Its usually hard hate if you let logic get in the way.
Like most mob trends, the anti-apple movement has some valid points down below all the posturing and silliness, but most of what you see online fails to convey them.
the unsinkable titanic, the mighty roman empire, and the iPhone: the smartphone platform that will always be the first choice for apps.
being an Android user today is a lot nicer than it was even at the beginning of the year. the number of major apps not yet available on Android is dwindling rapidly. innovative new apps (and new features in established apps) are often being released on Android first.
the trend towards Android is fairly obvious both in terms of sales (nearly twice the number Android phones as iPhones were sold in the US last quarter) and in the availability of applications. if it continues, it seems Android will clearly be the premier smartphone platform in very little time.
I use an aging intel quad core q6600 and have only 2gb ram. flash is barely a noticeable load, less than 10% of one core in most cases. I suspect the OP is pushing an agenda and not facts, or has a serious problem with his system.
to be even more fair, "cans" are not the only form of duplexer available. modern signal processing can do some amazing things. i hope and strongly suspect the people behind this project are fairly well versed in such things, or they wouldn't have proposed it in the first place.
This article is sparse on details, but obviously the designers are aware of what is required in the user's home. The existing antennas found in those homes are precisely why this system is being designed, and you obviously cannot put megawatts into the average TV antenna.
I routinely talk to other ham radio operators in town via repeaters that are 20+ miles away, using 5 watts and a hand held radio with an omni directional antenna. With a directional antenna that gave higher gain, my range might double at the same power. I would guess that 1. this internet service will use an encoding technique that is tolerant of some noise, so a perfect signal is not required, and 2. they are not going to try to cover very long distances.
Geez, I wish the operators of the thousands of amateur radio repeaters on frequencies not so far from TV freqs knew what you know about RF. They would know that the installations they have been using for about 40 years now can't possibly work! How silly of us to have (for decades) successfully used systems which receive a weak signal only a few khz away from a strong signal being broadcast on the same antenna at the same time.
wish I had mod points. you are correct on all points. USB adoption happened because the software market leader (Microsoft with Win98 and updates to Win95) and the hardware market leader (Intel with their chipsets) supported it, and it worked pretty well. It did not become ubiquitous overnight because older systems from the market leaders still had usable life when the standard was released. As these systems were replaced with newer ones, USB became more and more common.
The iMac made no measurable difference in the adoption of USB as a standard. Can't believe how common the myth that it did seems to be here. iMac sales were good compared to other Apple computers, but it's laughable to think they sold enough units to mandate the adoption of *anything* in the mainstream computer market.
Seriously, if you are asking these questions, you are not the man for the job.
Do the right thing for your client and yourself. Hire a professional who has done this sort of thing many, many times before. Most will not have a problem explaining why they recommend this or that. If this type of thing interests you, hire someone that will let you watch or even assist. You will learn a lot, and your client will get the systems they need.
PS - Forget about hosting the webserver locally. It is a dumb idea.
if businesses start taking an interest in the Mac platform, maybe. I haven't seen any indication that is happening. If anything, Apple seems to be giving up on the business world, didn't they just cancel their server line?
I'm sure many Apple devotees will see this news as confirmation that Apple's "we know better than the user" approach is superior.
While I disagree for a number of reasons, for sake of argument, let's assume that they are right. If the walled garden approach is better, won't some enterprising entity create just such a service for Android? The platform is open, anyone can create a market place. Several alternative markets already exist.
There is no reason someone couldn't make a tightly controlled market where apps are scrutinized prior to being offered. If there truly is value in that, I don't see why it wouldn't be done. Such a service could even reject apps for no obvious reason or censor content that doesn't agree with their view of things, if 100% compatibility with that other app store was desired.
First of all, I challenge your assertion that "based on sales it seems the majority of consumers are fine with Steve's way" etc. Based on both current sales volumes and every projection I've seen, Android sales are bigger than iPhone sales now and are expected to destroy them in coming quarters. When you factor in how many of the iPhone 4 sales are to existing users (75%+), Android has been adding new users at a rate that dwarfs Apple at a time when the smartphone market is exploding. Apple is struggling to maintain the 17% or so of the market it peaked at while Android is challenging the market leader for a majority share. It is quite obvious to anyone who takes a serious look at sales figures that Android has massive appeal to the average consumer.
Second, why do you assume FOSS *wants* to "make gains in any market"? What benefit would making such gains grant the typical OSS project?
You missed some rather large disadvantages that are unique to the iPad:
All content on the device is controlled by a single corporate entity. A single manufacture controls all aspects of the device. If they switch to a new model, you may be forced to upgrade every device or miss out on important updates, new capabilities, etc. If you find you need some feature not included, you have no option. A single hardware form factor may not work well for every student.
