Apple IOS devices are being outsold better than two to one by android.
Umm...no. The reality is almost the exact opposite of your claim.
This has been answered above. The study you quote (same study the other guy mentioned) is very deceptive, because it has NOTHING TO DO WITH SALES.
The research found that Apple’s iOS platform — on iPhones, iPads and iPod Touches – reached 37.9 million people, while Android reached 23.8 million, on phones and tablets.
"Reached"? What the heck does that mean?
Well when you follow the story to its source it is measuring all the iPhones, iPod Touches, and iPads ever sold against the number of android devices ever sold. With a four or five year running start its no wonder there are more IOS devices floating around out there (used or no longer being used).
My statement had to do with current sales, or sales over the last quarter, or sales over the last year. Further, this thread is about Apple's lawsuits against Samsung over Smart phone sales. Not about tablets.
You simply can not come up with any statistic that shows IOS outselling Android in smartphones, and if you focus on current sales of all IOS devices and all Android devices Android still wins, and only a handful of Android tablets have actually hit the market.
Lets be honest here and not try to refute sales figures with fleet figures. Talk about blithe disregard for the facts!!!
Oh, and just for your info, I hold Apple stock, and have no plans to sell any time soon. So don't start with that childish "haters" stuff. And stop insulting people who bring you news you don't like. Shooting the messenger doesn't change the facts.
I seldom worry about apple's lock strategies. Once you start down the road of tight lockin you either have to sue your way out of it, or you are forced to let go.
They are hoping to make the other party let go.
But instead of doing that, Samsung is counter-suing Apple all over the world. This is a good strategy, forcing Apple to fight off of their own turf. Dragging Apple executives half way around the world where they don't have the advantage of pre-filled pockets and rabid fanbois in the jury pool.
In fact Apple could lose big time to this technique. Sure Samsung makes parts for iPhones, but they make pennies on this compared to what they make on a Galaxy handset. Samsung can send Apple packing, and quietly "suggest" a reduction in supply of key components to any other companies that favor Apple too strongly. Apple can not win a land war in Asia.
But more to the point, Apples current round of suits are predominantly alleging that the Galaxy phones look too much like iPhones. This is a really hard claim to win. Nikon and Canon and Minolta as well as Ford and Chevy would get nowhere with that claim. This screams desperation. Especially when Galaxy phones don't look at all like iPhones.
Average Peak is not the same thing as Average, just like mean high tide is not the same thing is mean tide.
You really do have a reading comprehension problem Mr AK. Just because you CLAIM to have worked for some chickenshit Alaska ISP does not mean you were ever involved in Telco or Carrier Capacity planning.
Yet Apple blows them out of the water on a revenue basis.
Uh no. Perhaps you need to go back to elementary school math. Apple blows them out of the water with *profits*. Revenue is something entirely different. They beat Apple on product shipped and revenue. Apple beats them on profits.
When you don't understand basic principles like the difference between "revenue" and "profit" it's hard to take anything you say seriously.
And when you can't read, yet insist on jumping on every thread, you make a total ass out of your self.
From the first link: (its in bold here, because even though you have a newbie slashdot number your eyes must be old and weak):
Apple crossed another major milestone in its second quarter of fiscal 2011, surpassing Nokia for the first time ever to become the world's largest phone vendor in terms of revenue.
The significant achievement was noted on Thursday by research firm Strategy Analytics. According to Reuters, Apple's iPhone revenue of $11.9 billion surpassed Nokia, which saw its revenue shrink to $9.4 billion.
"With strong volumes and high wholesale prices, the PC vendor has successfully captured revenue leadership of the total handset market in less than four years," analyst Alex Spektor said.
But if you look at the CNN link I posted, you will see that what you said is an oversimplification.
Nokia, Samsung, and LG combined make way more handsets than Apple. Yet Apple charges so much for their handsets that they make more than those companies together.
Yes, I know that Nokia make a number of feature-phones as well as SmartPhones.
So look at the OTHER category (green). Mostly all Android Smartphones. 190 million vs Apples 17 million. Yet Apple blows them out of the water on a revenue basis.
Good for Apple being able to demand that much for their fondle slabs! Way to Go Steve!
But lots of this came at the expense of driving AT&T to desperation trying to build its network up to the point it can handle this, while Apple pockets all the cash. They don't contribute to the network. They overcharge their customers. And they sue everybody in sight.
