now they want two more they are reasonably priced and work a lot better than the cheap Android junk that comprises most of it's marketshare.
The thing is they never thought they could afford Apple.
Comments
Comparing the reported Android tablet sales v Android tablet usage it sure looks that way. It's certainly not the latest Samsung tablets that are setting the sales trend throughout the world.
Comparing the reported Android tablet sales v Android tablet usage it sure looks that way. It's certainly not the latest Samsung tablets that are setting the sales trend throughout the world.
If Coby Kryos tablets are a fair example of Android tablets and Samsung tablets aren't, would you care to share a source which shows that Coby Kryos tablets are outselling Samsung tablets? Just one would do.
Moving the goalposts yet again, I see. Now you want not just this brand, but this particular model by this brand to show that it's outselling all Samsung tablets even though the argument stated is that cheap Android tablets (like this one example) are why Android-based tablet sales are high and yet their usage reports are so very low. Fucking pathetic!
Moving the goalposts yet again, I see. Now you want not just this brand, but this particular model by this brand to show that it's outselling all Samsung tablets even though the argument stated is that cheap Android tablets (like this one example) are why Android-based tablet sales are high and yet their usage reports are so very low. Fucking pathetic!
No no no. You misunderstand. I thought we were talking all Coby Kryos tablets vs. all Samsung Tablets too. Where are you getting this individual model stuff from? It should also be noted that you've been the one to name these companies. You're the one who brought both of them up. You brought up Coby Kryos as being a fair representation of an Android tablet while claiming that Samsung tablets aren't. These are your statements. I'm merely asking you to back up your statements with evidence. I don't feel that asking for evidence to back up your claims is "fucking pathetic"
If I can upgrade services "in network" without hardware upgrades I can focus on revenue from content and enhanced services for my revenue stream. No less true for the cellular market where such a method is essential. This is a plan that makes sense and one the cable companies are all to familiar with in their endless incremental network upgrades. (The cable issues related to cable protocols.) The issue is not all IP or not, but service prioritization. In a more IP like structure MPLS would be a good architecture. ATM to cable head end to MPLS where traffic gets prioritized and on to the home or business. No need for a messy cable architecture that, while it is working, it is not consistent with other non cable networks and services.
Let's face it, ALL network traffic gets prioritized. It is the way the communications infrastructure works. Cable lacks many basic communication protocols that would benefit neutrality without the mess.
You can't just disown the cousin you think brings embarrassment to the family name.
Oh, I understand what yore trying to do with your shell game logic but it's not going to work here. We are talking why Android tablets are mostly sold for well under $100 worldwide with old HW that predates the original iPad and using an version of Android that was designed and released for a smartphone many years ago. I clearly referred to various vendors and supplied an example because I like to back up my arguments with proof.
Quote:
You can't just disown the cousin you think brings embarrassment to the family name.
Agreed, you can't just say that the cousin isn't a part of the family, but you also can't say that the cousin is a fair representation of the whole family name.
Oh, I understand what yore trying to do with your shell game logic but it's not going to work here. We are talking why Android tablets are mostly sold for well under $100 worldwide with old HW that predates the original iPad and using an version of Android that was designed and released for a smartphone many years ago. I clearly referred to various vendors and supplied an example because I like to back up my arguments with proof.
So we're back to the 'tablets that run on yesterdays HW with yesterdays OS are crap' argument? I agree with that one. I believe I even said as much earlier.
I'm taking low end at face value, the simplest meaning of the words. I'm not the one altering its meaning.
So, the Sharp 4K monitor they are selling to go with the Mac Pro in the Apple Store is "low end" because it's the only one?
I dunno, but $3,600 for a 32" display doesn't really sound "low end" to me.
So you feel that Coby Kryos tablets are an accurate representation of the Android tablet market as a whole?
You are deliberately being obtuse, right?
You said you can buy a first generation iPad, which won't run iOS 7.1 officially.
The point SolipsismX is making is that you cannot 'officially' buy a first gen. iPad since Apple does not sell any.
Your point is about as valid as buying an Apple ][ from somewhere and saying it doesn't run Mavericks and then say the Apple ][ is crap.
SolipsismX gave you a link to a tablet that is manufactured by a company that has been on sale since less than a year ago, which runs Android 2.3.
You are implying that it isn't representative of Android as a whole, but isn't each one of these tablets sold by Coby counted in the Android Market Share?
Your initial argument was about how iPads are also crap tablets since they do not have the latest iOS and you provide a throwaway line that you can get a 1st gen. iPad as proof of your shaky claim.
Once you have been called out, you work overtime to move the goal posts, while deliberately appearing obtuse as you try to come up with something that resembles a sound argument.
You are deliberately being obtuse, right?
You said you can buy a first generation iPad, which won't run iOS 7.1 officially.
The point SolipsismX is making is that you cannot 'officially' buy a first gen. iPad since Apple does not sell any.
Your point is about as valid as buying an Apple ][ from somewhere and saying it doesn't run Mavericks and then say the Apple ][ is crap.
SolipsismX gave you a link to a tablet that is manufactured by a company that has been on sale since less than a year ago, which runs Android 2.3.
You are implying that it isn't representative of Android as a whole, but isn't each one of these tablets sold by Coby counted in the Android Market Share?
Your initial argument was about how iPads are also crap tablets since they do not have the latest iOS and you provide a throwaway line that you can get a 1st gen. iPad as proof of your shaky claim.
Once you have been called out, you work overtime to move the goal posts, while deliberately appearing obtuse as you try to come up with something that resembles a sound argument.