Such a report would be incomplete without considering the advantages of using one (or several) of the many new tablets that do not have the limitations of the iPad.
If you only wanted to use your phone while at disney world and the only thing flash was used for was strip clubs, then that might start to make some kind of sense.
I get that you feel Flash is not needed on your phone. But where does the "I don't want the option to use it" come from? It's something I've seen stated on in a few places, usually from people that seem pretty committed to the Apple platform. Why is having Flash available to you a bad thing, even if you don't need it? And how do you know that you'll never, ever need it? New things happen on the web at a rapid pace, a person's interests change. Personally, I quite often find myself visiting web sites that I haven't visited in the past. I'd be hard pressed to state any global rules about what I do or don't, will or won't need to pursue my interests today and into the future.
I have an Android device, and I don't use Flash very often at all. However, it's nice to know that I can use it once in a while if I decide to. It certainly doesn't bother me to have the option. Why does the idea of having that option seem to offend Apple types?
"I'd copy a lot of iOS design decisions at the UI level "
please god no. have you actually used an Android device? The UI is much more powerful and well designed. prettier, no. able to do more, with less effort on my part, absolutely.
I think its more likely that the government simply wouldn't offer such a deal to a single company for access to their closed platform when a capable and open platform supported by a wide range of manufacturers already exists.
I don't think any amount of money is going to convince Apple to open their platform enough that it would provide the same options that Android already does.
But... if the military did make such an offer to Apple, I still am not sure they would take it. They don't really need the money, and they don't seem to play well with others. I doubt the issue will ever come up, but if it did I really would not be surprised to see Apple turn it down.
I don't see how a case solves the obvious issues with using an iPhone here (or the "other problem" it's supposed to solve, for that matter).
What if the military wants it to be smaller than an iphone? Or to fit in a particular pocket of a particular uniform? What if they want a physical keyboard? What if they want a faster processor, more memory, a different type of screen, Flash support (j/k), etc, etc? What if they don't want to buy anything that can't be second sourced?
If the military wants a device that meets certain physical specifications (ruggedness, waterproofing, shielded from EMI, bulletproof, god knows what) then they have very different options with an iPhone vs an Android phone:
With Apple's platform, they must ask Apple nicely and hope for the best. They would have to rely on a single source for the devices.
or
With Android, they can publish their specs and let any manufacturer that cares to try build a device (or contract with one or a few to specifically build something). They can have multiple sources for the hardware and switch as desired.
Similarly, if the military wants specific features in the operating system, they can:
Ask Apple nicely and hope for the best
or
Modify Android any way they'd like, or contract pretty much anyone to do this for them.
Wouldn't lack of experience with Windows be a detriment to someone looking for employment in the business world, where Windows runs on well over 90% of all computers? I realize you can run Windows on a Mac, and many people do, but that seems like an expensive approach to gaining these valuable skills.
The "masses of people who held off and are going to buy an iPhone in Q3" theory is a popular one amongst fans of the platform. However, market analysts disagree:
"Analyst Yair Reiner has reduced his projected iPhone sales for the next quarter to 8.5 million, down from 11 million, citing well publicized signal drops that can be replicated with the iPhone 4 in weak signal areas. He expects others on Wall Street, which average predictions between 11 million and 11.5 million, will also reduce their estimates."
"But in the September quarter, Wu has slightly increased his forecast of iPhone sales to 10.5 million, up from 10.4 million. He said checks with overseas suppliers have indicated that availability will improve in the August timeframe, offset by about a million of remaining channel inventory that is expected to be drawn down. Wu still expects Apple to ship 40 million iPhones in calendar 2010."
If Apple sells 10.5 million units in Q3, they'll be a little past where Android was in Q2 (roughly 500k units, but it's difficult to get very precise). If they sell only 8.5, as Reiner predicts, they will be simply maintaining the pre iPhone 4 rate of sales. Even the most favorable estimates do not put iPhone sales on pace with Android in Q3 or for the year.
Notice that Apple declined from 34% of all sales in 2009 Q4 to only 23% in 2010 Q2, despite having sales of approximately the same volume in both Q1 and Q2 of this year.
Or, to make a long story short: No, iPhone sales are not going to catch up with Android sales, regardless of any "lurking hordes" who were waiting for the iPhone 4.
Slashdot Mirror
"does the hatred have to include loss of logic?"
Its usually hard hate if you let logic get in the way.
Like most mob trends, the anti-apple movement has some valid points down below all the posturing and silliness, but most of what you see online fails to convey them.
the unsinkable titanic, the mighty roman empire, and the iPhone: the smartphone platform that will always be the first choice for apps.
being an Android user today is a lot nicer than it was even at the beginning of the year. the number of major apps not yet available on Android is dwindling rapidly. innovative new apps (and new features in established apps) are often being released on Android first.
the trend towards Android is fairly obvious both in terms of sales (nearly twice the number Android phones as iPhones were sold in the US last quarter) and in the availability of applications. if it continues, it seems Android will clearly be the premier smartphone platform in very little time.