T-Mo is actually in as much trouble getting 4G deployed as AT&T is (regardless of how cute Carly Foulkes is when tweaking AT&T in the T-Mo Ads).
They are saying that at the current rate that they are able to install new towers (land purchase, permits, licensing, construction, back-haul), it would take them 8 years to build as many as they can buy by acquiring T-Mo.
They mention ridiculously long build cycles especially in the San Francisco area where all the NIMBYs live. They avoid all of this by just buying already built towers. Its easier to upgrade an existing tower than to build a new one.
In some areas they will acquire redundant towers (where T-Mo and AT&T already have towers in the same area). These they will use to build out 4G.
Also don't forget they would acquire a very large portfolio of 1700 band towers. 1700 has much better building penetration than the 1800/1900/2100 band that AT&T uses. They plan to convert all the 1700 band towers to 4G.
8 years in one go sounds great except for all of the integration that will need to happen which will leave ATT plenty of room to screw it all up.
I was acquired by AT&T when they purchased Cell-One.
For me it went smoothly. Can't say this will be the same because its an order of magnitude bigger. Bur for me I never noticed a difference. It all just worked.
My kid is on T-Mo. Brags about how good their coverage are is even though there is no 3G in the small town where they live. Flipped on their new android phone and dialed *#*#4636#*#* only to find out they have been roaming on AT&T all these years.
After all this is the same company that sold off its network to Cingular, only to buy back Cingular after they had fixed it up and gotten some performance out of it.
I suspect all of the T-Mobile tech-heads would jump ship if AT&T bought them. But according to the AT&T submission, the proposed acquisition of T-Mobile is an attempt to leap 8 years ahead in their tower/network build out plan.
8 years in one go!
But the same people complaining about AT&T service (which, by the way I have no problems in my area) seem to oppose this merger, preferring to allow T-Mo to wither and die on the vine leaving the US with a broken AT&T and a boatload of CDMA providers.
Its the boldest step AT&T has taken to acquire capacity in the last 10 years, and everyone is bitching.
They put most of their resources where their customers are concentrated. Still, they have to cover the hinterlands where there are not enough customers to pay for the towers.
There is no place in Germany or France that has a population density similar to Nevada or Utah or Montana or Alaska. Yet people expect to drive down the interstate and never lose signal in all of these places.
So the density argument is valid, if not slightly overstated.
In North America, prices for cell service are still much higher than the EU. US Government subsidies are much lower, (in terms of actual payments and gift spectrum).
And I've never seen a complete fair break down of the costs in Australia or the EU which didn't gloss over a great deal of hidden government involvement.
Now before you jump down my throat, I have no problem if the citizens of those areas want to pay for their telecoms thru taxes and that is what they voted for. But in the US and Canada, we generally don't run things that way. Its not treated like a road, or a city water supply.
Can you imagine what the cost of an internet connection would be if they had to actually HAVE and PAY FOR enough bandwidth such that IF every subscriber decided to jump on at once none of them would see any slowdown at all? You couldn't afford it.
Capacity planning targets the Average Peak utilization. Not the theoretical maximum possible peak.
The odd thing is just how proud of this Apple fans are. Imagine being told you are being overcharged (gouged) for your device and saying "thank you sir, may I have another".
Google maps with the traffic layer turned on. Its in every smartphone, and its pretty accurate, with no discernible delay. You can watch concert and ball game induced traffic slugs in nearly real time.
But road closures can not be distinguished from mere lack of traffic, and most of the time president induced closures are designed to route around rather than hold people captive for long periods.
What really sucks is when they shut down an entire airport and sometimes an entire cities just so that the president can appear at a fundraiser event.
The mere fact that you did, gives them the first bunch of information to locate you, your IP, Browser info, and potentially any un-secure cookies on your machine.
And yet, those very risky actions become fairly safe, based on the sheer number of people doing it.
"Safe" in the same sense that statistically speaking nobody wins the lottery. Yet people still play...
Also safe in the sense that not everyone is interesting, especially to the would-be stalkers.
But the good looking woman who posts pics from around her home HAD BETTER be aware of geotagging defaults of her cell phone.
Not everyone needing to take these precautions knows about this issue. And the techno-ditz who got an iphone from daddy is probably most at risk.
I geotag all my travel photos. I sometimes whip out my cell and take the same shot I just took with my DSLR just so that I can manually geotag the high quality image when I get home. But I know which are geotagged and which aren't and I know how to remove the tag.
