Someone (Ars? Dailytech?) yesterday said that the G1 sold 100k in its first weekend. So compared to the Android debut, it seems like WP7 is roughly equivalent in initial sales.
Yes, but the G1 with Android was the absolute first of its kind from Google. People didn't quite know what to expect & word of mouth needed to get around before it became successful.
This is NOT Microsofts first foray into the phone world & they have already built up a reputation that should have helped their phone sales, but didn't.
The fact that it's on par sales wise with a platform that was a COMPLETE unknown to me says a lot about its long term longevity.
You didn't comprehend my argument. The key factor here is that WP7 is a new platform. Early adopters for this type of product are mostly users who have advanced needs and want the best product. Average users aren't interested in a new platform because the either don't know about it or are too nervous to adopt.
WHOA! Insulting much! You're failing to comprehend that the iPhone numbers above were from the ORIGINAL iPhone, you know the platform that was NEW when it launched! Microsoft has been around long enough that it has its own share of fanboys that should have been buying its stuff.
The iPhone and Google's phones were hyped badly before launch; highly anticipated; no wonder they sold well.
Exactly. There was no hype at all around Windows Phone 7. None. Nada. Zilch. That explains all those TV commercials, launch parties, paid shills like Paul Thurrott and Co. touting Windows 7 Phone as the second coming of Zeus.
I saw tons of ads on TV for WP7. I had seen ZERO ads for the G1 before i bought it. It was all stuff on tech. sites that got me interested.
Well I've heard complaints about Android and iOS and their stores and the ways each locks down apps etc, different OS versions (for Android). But I haven't heard anything bad about WP7! But then again at the time it hadn't been released yet... so that was probably why... >_>
The Android market only shows you the apps that will work on your version of the OS, it shouldn't be a big deal since the apps you see should theoretically work.
The beef people have with Android market "locking down apps" is that they DON'T. The Apple fanboys want them to lock it down for the safety of the end user just as the Android fanboys want Apple to open up their market.
Android is not completely free (there are things the handset makers agree to in order to use it) but probably much cheaper than WM6 was.
They don't have to agree to anything to use Android at all. If they want to bundle Google software with it and have that device access the Android Market, THEN they need to agree to certain things.
The Samsung Fascinate had some Google products removed (search and maps) by default and Google STILL allowed them access to everything.
Agreed. I only buy from Steam when I find a deal that I just can't pass up (and that is generally at least half off retail, usually more).
I recently picked up a few games for ~$2.50 each that retail at $15-20 and I'm happy with that decision.
I've also bought games like Left For Dead I & II in the past, but I paid less than $20 for the two games. At that price, my net price is lower than it would have been had I bought em retail and then re-sold them when I was done with them. My price was probably cheaper than buying it used and then reselling it again. Once again, happy with my decision.
But, I just can't see paying retail on a game that I have absolutely no control over and that is defective by design.
But, wouldn't it be nice to take the people you're friends with on Facebook and directly add them into your address book?
It's significantly easier than harvesting the data from Facebook yourself (I've done it and it takes forever!)
Facebook NOW has a find friends feature. It takes the contacts in your address book and tries to find matches using their name/email address. How is this a bad thing? It makes it easier for you and you get to choose the people from that list that you want to friend without doing the extra work
It's not two way. You can't edit a Facebook contact afterall and you can't directly copy out the information to a contact.
If Google gets their way, you can directly import all of your Facebook contacts (or just the ones you want) and be able to add additional information with the Facebook info as a starting point.
Exactly! I had to do the same. If you want to send an email to someone thats a facebook friend, you've got to look them up and it's a PITA (compared to just sending them an email).
Personally, I'd much prefer Google having access to everyone I know than Facebook. It just sucks that Buzz sucks so horribly that it never really took off.
A hundred or so dollars? That would be less than what it would cost to buy all the songs she had from Amazon or iTunes. To be reasonable, a settlement has to be at least hight enough to make it so that obeying the law is better financially than disobeying and settling.
Um...........She ripped off 24 songs. At $1 each, $100 is more than 4x than the value of the items she shared.
I would say that paying 4x the value of a bunch of crappy songs is adequate punishment (well, the fee plus publishing the list of what you shared).
- Your phone likewise. I won't listen in on conversations unless I happen to be within earshot. I won't be overreacting to what seems to be natural kid stuff. Sexting and nudies we need to talk about. You will surrender your phone to me if I ask for it, even if you 'pay' for it.
OK, If you intercept child porn or "nudies" then you are in posession of child pornography. Have fun with that & make sure you don't delete it, that's a felony!
