no. 75% of the 1.7M iPhone purchasers were upgrading an older iphone. only 425k of the iphone 4 purchasers were new iphone users. in those same 3 days (on average, based on the latest sales number) Android added 480k new users.
Android adds 640k users every four days. The number of used iphones going onto new contracts is not really significant. The ratio of new vs old customers compared to past devices is the important detail.
The iPhone seems to be on it's way to becoming a niche device in the long term unless something changes. Perhaps occupying a niche is exactly what Apple wants, some fans have commented that they believe this. If not, expanding to additional US carriers is the only way to compete with Android's quickly growing market share. We're already seeing saturation with over 75% of iPhone 4 purchasers being previous iPhone users (the highest repeat buyer rate of any iPhone release). Meanwhile Android is adding 160,000 new users a day, a rate that outpaces the rate of new iPhone users even during the iPhone 4 launch. It is only a matter of time until Android has more users than iPhone unless Apple finds a new way to add more users. Expanding to additional US carriers seems the only way to do this, so I would believe the Verizon iPhone could be more likely than ever before.
hmmm. a quick test on Windows 7 here reveals the same thing, double CPU use for Flash. However, it's 1-2 percent of 1 of 4 cores vs 3-4 percent, hardly something to worry about.
(this isn't a fancy computer, an older quad core intel processor)
FTA: "Flash brings everything to a crawl and has an impact on battery life"
I've heard similar sentiments in other quasi-news tech articles, but haven't all actual test done so far found that HTML5 is about the same as flash on battery life and cpu usage? where does the idea that it will be better in these areas than flash come from? I think HTML5 has merit as a standard, but whats with the marketing spin?
its a small volunteer run mag with articles about "retro computing".. the 8 bit machines, mainframes, and the good old days. has old computer ads from the 80s, etc. its a new project with only 2 issues out, but I enjoyed the first enough to write an article for the second.
What's to stop Apple from adding it to OS X and the iPhone OS along side H.264 and supporting both. How does this give google some kind of competitive edge over Apple that would make Apple "terrified"? They both have full access to H.264 and related tools today, so nothing would change with adoption of VP8: the status quo is maintained.
Wow, I cannot believe this is modded insightful.
They aren't worried that Google's open solutions won't be available to them as well, after all this is silly as you pointed out. This is about Apple and MS killing a technology that Google is invested in.
They aren't worried that Google will have a competitive edge, they are trying to *gain* a competitive edge over Google. The "terrified" part has little to do with codecs and much to do with Google's success in markets that Apple and MS compete in.
The ipad gets rid of most of those problems (to a very large degree).
The iPad "gets rid" of these problems chiefly by removing features and capabilities.
Perhaps mainstream computer manufacturers have over estimated the average human's capacity to learn. Apple seems to think so. It makes me sad, but maybe "the average guy" really cannot understand the average computer well enough to do what he'd like to do.
Personally, I'd rather see solutions that help bring humans up to a level where they can do more than solutions which reduce computing to the least common denominator. I haven't given up on the humans yet.
Kind of like the EyeDriver, but Steve Jobs drives your car with his own eyes. This ensures a consistent driving experience, so long as you only want to go where he sends you.
Linux is made by skilled folks who were nice enough to share so that other skilled folks can use it and hopefully add something back to the pool. That 95% has very little to offer us.
Serving the user pays the light bill and the rent.
believe it or not, some of us do things for reasons other than financial gain. that's not to say there isn't money to be made in open source if that's your thing, there are quite a few financially successful FOSS entities and individuals. if you're genuinely interested in this subject, you may want to do a bit of research before making similar statements in the future.
Comments like "linux will never 'win' until it's easy to use" are silly.. Linux already won, it just isn't playing with you.
I'll remember that the next time I'm shopping for a video game console, a tablet or a cell phone. The walled garden the geek so dislikes when he is on the outside looking in.
i'm not sure what this means, but i'm pretty sure i disagree somehow. really not interested enough to try and decipher that one.