Hint: Google Picasa is great for managing your GeoTags, or adding them after the fact.
Shortly after Gulf II, during the occupation phase there appeared several images of combat missions, including firefights, tank fire, etc, posted on various sites by soldiers who withheld their names. Many of these had full EXIF info, many of them even had the name of the camera owner of a high end DSLR (which I didn't even think an authorized in a war zone). (Canon as I recall).
Being secretive enough to snap his buddies only from the back, and not give his name, he still revealed exactly who he was, and even the serial number of his camera. I don't know if anything ever came of it.
My key signed in person at the East Mudville branch of the Bank Of Kentucky
You have banks that would sign PGP keys? But how are the tellers or manager (except in quite uncommon circumstances) going to know you sufficiently well?
When you open a bank account, they see far more documentation about who exactly you are than someone you have a drink with in a pub. Typically in the US, you must show more than one form of official identification, supply your SSN, home address (which they check), and make a deposit of funds.
More importantly, they are in a position to verify that you have the rights to disperse funds from your bank account to pay for on-line purchases. This latter bit is the key point in preventing identity theft and credit card fraud. (Not saying it would be used for signing email.)
My point here is that the same people who rush in to put PGP on a pedestal based a signature obtained after a few drinks in a pub and attending a conference here or a trade show there, seem to dig in their heels at having a company they trust enough to hold their money to issue them credentials that they are authorized to spend that very same money. They would rather trust to luck with a credit card number that they can simply disown when its is stolen thru their own carelessness, and to hell with the merchant that shipped that 50 inch TV to the thieves.
I just stated that the time stamps are not accurate enough to compute vehicle speed.
They are listed to the thousandth. If they are not accurate to that level, then the calibration of the entire unit is wrong, and thus should be inadmisable.
Just because they are not accurate to the 1/1000 of a second does not mean that they are not accurate to the second. Noise in the decimal digits does not invalidate the minutes.
Does an ohm meter that fluctuates between 46.002 and 46.030 ohms invalidate the fact that the device under measurement offers at least 46, but not 47 ohms of resistance?
The defendant stipulated his trucks were there at that time. By doing so he can no longer assert that he wasn't there. There were no other cars in the frames. He can no longer assert that the radar measured someone else. All he can do is attack the radar accuracy.
But the radar is a calibrated and certified device. The cameras weren't. The picture shouldn't have showed the digits in the noise. But it did. They are still noise. But the minutes and seconds are still correct and no one disputes them.
The judge succumbed to junk science. And so have you.
Once upon a time, a crime had to be witnessed, or it wasn't a crime. And, in general, only an expert or an officer of the court was considered to be "reliable". Today, no witness is required, no experts and no officers of the court need be aware of any supposed crime.
I'm not aware of any time or place where that was true except under Islamic Sharia Law.
How many murders do you thing are actually witnessed by an officer of the court??? Surely you can't be suggesting someone should be able to stab you to death and rape your wife and get away with it just because no Cop or Officer of the Court was there to witness it?
Images are not "compressed to ram". The CCD writes it to memory directly. Then the computer comes along and date stamps it.
But what if the computer is busy? These aren't the biggest processors in the world. Even comparing it to a $500-$1000 DSLR is invalid, because these are tiny cheap industrial grade cameras. If they had any value they would be stolen.
Thats why you will seldom get a photo ticket if you are traveling in a heard, or even if ANY other car is in the image. Any with more than one vehicle in the radar view are simply not prosecuted because there is a built in reasonable doubt.
I'm not going to touch the low flying aircraft thing.
Come on. The people who build and certify these things are not total idiots.
Slashdot Mirror
Umm...no. The reality is almost the exact opposite of your claim.
This has been answered above. The study you quote (same study the other guy mentioned) is very deceptive, because it has NOTHING TO DO WITH SALES.
The research found that Apple’s iOS platform — on iPhones, iPads and iPod Touches – reached 37.9 million people, while Android reached 23.8 million, on phones and tablets.
"Reached"? What the heck does that mean?
Well when you follow the story to its source it is measuring all the iPhones, iPod Touches, and iPads ever sold against the number of android devices ever sold. With a four or five year running start its no wonder there are more IOS devices floating around out there (used or no longer being used).