Why should your kid surrender their phone to you? If you don't pay for it, it's their property and their money that you are wasting every second that you are in possession of it.
If you were willing to pro-rate the money they lost and give it back to them, it wouldn't be so horrible, but a parent who acts like you propose to generally isn't the type of person who would be willing to do that.
Unfortunately all Chrome's rapid release schedule does is make more users think updating is a waste of time after they go through 8 'updates' and they can't notice a single difference.
Updates are seamless. The end user doesn't even know that they've been updated, unless they check (and honestly, why would they).
Then how about you put your money where your mouth is?
The current world record for fastest texting was accomplished using Swype.
If you can do it so much better, DO IT and get that title taken away from swype. Until then, it's the fastest because its been proven to be. NoseyNick saying "I'm faster!11!!!1!!" wasn't the only requirement.
The market only shows you apps that should work on your device.
Therefor, EVERY app you download should work properly.
It is of course somewhat dependent on the dev. coding properly [no insult intended, please don't take one] and also on the hardware manufacturer not mucking around with apis.
When Windows XP came out, it ran slower than Windows 98 on identical hardware.
On modern hardware, Windows 7 outperforms Windows XP, especially when you use the x64 version with more than 4 gigs of RAM.
Of course people won't spend a buttload of cash upgrading an old system, but 6 months after the a new Windows OS comes out, the hardware you can buy off the shelf will perform on it better than its predecessor would.
On the other hand, it'll probably have more crap DRM built in & by then, I'll probably have shifted over to Ubuntu and only be booting Windows 7 to play my games, but that's just me.
The learning curve of 2007 was so steep for many that I know that it was almost equivalent to changing to an entirely new application.
Since people are willing to make the commitment to learn a new program with MS, why can't they do it with another app?
With that said, I'll be honest, I tried OO a year or so back & it couldn't handle a bunch of my formulas. I'm not talking about work spreadsheets, just the ones I have for my own personal use & it couldn't handle those. If it couldn't handle a bunch of conditional sums and such out of the box, what else can't it handle that would bite me in the ass in weeks/months/years down the line?
Then, when you get an email from a potential customer in excel format that won't work & you call him back and say "sorry, the boss was cheap and didn't buy office, so that document doesn't open properly" what do you think is going to happen?
Every single person I know who saw Avatar in 3D said it was worth the money.
The same can't really be said of just about any other movie, but in its optimal setting people very much liked it. The same really can't be said of the movie itself, but people very much liked the 3D in Avatar
If more movies get made like Avatar, I can very much see 3D taking off and being very popular. If it continues to be put into any movie possible just to add a few extra bucks, people will get fed up and won't trust it anymore.
Exactly. I just bought a phone at retail ($500) to avoid being shackled for two years at a higher price point to Tmobile.
Why wouldn't people want to be able to use a PAYG SIM card with their Ipod Touch in an emergency, as a phone backup or simply as their normal phone?
The phone cost might start at $99, but you're paying significantly more than that when your two years are up.
But how many of those PS3s are in clusters right now and not being used as a gaming/BR device?
A lot of universities picked up hundreds of PS3s and never used them for their intended purposes.
Not saying that a sale isn't a sale, but the GPs point was that he doesn't know many people with PS3s and someone threw up some statistics that are pretty much worthless in terms of how many PEOPLE/FAMILIES actually own this specific device.
The source code is free & anyone can modify it as much as they want. Google does not get any money directly from each install.
Google only begins to make restrictions when you want to bundle it with the Google Market and advertise it in certain ways.
As seen with the Fascinate on Verizon, you can REMOVE Googles search bar and replace core functionality with Bing (ugh, horrible....helped a friend remove that crap a few days ago) and STILL have it accepted by Google and be on their market.
Since there are plenty of markets on Android that you can choose, you are not forced to use the Google Market. You can use others.
Just because carriers lock down their phones does NOT mean that Android is not completely open in any way.
I'd like to point out that it is COMPLETELY legal to stuff those steaks in your shirt just so long as you don't pass the point of sale and attempt to walk outside.
If you haven't made an attempt to leave the store, you haven't stolen anything yet.
Now, if they were breaking packaging or anything like that, then yes, since they haven't paid for it yet, they have broken the law.
Slashdot Mirror
Someone (Ars? Dailytech?) yesterday said that the G1 sold 100k in its first weekend. So compared to the Android debut, it seems like WP7 is roughly equivalent in initial sales.
Yes, but the G1 with Android was the absolute first of its kind from Google. People didn't quite know what to expect & word of mouth needed to get around before it became successful.