I haven't seen any improvement or decline in the quality of Linksys equipment since they were aquired/purchased/whatever happened with Cisco. some models at least appear to be identical except for the cisco logo printed on it. I've used and recommended linksys stuff for many years, not because it works that well or lasts that long, but because it's cheap, easy to find and fairly well documented.
if you want a router that works great and lasts several years, buy a Cisco (the stuff you find at cisco.com, not at best buy). with a few infamous exceptions, cisco gear works *very* well and lasts forever. thing is, these cost several times what a linksys does. in the end its tough to say which is a better deal, but given the pace of advances in networking I think the cheap stuff makes more sense for a home network. the real cisco stuff makes more sense in a business where downtime can be a bigger expense than the equipment.
if you are willing to tinker but on a budget, used cisco gear can be an interesting way to go. you're not going to get the latest models for a good price, but a generation behind can be cheap and still plenty powerful for home use. i don't know if any 802.11G models have become cheap in the used market, but the 350 series/802.11b stuff was dirt cheap last I checked. Those work wonderfully well.
I won't say "if you cannot understand iptables then you aren't worth having in the linux community". I will say that if you don't understand iptables, you probably aren't trying very hard. it can be understood at a functional, surface level in a couple hours and mastered in a few months of serious use. I'm honestly interested to know... what part of iptables is it that a 15 year linux veteran cannot understand?
"Yeah, fuck those end users! We'll make it a bitch and a half to use our product even though the fixes are simple!"
No, the fixes are not simple. I don't know why you feel qualified to proclaim that they are, but you are mistaken. I'm also not sure where you got the idea that anyone intentionally makes their products difficult to use. It is far more likely that the device you struggle to use is "difficult" due to lack of any effort, not because of a specific effort to make it difficult.
Honestly now, I'm talking about home users, the other people who use firewalls, even though they don't know it. Make it a standard on routers where on the router's config page, it can accept a small text file with ports to be routed to the current connection. Even better, have the program send that information when the game starts, and have the ports un-routed when the game ends. It's a relatively simple, easy fix for the headache that is "finding out the proper ports for XBox Live to work" and entering them manually.
Once again, your simplistic "solution" reveals how little you understand about the problem. Ignoring the technical issues (and the fact that all of this has been possible via uPnP which works much more simply than your proposal), why would a user know what a "router config page" or a "text file" is? Why would a home user know how to acquire this text file or how to submit it to a router config page? You've defined "typical user" in terms of what *you* know how to do, which is just as foolish as a unix admin defining the typical user in terms of what they understand.
I know how to do it, but let me tell you, I don't know many other people that can install a router to begin with, let alone get their port forwarding to work for Gears of War; and they don't care to learn. Ease of use and the user interfaces on routers haven't improved one bit for consumers from the Belkin I had in 2002; why the should a market completely stagnate in user friendliness for that long?
Oh, that's right. It's because every *nix head doesn't think about the real end user, just what's "most powerful" in terms of features. Design solely for the power users and administrators, and you miss 95% of the market - what Linux has excelled at for many, many years.
So much misunderstanding.. so little time. What do "*nix heads" have to do with routers? Very few routers run unix, and home router user interfaces certainly have nothing to do with unix. Why haven't you seen changes in these devices since 2002? Basically because they work well enough for that 95% of the market you mention. You know what has changed? They cost a lot less. This is really all that same 95% give a shit about.
And finally.. what gives you the idea that Linux wants anything to do with this 95%? Linux is made by skilled folks who were nice enough to share so that other skilled folks can use it and hopefully add something back to the pool. That 95% has very little to offer us.