My statement had to do with current sales, or sales over the last quarter, or sales over the last year. Further, this thread is about Apple's lawsuits against Samsung over Smart phone sales. Not about tablets.
You simply can not come up with any statistic that shows IOS outselling Android in smartphones, and if you focus on current sales of all IOS devices and all Android devices Android still wins, and only a handful of Android tablets have actually hit the market.
Lets be honest here and not try to refute sales figures with fleet figures. Talk about blithe disregard for the facts!!!
Oh, and just for your info, I hold Apple stock, and have no plans to sell any time soon. So don't start with that childish "haters" stuff.
And stop insulting people who bring you news you don't like. Shooting the messenger doesn't change the facts.
Step 2) Sell products
Apple is moving HUGE amounts of iPhones and iPads.
If they were, they wouldn't be getting this desperate.
Apple IOS devices are being outsold better than two to one by android. They see the market they created slipping from their grasp.
http://news.cnet.com/8301-13506_3-20051610-17.html
I seldom worry about apple's lock strategies. Once you start down the road of tight lockin you either have to sue your way out of it, or you are forced to let go.
They are hoping to make the other party let go.
But instead of doing that, Samsung is counter-suing Apple all over the world. This is a good strategy, forcing Apple to fight off of their own turf. Dragging Apple executives half way around the world where they don't have the advantage of pre-filled pockets and rabid fanbois in the jury pool.
In fact Apple could lose big time to this technique. Sure Samsung makes parts for iPhones, but they make pennies on this compared to what they make on a Galaxy handset. Samsung can send Apple packing, and quietly "suggest" a reduction in supply of key components to any other companies that favor Apple too strongly. Apple can not win a land war in Asia.
But more to the point, Apples current round of suits are predominantly alleging that the Galaxy phones look too much like iPhones. This is a really hard claim to win. Nikon and Canon and Minolta as well as Ford and Chevy would get nowhere with that claim. This screams desperation. Especially when Galaxy phones don't look at all like iPhones.
Average Peak is not the same thing as Average, just like mean high tide is not the same thing is mean tide.
You really do have a reading comprehension problem Mr AK.
Just because you CLAIM to have worked for some chickenshit Alaska ISP does not mean you were ever involved in Telco or Carrier Capacity planning.
Yet Apple blows them out of the water on a revenue basis.
Uh no. Perhaps you need to go back to elementary school math. Apple blows them out of the water with *profits*. Revenue is something entirely different. They beat Apple on product shipped and revenue. Apple beats them on profits.
When you don't understand basic principles like the difference between "revenue" and "profit" it's hard to take anything you say seriously.
And when you can't read, yet insist on jumping on every thread, you make a total ass out of your self.
From the first link: (its in bold here, because even though you have a newbie slashdot number your eyes must be old and weak):
Quote Appleinsider from Reuters:
Apple crossed another major milestone in its second quarter of fiscal 2011, surpassing Nokia for the first time ever to become the world's largest phone vendor in terms of revenue.
The significant achievement was noted on Thursday by research firm Strategy Analytics. According to Reuters, Apple's iPhone revenue of $11.9 billion surpassed Nokia, which saw its revenue shrink to $9.4 billion.
"With strong volumes and high wholesale prices, the PC vendor has successfully captured revenue leadership of the total handset market in less than four years," analyst Alex Spektor said.
And this isn't the first time its been reported.
It said REVENUE. Not Profits.
Learn to read, Ok? If you won't learn to read, try NOT starting every post you make with an insult.
But if you look at the CNN link I posted, you will see that what you said is an oversimplification.
Nokia, Samsung, and LG combined make way more handsets than Apple.
Yet Apple charges so much for their handsets that they make more than those companies together.
Yes, I know that Nokia make a number of feature-phones as well as SmartPhones.
So look at the OTHER category (green). Mostly all Android Smartphones. 190 million vs Apples 17 million.
Yet Apple blows them out of the water on a revenue basis.
Good for Apple being able to demand that much for their fondle slabs! Way to Go Steve!
But lots of this came at the expense of driving AT&T to desperation trying to build its network up to the point it can handle this, while Apple pockets all the cash. They don't contribute to the network. They overcharge their customers. And they sue everybody in sight.
No, Not exactly, thats a misinterpreter.
T-Mo is actually in as much trouble getting 4G deployed as AT&T is (regardless of how cute Carly Foulkes is when tweaking AT&T in the T-Mo Ads).
