I'm an Apple fanboi by pointing out that his $99 dollar Android tablet is a piece of shit yet there are all sorts of sites that will back me up with their reviews that say the same thing? Also, I've never bought or owned an Apple device in my entire life and I currently use a Galaxy S as my phone so applying the fanboi label to me seems odd. You Android zealots are quite cute though. Keep flailing, it's pretty funny.
Nobody can say whether Tmobile gained as many from android as it lost from iphone because nobody has any fucking clue.
Now you're trying to change your claim. Your claim was that the G1 was some great attractor of new customers, yet it's highly anemic sales would beg to differ. Now you're trying to expand it to Android in general. Make up your mind on what you are trying to argue.
So did you have some point to this post? The point is that despite supposedly "fighting for freedom" Google still widely uses H.264. VP8 seems to be nothing more than Google's way to make more money by pushing a video format into home entertainment devices and by being able to more easily monetize WebM videos. It's funny how so many people buy this bogus shit about "freedom" from a corporation who uses little crumbs thrown at the FOSS community in order to placate them whilst bringing in more fists full of money.
They're also the only browser with Chrome to fight bad the big guys and doesn't support the evil H.264 - someones have to fight for our rights!
Chrome still supports H.264 as of current versions. Youtube still uses H.264. The Youtube App for Android and iOS still supports H.264 streaming. Google Video still supports H.264. So what rights are they fighting? All I see is Google using VP8 to get all sorts of deals with entertainment companies and hardware manufacturers to make themselves more money.
And very few people really think this outside of marketeers. Almost anyone I've met who has an iPad also has a laptop and doesn't have any plans to give their's up which clearly shows that this idea that all tablet owners think this is overly exaggerated bullshit.
So clearly every car before the Ford Model T selling poorly indicates cars were a dumb idea with no potential right?
No, but if those cars underwent numerous iterations and new models and THEN still failed to sell (just like what has happened with convertible laptops) than YES they are shown to have no sales potential. Convertible tablets have been out for a year and there are numerous models (well beyond the number of models for the current crop of well-selling tablets) and yet these newer tablets at many times the cost are lapping those convertible laptops in sales.
So basically despite after a decade of anemic sales for convertible laptops (none of which have had sales anywhere near that of recent tablets) they are clearly the future, right!?
You can hardly say T-Mobile gained as many customers from the G1 as AT&T did from the iPhone.
Well of course he can and he got modded insightful to boot! The Android faithful (I do own a Galaxy S myself but I'm not some Android/Google worshipper like many on Slashdot) eat up such unevidenced claims like it's candy when it bashes Apple and the iPhone.
I would bet the low-end smart phone (later in G1 cycle, various mytouch phones) coupled with the cheap data plan does gelp Tmobile a lot.
I don't doubt they probably do. His claim was specifically over the G1 which had piss poor sales. The iPhone 3G, 3GS and 4 all had more sales in a week then the G1 had over it's lifetime.
Yeah, and your $99 android tablet is probably one of those cheap Chinese junkers that has a sluggish UI and shitty apps. But hey, keep crowing that you bought a piece of crap. I'm sure someday someone will be impressed.
Yes, because if someone enjoys a device that you spurn and look down on that clearly means they have to be "trend-happy followers". It can't possibly be because the device provides them something of value.
You mean the past right? Many of the models on there have been out for 5-6 years by this point and not one of them has sold as many as just the sale from the original iPad.
Supposedly 1.5 million, but that took nearly a year to achieve. Even before the Euro launch of the iPhone, Apple and AT&T had sold 1.5 million iPhones in under 6 months. Let's not even get into the fact that the iPhone 2G, 3G, 3GS and 4Gs all sold more than a million within like 3 days of launch.
What a joke of an article. It only looks at customers lost from the iphone, and not customers gained once tmobile picked up the G1, their first android phone.