I use an aging intel quad core q6600 and have only 2gb ram. flash is barely a noticeable load, less than 10% of one core in most cases.
I suspect the OP is pushing an agenda and not facts, or has a serious problem with his system.
I think I like this country.
to be even more fair, "cans" are not the only form of duplexer available. modern signal processing can do some amazing things. i hope and strongly suspect the people behind this project are fairly well versed in such things, or they wouldn't have proposed it in the first place.
This article is sparse on details, but obviously the designers are aware of what is required in the user's home. The existing antennas found in those homes are precisely why this system is being designed, and you obviously cannot put megawatts into the average TV antenna.
I routinely talk to other ham radio operators in town via repeaters that are 20+ miles away, using 5 watts and a hand held radio with an omni directional antenna. With a directional antenna that gave higher gain, my range might double at the same power. I would guess that 1. this internet service will use an encoding technique that is tolerant of some noise, so a perfect signal is not required, and 2. they are not going to try to cover very long distances.
wish i had mod points, i guess a "you are correct, sir" comment is the best i can do.
Geez, I wish the operators of the thousands of amateur radio repeaters on frequencies not so far from TV freqs knew what you know about RF. They would know that the installations they have been using for about 40 years now can't possibly work! How silly of us to have (for decades) successfully used systems which receive a weak signal only a few khz away from a strong signal being broadcast on the same antenna at the same time.
We hope you love the third dimension as much as we do.
Just avoid looking at it that way.
Get a (insert competitor here) if you want porn in 3D
etc...
wish I had mod points. you are correct on all points. USB adoption happened because the software market leader (Microsoft with Win98 and updates to Win95) and the hardware market leader (Intel with their chipsets) supported it, and it worked pretty well. It did not become ubiquitous overnight because older systems from the market leaders still had usable life when the standard was released. As these systems were replaced with newer ones, USB became more and more common.
The iMac made no measurable difference in the adoption of USB as a standard. Can't believe how common the myth that it did seems to be here. iMac sales were good compared to other Apple computers, but it's laughable to think they sold enough units to mandate the adoption of *anything* in the mainstream computer market.
Seriously, if you are asking these questions, you are not the man for the job.
Do the right thing for your client and yourself. Hire a professional who has done this sort of thing many, many times before. Most will not have a problem explaining why they recommend this or that. If this type of thing interests you, hire someone that will let you watch or even assist. You will learn a lot, and your client will get the systems they need.
PS - Forget about hosting the webserver locally. It is a dumb idea.
if businesses start taking an interest in the Mac platform, maybe. I haven't seen any indication that is happening. If anything, Apple seems to be giving up on the business world, didn't they just cancel their server line?
I'm sure many Apple devotees will see this news as confirmation that Apple's "we know better than the user" approach is superior.
While I disagree for a number of reasons, for sake of argument, let's assume that they are right. If the walled garden approach is better, won't some enterprising entity create just such a service for Android? The platform is open, anyone can create a market place. Several alternative markets already exist.
There is no reason someone couldn't make a tightly controlled market where apps are scrutinized prior to being offered. If there truly is value in that, I don't see why it wouldn't be done. Such a service could even reject apps for no obvious reason or censor content that doesn't agree with their view of things, if 100% compatibility with that other app store was desired.
As "aDosBox".. http://androiddosbox.appspot.com/
First of all, I challenge your assertion that "based on sales it seems the majority of consumers are fine with Steve's way" etc. Based on both current sales volumes and every projection I've seen, Android sales are bigger than iPhone sales now and are expected to destroy them in coming quarters. When you factor in how many of the iPhone 4 sales are to existing users (75%+), Android has been adding new users at a rate that dwarfs Apple at a time when the smartphone market is exploding. Apple is struggling to maintain the 17% or so of the market it peaked at while Android is challenging the market leader for a majority share. It is quite obvious to anyone who takes a serious look at sales figures that Android has massive appeal to the average consumer.
Second, why do you assume FOSS *wants* to "make gains in any market"? What benefit would making such gains grant the typical OSS project?
You missed some rather large disadvantages that are unique to the iPad:
All content on the device is controlled by a single corporate entity.
A single manufacture controls all aspects of the device. If they switch to a new model, you may be forced to upgrade every device or miss out on important updates, new capabilities, etc. If you find you need some feature not included, you have no option.
A single hardware form factor may not work well for every student.
Such a report would be incomplete without considering the advantages of using one (or several) of the many new tablets that do not have the limitations of the iPad.