This is NOT Microsofts first foray into the phone world & they have already built up a reputation that should have helped their phone sales, but didn't.
The fact that it's on par sales wise with a platform that was a COMPLETE unknown to me says a lot about its long term longevity.
You didn't comprehend my argument. The key factor here is that WP7 is a new platform. Early adopters for this type of product are mostly users who have advanced needs and want the best product. Average users aren't interested in a new platform because the either don't know about it or are too nervous to adopt.
WHOA! Insulting much! You're failing to comprehend that the iPhone numbers above were from the ORIGINAL iPhone, you know the platform that was NEW when it launched! Microsoft has been around long enough that it has its own share of fanboys that should have been buying its stuff.
The iPhone and Google's phones were hyped badly before launch; highly anticipated; no wonder they sold well.
Exactly. There was no hype at all around Windows Phone 7. None. Nada. Zilch. That explains all those TV commercials, launch parties, paid shills like Paul Thurrott and Co. touting Windows 7 Phone as the second coming of Zeus.
I saw tons of ads on TV for WP7. I had seen ZERO ads for the G1 before i bought it. It was all stuff on tech. sites that got me interested.
Well I've heard complaints about Android and iOS and their stores and the ways each locks down apps etc, different OS versions (for Android). But I haven't heard anything bad about WP7! But then again at the time it hadn't been released yet... so that was probably why... >_>
The Android market only shows you the apps that will work on your version of the OS, it shouldn't be a big deal since the apps you see should theoretically work.
The beef people have with Android market "locking down apps" is that they DON'T. The Apple fanboys want them to lock it down for the safety of the end user just as the Android fanboys want Apple to open up their market.
Android is not completely free (there are things the handset makers agree to in order to use it) but probably much cheaper than WM6 was.
They don't have to agree to anything to use Android at all. If they want to bundle Google software with it and have that device access the Android Market, THEN they need to agree to certain things.
The Samsung Fascinate had some Google products removed (search and maps) by default and Google STILL allowed them access to everything.
Agreed. I only buy from Steam when I find a deal that I just can't pass up (and that is generally at least half off retail, usually more).
I recently picked up a few games for ~$2.50 each that retail at $15-20 and I'm happy with that decision.
I've also bought games like Left For Dead I & II in the past, but I paid less than $20 for the two games. At that price, my net price is lower than it would have been had I bought em retail and then re-sold them when I was done with them. My price was probably cheaper than buying it used and then reselling it again. Once again, happy with my decision.
But, I just can't see paying retail on a game that I have absolutely no control over and that is defective by design.
But, wouldn't it be nice to take the people you're friends with on Facebook and directly add them into your address book?
It's significantly easier than harvesting the data from Facebook yourself (I've done it and it takes forever!)
Facebook NOW has a find friends feature. It takes the contacts in your address book and tries to find matches using their name/email address. How is this a bad thing? It makes it easier for you and you get to choose the people from that list that you want to friend without doing the extra work
This is exactly the same, but in reverse.
It's not two way. You can't edit a Facebook contact afterall and you can't directly copy out the information to a contact.
If Google gets their way, you can directly import all of your Facebook contacts (or just the ones you want) and be able to add additional information with the Facebook info as a starting point.
This is something that I would very much like.
Exactly! I had to do the same. If you want to send an email to someone thats a facebook friend, you've got to look them up and it's a PITA (compared to just sending them an email).
Personally, I'd much prefer Google having access to everyone I know than Facebook. It just sucks that Buzz sucks so horribly that it never really took off.
A hundred or so dollars? That would be less than what it would cost to buy all the songs she had from Amazon or iTunes. To be reasonable, a settlement has to be at least hight enough to make it so that obeying the law is better financially than disobeying and settling.
Um...........She ripped off 24 songs. At $1 each, $100 is more than 4x than the value of the items she shared.
I would say that paying 4x the value of a bunch of crappy songs is adequate punishment (well, the fee plus publishing the list of what you shared).
Mam, is you son's browser really called Lynx'); DROP TABLE Customers;-- ?
Gotta remember to sanitize those inputs!
What about the rest on versions lower than 2.2?
Google provided the code with the fix in it, it's up to the manufacturers to give it to the people that bought the phone.
That's really the point.
It's not really meant to force people to work on it, it's for the people that would already be working on it to get rewarded for their efforts.
Along with the 2k, comes quite a bit of geek cred. Yeah, you'd get the cred either way, but why not get the money too.