Comments like "linux will never 'win' until it's easy to use" are silly.. Linux already won, it just isn't playing with you.
apparently you dropped the vendor of your spellchecker.
this was not standard operating procedure, this was a unique situation that required a unique solution. the clamav team made the choice that they felt was best. given the facts as I understand them, I agree with their decision.
if your IT department cannot be bothered to read the announcements for the software they use, or even to review your own server logs, then you should certainly not be using open source software. just pay someone to do this type of thing for you, as many companies do. FOSS is not for you.
This is more of a question than anything, as I find this to be a fascinating topic, but have little experience in managing corporate networks.
At what point does it make sense to have your users having to run all that they do on a virtual machine, which if anything gets compromised can just be rolled back without too much fuss?
This can be done better without virtual machines. Easy to do the same thing with real hardware and the user doesn't have to deal with working in a VM all the time.
Also, does it make sense to move a lot of what people do to some sort of hosted app infrastructure (private cloud for example) where the lockdown can occur in an easier and more granular manner as all of the apps are managed by IT only, or is this just a pipe dream that's at least another 10 years away?
The hosted app, thin client model, "whatever name they call it now" model has been around since the first time sharing computers were created. People don't like it, simple as that. It's been "coming soon" to the PC world for maybe 20 years now? Sure.. it's 10 years away LOL.
Let's see... virtual machines on the desktop, a private cloud.... It sure sounds like someone reads too much CIO magazine/goes to too many sales conferences/believes the marketing hype......
If the only goal is to get these kids doing well in the contest, I agree that VB might have some merit, although there are IDEs for other languages that provide similar tools.
However, if the instructor also intends to give these kids skill with something they could actually use later in life, VB seems a poor choice compared to almost all of the others (Pascal being an obvious exception).
I'm a big fan of Perl myself but I wouldn't recommend it for new programmers. The phrase "enough rope to hang yourself" doesn't begin to describe it. It's also probably a bad choice in this scenario because it isn't on the list of accepted languages, although if you were decently skilled I'm sure you could write one liner to translate your perl source into any one of the accepted list.
I've recently rediscovered the joy of small computers that can be fully understood by one person. The 8 bit machines from the 80s provide opportunities for learning and experimentation that are not present in today's computers. "Retro computing" is growing as a hobby amongst both people who remember these machines fondly from past days and younger folks who just find them interesting. It is strictly a hobby of course, very little "useful" stuff can be done with these boxes beyond the education they can provide.
My favorite retro system is OS-9, a real time multitasking operating system that you can fit in your head. There is an open source version called NitrOS-9 which has excellent documentation and most of the code well commented. It runs on 6809 based computers like the Tandy Color Computer and the Tano Dragon.
You can learn a tremendous amount about process scheduling, IPC, memory management, device drivers and low level I/O, etc from playing with this system.
how did this get modded informative? the numbers make no sense, the conclusions don't even jive with his own numbers, full of technobabble. i smell middle management.
are you suggesting it would not have gone down if you had continued using sorbs? i don't get it. how can you get less spam by blocking less IPs, regardless of whether those IPs are spammers or not?
It should also be noted that more of Apple's profits come from cell phones and music players than they do from their 6% of the home computer market share. I don't think your numbers are accounting for this.
Yes, MS makes most of their money in the business world where Apple has failed. This is why MS can make more profits than Apple selling only software. Yours in the only post I see that seems to know the correct answer to that question.
Why does Apple fail to interest the business world? A complicated question, but I believe it is because on average businesses don't buy based on image or perceived value, they buy based on numbers. Of course there are exceptions to this rule, but generally a business will not take things like cool factor into consideration.
Slashdot Mirror
part 2.. the references:
77% of iphone 4 purchases were existing iphone users:
http://tech.fortune.cnn.com/2010/06/25/77-of-iphone-4-sales-were-upgrades/
Android selling 160,000 units per day:
http://www.cellular-news.com/story/44041.php
sorry forgot to include in previous post
no. 75% of the 1.7M iPhone purchasers were upgrading an older iphone. only 425k of the iphone 4 purchasers were new iphone users. in those same 3 days (on average, based on the latest sales number) Android added 480k new users.