If you only wanted to use your phone while at disney world and the only thing flash was used for was strip clubs, then that might start to make some kind of sense.
I get that you feel Flash is not needed on your phone. But where does the "I don't want the option to use it" come from? It's something I've seen stated on in a few places, usually from people that seem pretty committed to the Apple platform. Why is having Flash available to you a bad thing, even if you don't need it? And how do you know that you'll never, ever need it? New things happen on the web at a rapid pace, a person's interests change. Personally, I quite often find myself visiting web sites that I haven't visited in the past. I'd be hard pressed to state any global rules about what I do or don't, will or won't need to pursue my interests today and into the future.
I have an Android device, and I don't use Flash very often at all. However, it's nice to know that I can use it once in a while if I decide to. It certainly doesn't bother me to have the option. Why does the idea of having that option seem to offend Apple types?
"I'd copy a lot of iOS design decisions at the UI level "
please god no. have you actually used an Android device? The UI is much more powerful and well designed. prettier, no. able to do more, with less effort on my part, absolutely.
Is this sarcasm?
I think its more likely that the government simply wouldn't offer such a deal to a single company for access to their closed platform when a capable and open platform supported by a wide range of manufacturers already exists.
I don't think any amount of money is going to convince Apple to open their platform enough that it would provide the same options that Android already does.
But... if the military did make such an offer to Apple, I still am not sure they would take it. They don't really need the money, and they don't seem to play well with others. I doubt the issue will ever come up, but if it did I really would not be surprised to see Apple turn it down.
I don't see how a case solves the obvious issues with using an iPhone here (or the "other problem" it's supposed to solve, for that matter).
What if the military wants it to be smaller than an iphone? Or to fit in a particular pocket of a particular uniform? What if they want a physical keyboard? What if they want a faster processor, more memory, a different type of screen, Flash support (j/k), etc, etc? What if they don't want to buy anything that can't be second sourced?
If the military wants a device that meets certain physical specifications (ruggedness, waterproofing, shielded from EMI, bulletproof, god knows what) then they have very different options with an iPhone vs an Android phone:
With Apple's platform, they must ask Apple nicely and hope for the best. They would have to rely on a single source for the devices.
or
With Android, they can publish their specs and let any manufacturer that cares to try build a device (or contract with one or a few to specifically build something). They can have multiple sources for the hardware and switch as desired.
Similarly, if the military wants specific features in the operating system, they can:
Ask Apple nicely and hope for the best
or
Modify Android any way they'd like, or contract pretty much anyone to do this for them.
Seems Android has some pretty clear advantages.
Wouldn't lack of experience with Windows be a detriment to someone looking for employment in the business world, where Windows runs on well over 90% of all computers? I realize you can run Windows on a Mac, and many people do, but that seems like an expensive approach to gaining these valuable skills.
The "masses of people who held off and are going to buy an iPhone in Q3" theory is a popular one amongst fans of the platform.
However, market analysts disagree:
From http://www.appleinsider.com/articles/10/07/20/strong_quarter_expected_but_apples_antennagate_could_hurt_iphone_sales.html
"Analyst Yair Reiner has reduced his projected iPhone sales for the next quarter to 8.5 million, down from 11 million, citing well publicized signal drops that can be replicated with the iPhone 4 in weak signal areas. He expects others on Wall Street, which average predictions between 11 million and 11.5 million, will also reduce their estimates."
From http://www.appleinsider.com/articles/10/07/06/apple_struggles_to_meet_iphone_4_demand_as_ipad_availability_improves.html
"But in the September quarter, Wu has slightly increased his forecast of iPhone sales to 10.5 million, up from 10.4 million. He said checks with overseas suppliers have indicated that availability will improve in the August timeframe, offset by about a million of remaining channel inventory that is expected to be drawn down. Wu still expects Apple to ship 40 million iPhones in calendar 2010."
If Apple sells 10.5 million units in Q3, they'll be a little past where Android was in Q2 (roughly 500k units, but it's difficult to get very precise). If they sell only 8.5, as Reiner predicts, they will be simply maintaining the pre iPhone 4 rate of sales. Even the most favorable estimates do not put iPhone sales on pace with Android in Q3 or for the year.
In a market that is rapidly expanding, maintaining your units shipped per quarter is actually losing ground, as easily seen in the graph from the Nielson report: http://blog.nielsen.com/nielsenwire/wp-content/uploads/2010/08/mobile-OS-share-recent-2010.png
Notice that Apple declined from 34% of all sales in 2009 Q4 to only 23% in 2010 Q2, despite having sales of approximately the same volume in both Q1 and Q2 of this year.
Or, to make a long story short: No, iPhone sales are not going to catch up with Android sales, regardless of any "lurking hordes" who were waiting for the iPhone 4.