They are saying that at the current rate that they are able to install new towers (land purchase, permits, licensing, construction, back-haul), it would take them 8 years to build as many as they can buy by acquiring T-Mo.
They mention ridiculously long build cycles especially in the San Francisco area where all the NIMBYs live. They avoid all of this by just buying already built towers. Its easier to upgrade an existing tower than to build a new one.
In some areas they will acquire redundant towers (where T-Mo and AT&T already have towers in the same area). These they will use to build out 4G.
Also don't forget they would acquire a very large portfolio of 1700 band towers. 1700 has much better building penetration than the 1800/1900/2100 band that AT&T uses. They plan to convert all the 1700 band towers to 4G.
8 years in one go sounds great except for all of the integration that will need to happen which will leave ATT plenty of room to screw it all up.
I was acquired by AT&T when they purchased Cell-One.
For me it went smoothly. Can't say this will be the same because its an order of magnitude bigger. Bur for me I never noticed a difference. It all just worked.
My kid is on T-Mo. Brags about how good their coverage are is even though there is no 3G in the small town where they live. Flipped on their new android phone and dialed *#*#4636#*#* only to find out they have been roaming on AT&T all these years.
I don't doubt what you say.
After all this is the same company that sold off its network to Cingular, only to buy back Cingular after they had fixed it up and gotten some performance out of it.
I suspect all of the T-Mobile tech-heads would jump ship if AT&T bought them. But according to the AT&T submission, the proposed acquisition of T-Mobile is an attempt to leap 8 years ahead in their tower/network build out plan.
8 years in one go!
But the same people complaining about AT&T service (which, by the way I have no problems in my area) seem to oppose this merger, preferring to allow T-Mo to wither and die on the vine leaving the US with a broken AT&T and a boatload of CDMA providers.
Its the boldest step AT&T has taken to acquire capacity in the last 10 years, and everyone is bitching.
They put most of their resources where their customers are concentrated.
Still, they have to cover the hinterlands where there are not enough customers to pay for the towers.
There is no place in Germany or France that has a population density similar to Nevada or Utah or Montana or Alaska. Yet people expect to drive down the interstate and never lose signal in all of these places.
So the density argument is valid, if not slightly overstated.
In North America, prices for cell service are still much higher than the EU. US Government subsidies are much lower, (in terms of actual payments and gift spectrum).
And I've never seen a complete fair break down of the costs in Australia or the EU which didn't gloss over a great deal of hidden government involvement.
Now before you jump down my throat, I have no problem if the citizens of those areas want to pay for their telecoms thru taxes and that is what they voted for. But in the US and Canada, we generally don't run things that way. Its not treated like a road, or a city water supply.
Can you imagine what the cost of an internet connection would be if they had to actually HAVE and PAY FOR enough bandwidth such that IF every subscriber decided to jump on at once none of them would see any slowdown at all? You couldn't afford it.
Capacity planning targets the Average Peak utilization. Not the theoretical maximum possible peak.
Actually Apple raked in the profit, mostly at AT&T's expense.
Apple is the the largest handset maker when measured by Revenue.
While slipping to a dismal third in terms of actual smartphones sold Apple rakes in more money than anyone.
The odd thing is just how proud of this Apple fans are. Imagine being told you are being overcharged (gouged) for your device and saying "thank you sir, may I have another".
Actually, it it starts with "How are you" thats your clue its a salesman.
I swear to god they must teach this in phone-sales school.
Google maps with the traffic layer turned on.
Its in every smartphone, and its pretty accurate, with no discernible delay. You can watch concert and ball game induced traffic slugs in nearly real time.
But road closures can not be distinguished from mere lack of traffic, and most of the time president induced closures are designed to route around rather than hold people captive for long periods.
What really sucks is when they shut down an entire airport and sometimes an entire cities just so that the president can appear at a fundraiser event.
Seriously, why would you even visit this site?
The mere fact that you did, gives them the first bunch of information to locate you, your IP, Browser info, and potentially any un-secure cookies on your machine.
And yet, those very risky actions become fairly safe, based on the sheer number of people doing it.
"Safe" in the same sense that statistically speaking nobody wins the lottery. Yet people still play...
Also safe in the sense that not everyone is interesting, especially to the would-be stalkers.
But the good looking woman who posts pics from around her home HAD BETTER be aware of
geotagging defaults of her cell phone.