Android adds 640k users every four days. The number of used iphones going onto new contracts is not really significant. The ratio of new vs old customers compared to past devices is the important detail.
The iPhone seems to be on it's way to becoming a niche device in the long term unless something changes. Perhaps occupying a niche is exactly what Apple wants, some fans have commented that they believe this. If not, expanding to additional US carriers is the only way to compete with Android's quickly growing market share. We're already seeing saturation with over 75% of iPhone 4 purchasers being previous iPhone users (the highest repeat buyer rate of any iPhone release). Meanwhile Android is adding 160,000 new users a day, a rate that outpaces the rate of new iPhone users even during the iPhone 4 launch. It is only a matter of time until Android has more users than iPhone unless Apple finds a new way to add more users. Expanding to additional US carriers seems the only way to do this, so I would believe the Verizon iPhone could be more likely than ever before.
hmmm. a quick test on Windows 7 here reveals the same thing, double CPU use for Flash. However, it's 1-2 percent of 1 of 4 cores vs 3-4 percent, hardly something to worry about.
(this isn't a fancy computer, an older quad core intel processor)
FTA: "Flash brings everything to a crawl and has an impact on battery life"
I've heard similar sentiments in other quasi-news tech articles, but haven't all actual test done so far found that HTML5 is about the same as flash on battery life and cpu usage? where does the idea that it will be better in these areas than flash come from? I think HTML5 has merit as a standard, but whats with the marketing spin?
Not for current info, but if you want a magazine that really takes you back, check out
http://www.300baudmagazine.com/
its a small volunteer run mag with articles about "retro computing".. the 8 bit machines, mainframes, and the good old days.
has old computer ads from the 80s, etc. its a new project with only 2 issues out, but I enjoyed the first enough to write an article for the second.
lame stuff like Microsoft Office and a spreadsheet for crying out loud.
Microsoft sold 120 million Office 2007 licenses in the first six months.
Maybe your idea of what people consider "lame" isn't in line with the real world?
http://www.microsoft.com/msft/speech/FY08/ElopFAM2008.mspx
What's to stop Apple from adding it to OS X and the iPhone OS along side H.264 and supporting both. How does this give google some kind of competitive edge over Apple that would make Apple "terrified"? They both have full access to H.264 and related tools today, so nothing would change with adoption of VP8: the status quo is maintained.
Wow, I cannot believe this is modded insightful.
They aren't worried that Google's open solutions won't be available to them as well, after all this is silly as you pointed out. This is about Apple and MS killing a technology that Google is invested in.
They aren't worried that Google will have a competitive edge, they are trying to *gain* a competitive edge over Google. The "terrified" part has little to do with codecs and much to do with Google's success in markets that Apple and MS compete in.
Do marketers really think people haven't figured out that 2.99 is three dollars? Are they right?
The ipad gets rid of most of those problems (to a very large degree).
The iPad "gets rid" of these problems chiefly by removing features and capabilities.
Perhaps mainstream computer manufacturers have over estimated the average human's capacity to learn. Apple seems to think so. It makes me sad, but maybe "the average guy" really cannot understand the average computer well enough to do what he'd like to do.
Personally, I'd rather see solutions that help bring humans up to a level where they can do more than solutions which reduce computing to the least common denominator. I haven't given up on the humans yet.
Kind of like the EyeDriver, but Steve Jobs drives your car with his own eyes. This ensures a consistent driving experience, so long as you only want to go where he sends you.
Linux is made by skilled folks who were nice enough to share so that other skilled folks can use it and hopefully add something back to the pool. That 95% has very little to offer us.
Serving the user pays the light bill and the rent.
believe it or not, some of us do things for reasons other than financial gain. that's not to say there isn't money to be made in open source if that's your thing, there are quite a few financially successful FOSS entities and individuals. if you're genuinely interested in this subject, you may want to do a bit of research before making similar statements in the future.