And how many did they gain from the G1? Do you have any figures or are you just assuming that a bunch of people will just agree with you without asking for evidence? Anyway, it took 6 months for the G1 to even reach 1 million sales for T-Mobile. The original iPhone, on the other hand, had sold 1 million units in 74 days for Apple and AT&T in the US. So sorry, I don't buy your claims of the G1 being some huge customer gainer when it had anemic sales in comparison to the iPhone. But if you have some actual evidence to the contrary, like a quarterly report from T-Mobile that says something to back you up, please present it rather than your speculation.
Yes, because it was being sold by a company who didn't have the publishing rights to do so. All users who had purchased the book also had their money refunded after Amazon responded to the issue. But hey, make it sound like it was completely baseless and arbitrary on Amazon's part rather include all the facts.
They were issued a trademark and trademark law says you must defend your mark or lose it. You can dispute the merits of them being issued the mark, but the law itself compels them into this suit or they lose their mark.
Yes, and they have significantly more money to spend and have spent on infrastructure to support the extra load of all that HTTPS traffic. Not everyone running a website or webhosting company, though, is the size or has the resources, time, etc of a Google, Facebook or Twitter to support all HTTPS.
What I won't do is pay a stupid (to me) price for a book I can read on one device, for as long as the publisher deigns to allow me to read it on that one device.
And what e-book format can only be read on one device? Pretty much all e-book formats (PDF, e-pub, even Amazon's) can be read on e-readers, computers, phones, etc. All of them can also be decrypted if you want and you can then convert them however you want. The only way you would be restricted is by your own ignorance.
They actually make money, which means they can be legitimately valued.
They may have revenue at something like $700 million in revenue but according to reports about the company they make very little profit. Nothing that seems to warrant a $25 billion IPO.
Slashdot Mirror
I'm an Apple fanboi by pointing out that his $99 dollar Android tablet is a piece of shit yet there are all sorts of sites that will back me up with their reviews that say the same thing? Also, I've never bought or owned an Apple device in my entire life and I currently use a Galaxy S as my phone so applying the fanboi label to me seems odd. You Android zealots are quite cute though. Keep flailing, it's pretty funny.
Nobody can say whether Tmobile gained as many from android as it lost from iphone because nobody has any fucking clue.
Now you're trying to change your claim. Your claim was that the G1 was some great attractor of new customers, yet it's highly anemic sales would beg to differ. Now you're trying to expand it to Android in general. Make up your mind on what you are trying to argue.
OMG!!!! It's true! Having premium content is just the same as a brutal dictatorship attempting to censor and quash dissent!!
Wow, way to be an idiot.
So did you have some point to this post? The point is that despite supposedly "fighting for freedom" Google still widely uses H.264. VP8 seems to be nothing more than Google's way to make more money by pushing a video format into home entertainment devices and by being able to more easily monetize WebM videos. It's funny how so many people buy this bogus shit about "freedom" from a corporation who uses little crumbs thrown at the FOSS community in order to placate them whilst bringing in more fists full of money.
They're also the only browser with Chrome to fight bad the big guys and doesn't support the evil H.264 - someones have to fight for our rights!
Chrome still supports H.264 as of current versions. Youtube still uses H.264. The Youtube App for Android and iOS still supports H.264 streaming. Google Video still supports H.264. So what rights are they fighting? All I see is Google using VP8 to get all sorts of deals with entertainment companies and hardware manufacturers to make themselves more money.
And very few people really think this outside of marketeers. Almost anyone I've met who has an iPad also has a laptop and doesn't have any plans to give their's up which clearly shows that this idea that all tablet owners think this is overly exaggerated bullshit.
Convertible tablets have been out for a year
Out for about a decade was what I meant.
So clearly every car before the Ford Model T selling poorly indicates cars were a dumb idea with no potential right?
No, but if those cars underwent numerous iterations and new models and THEN still failed to sell (just like what has happened with convertible laptops) than YES they are shown to have no sales potential. Convertible tablets have been out for a year and there are numerous models (well beyond the number of models for the current crop of well-selling tablets) and yet these newer tablets at many times the cost are lapping those convertible laptops in sales.