Not everyone needing to take these precautions knows about this issue. And the techno-ditz who got an iphone from daddy
is probably most at risk.
I geotag all my travel photos. I sometimes whip out my cell and take the same shot I just took with my DSLR just so that
I can manually geotag the high quality image when I get home. But I know which are geotagged and which aren't and I
know how to remove the tag.
Hint: Google Picasa is great for managing your GeoTags, or adding them after the fact.
You don't need GPS information to get in trouble.
Shortly after Gulf II, during the occupation phase there appeared several images of combat missions, including firefights, tank fire, etc, posted on various sites by soldiers who withheld their names. Many of these had full EXIF info, many of them even had the name of the camera owner of a high end DSLR (which I didn't even think an authorized in a war zone). (Canon as I recall).
Being secretive enough to snap his buddies only from the back, and not give his name, he still revealed exactly who he was, and even the serial number of his camera. I don't know if anything ever came of it.
You have banks that would sign PGP keys? But how are the tellers or manager (except in quite uncommon circumstances) going to know you sufficiently well?
When you open a bank account, they see far more documentation about who exactly you are than someone you have a drink with in a pub. Typically in the US, you must show more than one form of official identification, supply your SSN, home address (which they check), and make a deposit of funds.
More importantly, they are in a position to verify that you have the rights to disperse funds from your bank account to pay for on-line purchases. This latter bit is the key point in preventing identity theft and credit card fraud. (Not saying it would be used for signing email.)
My point here is that the same people who rush in to put PGP on a pedestal based a signature obtained after a few drinks in a pub and attending a conference here or a trade show there, seem to dig in their heels at having a company they trust enough to hold their money to issue them credentials that they are authorized to spend that very same money. They would rather trust to luck with a credit card number that they can simply disown when its is stolen thru their own carelessness, and to hell with the merchant that shipped that 50 inch TV to the thieves.
Its simply mind boggling.
I just stated that the time stamps are not accurate enough to compute vehicle speed.
They are listed to the thousandth. If they are not accurate to that level, then the calibration of the entire unit is wrong, and thus should be inadmisable.
Just because they are not accurate to the 1/1000 of a second does not mean that they are not accurate to the second.
Noise in the decimal digits does not invalidate the minutes.
Does an ohm meter that fluctuates between 46.002 and 46.030 ohms invalidate the fact that the device under measurement offers at least 46, but not 47 ohms of resistance?
The defendant stipulated his trucks were there at that time. By doing so he can no longer assert that he wasn't there.
There were no other cars in the frames. He can no longer assert that the radar measured someone else.
All he can do is attack the radar accuracy.
But the radar is a calibrated and certified device. The cameras weren't.
The picture shouldn't have showed the digits in the noise. But it did. They are still noise. But the minutes and seconds are still correct and no one disputes them.
The judge succumbed to junk science. And so have you.
Once upon a time, a crime had to be witnessed, or it wasn't a crime. And, in general, only an expert or an officer of the court was considered to be "reliable". Today, no witness is required, no experts and no officers of the court need be aware of any supposed crime.
I'm not aware of any time or place where that was true except under Islamic Sharia Law.
How many murders do you thing are actually witnessed by an officer of the court??? Surely you can't be suggesting someone should be able to stab you to death and rape your wife and get away with it just because no Cop or Officer of the Court was there to witness it?
What the hell did you really mean to say?
And along with those two there is also the Acer-Iconia Tablet which is just about the same spec as the transformer without the keyboard option.
So they appear to be jumping into the tablet market full force.
I just stated that the time stamps are not accurate enough to compute vehicle speed.
The defendant does not dispute that his vehicle was there at that time.
Patent suits are are only decided by Jury at the first stage. This one gets automatically appealed. Just like all the other ones.
I wouldn't get too worked up about this.
Images are not "compressed to ram".
The CCD writes it to memory directly.
Then the computer comes along and date stamps it.
But what if the computer is busy? These aren't the biggest processors in the world.
Even comparing it to a $500-$1000 DSLR is invalid, because these are tiny cheap industrial grade cameras. If they had any value they would be stolen.
Thats why you will seldom get a photo ticket if you are traveling in a heard, or even if ANY other car is in the image.
Any with more than one vehicle in the radar view are simply not prosecuted because there is a built in reasonable doubt.
I'm not going to touch the low flying aircraft thing.
Come on. The people who build and certify these things are not total idiots.