Comments like "linux will never 'win' until it's easy to use" are silly.. Linux already won, it just isn't playing with you.
I'll remember that the next time I'm shopping for a video game console, a tablet or a cell phone. The walled garden the geek so dislikes when he is on the outside looking in.
i'm not sure what this means, but i'm pretty sure i disagree somehow. really not interested enough to try and decipher that one.
I haven't seen any improvement or decline in the quality of Linksys equipment since they were aquired/purchased/whatever happened with Cisco. some models at least appear to be identical except for the cisco logo printed on it. I've used and recommended linksys stuff for many years, not because it works that well or lasts that long, but because it's cheap, easy to find and fairly well documented.
if you want a router that works great and lasts several years, buy a Cisco (the stuff you find at cisco.com, not at best buy). with a few infamous exceptions, cisco gear works *very* well and lasts forever. thing is, these cost several times what a linksys does. in the end its tough to say which is a better deal, but given the pace of advances in networking I think the cheap stuff makes more sense for a home network. the real cisco stuff makes more sense in a business where downtime can be a bigger expense than the equipment.
if you are willing to tinker but on a budget, used cisco gear can be an interesting way to go. you're not going to get the latest models for a good price, but a generation behind can be cheap and still plenty powerful for home use. i don't know if any 802.11G models have become cheap in the used market, but the 350 series/802.11b stuff was dirt cheap last I checked. Those work wonderfully well.
I won't say "if you cannot understand iptables then you aren't worth having in the linux community". I will say that if you don't understand iptables, you probably aren't trying very hard. it can be understood at a functional, surface level in a couple hours and mastered in a few months of serious use. I'm honestly interested to know... what part of iptables is it that a 15 year linux veteran cannot understand?
"Yeah, fuck those end users! We'll make it a bitch and a half to use our product even though the fixes are simple!"
No, the fixes are not simple. I don't know why you feel qualified to proclaim that they are, but you are mistaken.
I'm also not sure where you got the idea that anyone intentionally makes their products difficult to use. It is far more likely that the device you struggle to use is "difficult" due to lack of any effort, not because of a specific effort to make it difficult.
Honestly now, I'm talking about home users, the other people who use firewalls, even though they don't know it. Make it a standard on routers where on the router's config page, it can accept a small text file with ports to be routed to the current connection. Even better, have the program send that information when the game starts, and have the ports un-routed when the game ends. It's a relatively simple, easy fix for the headache that is "finding out the proper ports for XBox Live to work" and entering them manually.
Once again, your simplistic "solution" reveals how little you understand about the problem. Ignoring the technical issues (and the fact that all of this has been possible via uPnP which works much more simply than your proposal), why would a user know what a "router config page" or a "text file" is? Why would a home user know how to acquire this text file or how to submit it to a router config page? You've defined "typical user" in terms of what *you* know how to do, which is just as foolish as a unix admin defining the typical user in terms of what they understand.
I know how to do it, but let me tell you, I don't know many other people that can install a router to begin with, let alone get their port forwarding to work for Gears of War; and they don't care to learn. Ease of use and the user interfaces on routers haven't improved one bit for consumers from the Belkin I had in 2002; why the should a market completely stagnate in user friendliness for that long?
Oh, that's right. It's because every *nix head doesn't think about the real end user, just what's "most powerful" in terms of features. Design solely for the power users and administrators, and you miss 95% of the market - what Linux has excelled at for many, many years.
So much misunderstanding.. so little time. What do "*nix heads" have to do with routers? Very few routers run unix, and home router user interfaces certainly have nothing to do with unix. Why haven't you seen changes in these devices since 2002? Basically because they work well enough for that 95% of the market you mention. You know what has changed? They cost a lot less. This is really all that same 95% give a shit about.