Have the early, bleeding-edge, expensive examples of anything ever sold well?
Yes.
So basically despite after a decade of anemic sales for convertible laptops (none of which have had sales anywhere near that of recent tablets) they are clearly the future, right!?
Before someone corrects me, I know there is no 2G that was due to some bad copy paste.
You can hardly say T-Mobile gained as many customers from the G1 as AT&T did from the iPhone.
Well of course he can and he got modded insightful to boot! The Android faithful (I do own a Galaxy S myself but I'm not some Android/Google worshipper like many on Slashdot) eat up such unevidenced claims like it's candy when it bashes Apple and the iPhone.
I would bet the low-end smart phone (later in G1 cycle, various mytouch phones) coupled with the cheap data plan does gelp Tmobile a lot.
I don't doubt they probably do. His claim was specifically over the G1 which had piss poor sales. The iPhone 3G, 3GS and 4 all had more sales in a week then the G1 had over it's lifetime.
Yeah, and your $99 android tablet is probably one of those cheap Chinese junkers that has a sluggish UI and shitty apps. But hey, keep crowing that you bought a piece of crap. I'm sure someday someone will be impressed.
Yes, because if someone enjoys a device that you spurn and look down on that clearly means they have to be "trend-happy followers". It can't possibly be because the device provides them something of value.
The future is convertible laptops. Mark my words.
You mean the past right? Many of the models on there have been out for 5-6 years by this point and not one of them has sold as many as just the sale from the original iPad.
DT is selling because it is having money issues and $39 billion goes a long way to helping that.
Supposedly 1.5 million, but that took nearly a year to achieve. Even before the Euro launch of the iPhone, Apple and AT&T had sold 1.5 million iPhones in under 6 months. Let's not even get into the fact that the iPhone 2G, 3G, 3GS and 4Gs all sold more than a million within like 3 days of launch.
What a joke of an article. It only looks at customers lost from the iphone, and not customers gained once tmobile picked up the G1, their first android phone.
And how many did they gain from the G1? Do you have any figures or are you just assuming that a bunch of people will just agree with you without asking for evidence? Anyway, it took 6 months for the G1 to even reach 1 million sales for T-Mobile. The original iPhone, on the other hand, had sold 1 million units in 74 days for Apple and AT&T in the US. So sorry, I don't buy your claims of the G1 being some huge customer gainer when it had anemic sales in comparison to the iPhone. But if you have some actual evidence to the contrary, like a quarterly report from T-Mobile that says something to back you up, please present it rather than your speculation.
Yes, because it was being sold by a company who didn't have the publishing rights to do so. All users who had purchased the book also had their money refunded after Amazon responded to the issue. But hey, make it sound like it was completely baseless and arbitrary on Amazon's part rather include all the facts.
They were issued a trademark and trademark law says you must defend your mark or lose it. You can dispute the merits of them being issued the mark, but the law itself compels them into this suit or they lose their mark.
Yes, and they have significantly more money to spend and have spent on infrastructure to support the extra load of all that HTTPS traffic. Not everyone running a website or webhosting company, though, is the size or has the resources, time, etc of a Google, Facebook or Twitter to support all HTTPS.
What I won't do is pay a stupid (to me) price for a book I can read on one device, for as long as the publisher deigns to allow me to read it on that one device.
And what e-book format can only be read on one device? Pretty much all e-book formats (PDF, e-pub, even Amazon's) can be read on e-readers, computers, phones, etc. All of them can also be decrypted if you want and you can then convert them however you want. The only way you would be restricted is by your own ignorance.
Also there's the opposite example of the man who earned ~$10 million by selling his books for just one dollar each.
And that guy would be? It's amazing that this opposite example comes with absolutely no citation!
They actually make money, which means they can be legitimately valued.
They may have revenue at something like $700 million in revenue but according to reports about the company they make very little profit. Nothing that seems to warrant a $25 billion IPO.