- Your phone likewise. I won't listen in on conversations unless I happen to be within earshot. I won't be overreacting to what seems to be natural kid stuff. Sexting and nudies we need to talk about. You will surrender your phone to me if I ask for it, even if you 'pay' for it.
OK, If you intercept child porn or "nudies" then you are in posession of child pornography. Have fun with that & make sure you don't delete it, that's a felony!
Why should your kid surrender their phone to you? If you don't pay for it, it's their property and their money that you are wasting every second that you are in possession of it.
If you were willing to pro-rate the money they lost and give it back to them, it wouldn't be so horrible, but a parent who acts like you propose to generally isn't the type of person who would be willing to do that.
Google isn't banning the app, they're only restricting it from being on the app market. You can always install it from anywhere else.
Unfortunately all Chrome's rapid release schedule does is make more users think updating is a waste of time after they go through 8 'updates' and they can't notice a single difference.
Updates are seamless. The end user doesn't even know that they've been updated, unless they check (and honestly, why would they).
Have you used Chrome?
Then how about you put your money where your mouth is?
The current world record for fastest texting was accomplished using Swype.
If you can do it so much better, DO IT and get that title taken away from swype. Until then, it's the fastest because its been proven to be. NoseyNick saying "I'm faster!11!!!1!!" wasn't the only requirement.
The market only shows you apps that should work on your device. Therefor, EVERY app you download should work properly. It is of course somewhat dependent on the dev. coding properly [no insult intended, please don't take one] and also on the hardware manufacturer not mucking around with apis.
When Windows XP came out, it ran slower than Windows 98 on identical hardware. On modern hardware, Windows 7 outperforms Windows XP, especially when you use the x64 version with more than 4 gigs of RAM. Of course people won't spend a buttload of cash upgrading an old system, but 6 months after the a new Windows OS comes out, the hardware you can buy off the shelf will perform on it better than its predecessor would. On the other hand, it'll probably have more crap DRM built in & by then, I'll probably have shifted over to Ubuntu and only be booting Windows 7 to play my games, but that's just me.
The learning curve of 2007 was so steep for many that I know that it was almost equivalent to changing to an entirely new application. Since people are willing to make the commitment to learn a new program with MS, why can't they do it with another app? With that said, I'll be honest, I tried OO a year or so back & it couldn't handle a bunch of my formulas. I'm not talking about work spreadsheets, just the ones I have for my own personal use & it couldn't handle those. If it couldn't handle a bunch of conditional sums and such out of the box, what else can't it handle that would bite me in the ass in weeks/months/years down the line? Then, when you get an email from a potential customer in excel format that won't work & you call him back and say "sorry, the boss was cheap and didn't buy office, so that document doesn't open properly" what do you think is going to happen?
Every single person I know who saw Avatar in 3D said it was worth the money.
The same can't really be said of just about any other movie, but in its optimal setting people very much liked it. The same really can't be said of the movie itself, but people very much liked the 3D in Avatar
If more movies get made like Avatar, I can very much see 3D taking off and being very popular. If it continues to be put into any movie possible just to add a few extra bucks, people will get fed up and won't trust it anymore.
Exactly. I just bought a phone at retail ($500) to avoid being shackled for two years at a higher price point to Tmobile. Why wouldn't people want to be able to use a PAYG SIM card with their Ipod Touch in an emergency, as a phone backup or simply as their normal phone? The phone cost might start at $99, but you're paying significantly more than that when your two years are up.
But how many of those PS3s are in clusters right now and not being used as a gaming/BR device?
A lot of universities picked up hundreds of PS3s and never used them for their intended purposes.
Not saying that a sale isn't a sale, but the GPs point was that he doesn't know many people with PS3s and someone threw up some statistics that are pretty much worthless in terms of how many PEOPLE/FAMILIES actually own this specific device.
The source code is free & anyone can modify it as much as they want. Google does not get any money directly from each install. Google only begins to make restrictions when you want to bundle it with the Google Market and advertise it in certain ways. As seen with the Fascinate on Verizon, you can REMOVE Googles search bar and replace core functionality with Bing (ugh, horrible....helped a friend remove that crap a few days ago) and STILL have it accepted by Google and be on their market. Since there are plenty of markets on Android that you can choose, you are not forced to use the Google Market. You can use others. Just because carriers lock down their phones does NOT mean that Android is not completely open in any way.
I'd like to point out that it is COMPLETELY legal to stuff those steaks in your shirt just so long as you don't pass the point of sale and attempt to walk outside. If you haven't made an attempt to leave the store, you haven't stolen anything yet. Now, if they were breaking packaging or anything like that, then yes, since they haven't paid for it yet, they have broken the law.