And finally.. what gives you the idea that Linux wants anything to do with this 95%? Linux is made by skilled folks who were nice enough to share so that other skilled folks can use it and hopefully add something back to the pool. That 95% has very little to offer us.
Comments like "linux will never 'win' until it's easy to use" are silly.. Linux already won, it just isn't playing with you.
apparently you dropped the vendor of your spellchecker.
this was not standard operating procedure, this was a unique situation that required a unique solution. the clamav team made the choice that they felt was best. given the facts as I understand them, I agree with their decision.
if your IT department cannot be bothered to read the announcements for the software they use, or even to review your own server logs, then you should certainly not be using open source software. just pay someone to do this type of thing for you, as many companies do. FOSS is not for you.
This is more of a question than anything, as I find this to be a fascinating topic, but have little experience in managing corporate networks.
At what point does it make sense to have your users having to run all that they do on a virtual machine, which if anything gets compromised can just be rolled back without too much fuss?
This can be done better without virtual machines. Easy to do the same thing with real hardware and the user doesn't have to deal with working in a VM all the time.
Also, does it make sense to move a lot of what people do to some sort of hosted app infrastructure (private cloud for example) where the lockdown can occur in an easier and more granular manner as all of the apps are managed by IT only, or is this just a pipe dream that's at least another 10 years away?
The hosted app, thin client model, "whatever name they call it now" model has been around since the first time sharing computers were created. People don't like it, simple as that. It's been "coming soon" to the PC world for maybe 20 years now? Sure.. it's 10 years away LOL.
Let's see... virtual machines on the desktop, a private cloud.... It sure sounds like someone reads too much CIO magazine/goes to too many sales conferences/believes the marketing hype......
If the only goal is to get these kids doing well in the contest, I agree that VB might have some merit, although there are IDEs for other languages that provide similar tools.
However, if the instructor also intends to give these kids skill with something they could actually use later in life, VB seems a poor choice compared to almost all of the others (Pascal being an obvious exception).
I'm a big fan of Perl myself but I wouldn't recommend it for new programmers. The phrase "enough rope to hang yourself" doesn't begin to describe it. It's also probably a bad choice in this scenario because it isn't on the list of accepted languages, although if you were decently skilled I'm sure you could write one liner to translate your perl source into any one of the accepted list.
I've recently rediscovered the joy of small computers that can be fully understood by one person. The 8 bit machines from the 80s provide opportunities for learning and experimentation that are not present in today's computers. "Retro computing" is growing as a hobby amongst both people who remember these machines fondly from past days and younger folks who just find them interesting. It is strictly a hobby of course, very little "useful" stuff can be done with these boxes beyond the education they can provide.
My favorite retro system is OS-9, a real time multitasking operating system that you can fit in your head. There is an open source version called NitrOS-9 which has excellent documentation and most of the code well commented. It runs on 6809 based computers like the Tandy Color Computer and the Tano Dragon.
You can learn a tremendous amount about process scheduling, IPC, memory management, device drivers and low level I/O, etc from playing with this system.
how did this get modded informative? the numbers make no sense, the conclusions don't even jive with his own numbers, full of technobabble. i smell middle management.
are you suggesting it would not have gone down if you had continued using sorbs? i don't get it. how can you get less spam by blocking less IPs, regardless of whether those IPs are spammers or not?
It should also be noted that more of Apple's profits come from cell phones and music players than they do from their 6% of the home computer market share. I don't think your numbers are accounting for this.
Yes, MS makes most of their money in the business world where Apple has failed. This is why MS can make more profits than Apple selling only software. Yours in the only post I see that seems to know the correct answer to that question.
Why does Apple fail to interest the business world? A complicated question, but I believe it is because on average businesses don't buy based on image or perceived value, they buy based on numbers. Of course there are exceptions to this rule, but generally a business will not take things like cool factor into consideration.
thank you, the one person who seems to have actually read what I said and not what they think I might have said.