I’ve noticed a fair amount of misrepresenting my position and then trying to claim that I move the goal posts when I don’t stick to the position I’m told that I have. I see you’re misrepresenting my position as well. Allow me to clarify a few things:
1) I never said that iPads are crap tablets. I said that a large number of Android tablets and iPads are crap. There’s a big difference. I don't think iPads are crap tablets.
2) Soli’s point about buying tablets only thru "official" means is completely irrelevant to what was being discussed. Whether someone bought a tablet direct from the maker, from a third party retailer, or a local purchase from a friend has no bearing on the quality of the tablet.
3) RE: Coby tablets being counted in Android Market Share. Yes, I'd imagine that they are. If their tablets connect to the Google Play Store then they’re included in Google’s figures as well. The question then becomes, how much of that share? If Samsung tablets outsell Coby tablets, then wouldn’t Samsung be a better choice to represent your average Android tablet? If you were to go out and ask people to name Android tablet manufacturers, do you think you’ll get names like Samsung or no-names like Coby?
4) My point always was and still is that a tablet running on yesterday's hardware and yesterday's OS can be considered useless crap in comparison to those that are running on today's hardware and today's OS. With that in mind, Eric's claim that "a large number of Android tablets are useless crap" is certainly true, but it doesn't really say much. One could also easily say that a large number of Apple tablets are useless crap and it would also be true. It also wouldn't be saying anything of importance.
I’ve noticed a fair amount of misrepresenting my position and then trying to claim that I move the goal posts when I don’t stick to the position I’m told that I have. I see you’re misrepresenting my position as well. Allow me to clarify a few things:
1) I never said that iPads are crap tablets. I said that a large number of Android tablets and iPads are crap. There’s a big difference. I don't think iPads are crap tablets.
2) Soli’s point about buying tablets only thru "official" means is completely irrelevant to what was being discussed. Whether someone bought a tablet direct from the maker, from a third party retailer, or a local purchase from a friend has no bearing on the quality of the tablet.
3) RE: Coby tablets being counted in Android Market Share. Yes, I'd imagine that they are. If their tablets connect to the Google Play Store then they’re included in Google’s figures as well. The question then becomes, how much of that share? If Samsung tablets outsell Coby tablets, then wouldn’t Samsung be a better choice to represent your average Android tablet? If you were to go out and ask people to name Android tablet manufacturers, do you think you’ll get names like Samsung or no-names like Coby?
4) My point always was and still is that a tablet running on yesterday's hardware and yesterday's OS can be considered useless crap in comparison to those that are running on today's hardware and today's OS. With that in mind, Eric's claim that "a large number of Android tablets are useless crap" is certainly true, but it doesn't really say much. One could also easily say that a large number of Apple tablets are useless crap and it would also be true. It also wouldn't be saying anything of importance.
The major point made by the analysts (I think Gartner started it) was that iPad was outnumbered by White Box cheap pads. Until they invented this category, in my opinion making their statistics pointless because only a fairly minor percentage is named, they reported iPads as owning the market. So far I have not seen any statistics where named Android brands are not outnumbered by iPads. Based on this statistics your Coby vs Samsung comparison makes very little sense as the no-name brands are the typical Android tablets.
I also find your position that iPad, a discontinued product, available second hand at ebay, proves that iPads are not up to date system-wise is hilarious, and event tempting, not worth any further comment!
Here we go again with the misrepresenting what I say thing. Instead of continually repeating myself I'll try a different approach. Please show me where I said that iPad's are not up to date system wise.
Absolutely agree.
First company to offer porn apps or channels wins.
Period.
Mirror porn from iPad, iPhone, Mac...
...Apple TV wins.
What does Google TV mean for Chromecast?
Simple: nothing. Not only do they target separate market segments with separate price points ($35 versus $99) but they are actually different devices. Chromecast is a mirroring device that cannot operate independently of a smartphone, tablet or PC...
Meanwhile, Google TV is a standalone device...
blah blah blah
Hmmm ... wonder what DED and the Google/Android bashers would have to say about that development. It will be much harder, after all, to Google Internet "a stolen product" ...
Why I expect they would say that Apple TV is both these things, a combination of Chromecast and Google TV in one device.
Coby Kryos? Who's that? I think you may be the one making a stretch for an argument this time if you're trying to paint that Coby Kryos tablet as being a good representation of Android as a whole. Also, it looks like it's running yesterday's HW running on yesterday's OS. That would fall in line with what I was saying above yet somehow you think this doesn't?
Now, if you or Eric would like to go on a "a large number of Coby Kryos tablets are useless crap" campaign, then by all means be my guest. You may not find too much resistance on that one. Heck, you two might even be able to get away with a "most Coby Kryos tablets are useless crap" campaign!
It would fall into the category of "other" where all the growth in Android tablet sales is occurring.
How much more of the "other" is junk like this?
Going on usage statistics, quite a lot.
Here we go again with the misrepresenting what I say thing. Instead of continually repeating myself I'll try a different approach. Please show me where I said that iPad's are not up to date system wise.
When you said you can buy an iPad NOW, which won't run the latest version of iOS.
As far as I know the only place to get a first gen iPad is on the second hand market.
I bought a brand new iPad 2 last week for some relatives from Fiji, it came with iOS 7 and updated to iOS 7.1.
It more than exceeded their needs, now they want two more they are reasonably priced and work a lot better than the cheap Android junk that comprises most of it's marketshare.
The thing is they never thought they could afford Apple.
But they did change the name Newton to iPad for their tablet.
Have you ever said "that's the low end of high end"? I know I have plenty of times.