Hmm, interesting. Maybe it differs by state or country?
In my experience, in California, I get my pink slip when I finish paying for the car. So either immediately if I pay in full, or 3 years later when my loan is done.
Since he said that Nook is uninstalling, as opposed to refusing to run, wouldn't that be like the onboard navi decides to eject itself from your car and scatter itself on the road as you drive over the border?
Ah, I see. That's interesting. Not sure if I'd like it, but I'd have to try it first to see.
So Home hides the current stack, and Back pops the current activity. Does Home also bring you to the application launcher or the home screen when the current stack gets hidden?
Yes it sounds like a scare tactic, but it really isn't.
As much as we'd like to be able to simply restore to factory condition, almost every computer/phone has some data stored that is unique and irrecoverable if lost.
In the case of the bricked iPhones, it was the info that controls the identity of the phone on the cell network. That's never supposed to be lost because nobody's supposed to be able to write to it. Hence there's no tools distributed to change that data, which is a good thing too because you don't want people changing the identity of a phone to be the same as another.
Actually... The iPhone in question (the iPhone 2G) has that. Which is why PwnageTool isn't ever going away for those devices. The exploit used to update the application processor is in ROM.
But the problem in this case was with the modem, which is a completely separate processor. The firmware used in the Infineon cellular modem, because of the unlock, got patched in a way that spams unique data structures with garbage. So when an update is applied, no matter by who, you lose data.
So yeah, you CAN always reflash it. But reflashing it doesn't get you lost data back. The desktop equivalent is flashing your BIOS after nuking your ethernet card's ROM. No matter how many times you reflash, you'll never figure out what your unique address was in the first place, thereby making your ethernet card useless.
Come on, that's outright dishonest. They have outright threatened to cripple devices that were unlocked in the past (see, for example, here),
Wait wait, now THAT's outright dishonest.
Specifically, Apple didn't threaten to cripple devices. Apple posted a warning that they found out that the baseband update code is broken on unlocked devices and doesn't function correctly.
In other words, Apple didn't cripple your device, the unlockers screwed up. Says who? Says people who worked on the unlocks in the first place.
(you can use the home button though, but that's so un-androidy...)
So... I have to ask since I've only used friend's Android phones but regularly use both an Moto WinMo 6.5 and old school iPhone original.
Why should leaving the application not be done through the home button? Why the back button? This seems weird to me since I would have expected back to be in the context of the app and home to be "go to phone's default screen".
Motorola makes other devices besides phones that use Windows. Why is Microsoft suing one of their own partners? Do they want Motorola to drop Windows all together? Dell, Acer, Symbol, Samsung etc. will all pay attention to this. Microsoft to partners: "In the future, as a Microsoft partner, we will dictate to you the OS your product uses or else we will sue you! We don't care if your hardware requirements cost more using our software."
Actually, a few years ago, Motorola closed the entire division that worked on WinMo phones. It was talked about a lot on howardforums.com; the Q9n (as forum people called it) was basically ready to ship as the next generation of Q but got canned as a result. People lost jobs, and there's a picture floating around with the Moto building and an actual "for lease" sign. They closed down an entire building. So... Motorola can't drop Windows altogether now. They already did, long ago.
OTOH, Apple has its own, not-so-obvious goals, mostly having to do with holding more money than the US Treasury and China combined, methinks.
Haha, it seems like Apple's goal isn't to own the entire market, it's to embarrass everybody who called it beleaguered all those years:P Either way, whatever it is, seems like it's a working business plan.
It won't support SIM cards. "Droid" is a marketing brand for Verizon's flagship line of Android OS-based phones. Verizon uses CDMA2000/EVDO, and does not use USIMs, therefore no SIM cards.
That's IF they can steal more. So far, they can get your device ID, and access the address book. I'm more concerned about the address book than I am about the device ID. Given the APIs, that's probably about all they can take from you.
That, I know. I do find it annoying that the industry uses the acronym "CDMA" for both the channel access method, and for shorthand for cdma2000/IS-95.
No-one's disputing Qualcomm's patents are necessary for 3G GSM, however that doesn't mean Qualcomm created 3G GSM.
And I don't dispute that either. But between Qualcomm, Nokia, and NTT DoCoMo, I'd say Nokia contributed the least of the three to making 3G GSM. (Unless there's some major thing I missed.)
So let's see... In Sept 1998, Nokia makes the first call on a WCDMA trial network.
According to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/W-CDMA, WCDMA was developed by NTT DoCoMo using CDMA (the channel access method, not the mobile phone standard abbreviation).
According to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/W-CDMA, "Qualcomm was the first company to succeed in developing a practical and cost-effective CDMA implementation for consumer cell phones."(wikipedia)
So Nokia made the first WCDMA handset using NTT DoCoMo's research, which built on top of Qualcomm's research/patent portfolio. And Nokia and NTT DoCoMo also tried challenging the patents and lost http://www.fool.com/portfolios/rulemaker/2000/rulemaker001124.htm
MBGMorden could be either marketshare or installed base.
When you said "I imagine you will find that iphone has no where near the most marketshare.", it's clear you're talking about marketshare since you refer directly to marketshare.
So I simply thought, "In terms of marketshare, is the iphone the most popular smartphone or not? let's google, 'smartphone marketshare'" and brought up that URL. Why that URL? First link Google gave me.
Who knows if their research is correct or not, but it seems to state in the chart that, in terms of marketshare, companywise, RIM is 1st, Apple is 2nd, and so on.
And while I still have no exact numbers of each particular smartphone model sale, it's looking to be a pretty likely case that MBGMorden's statement is valid. If the reality is that the Curve is outselling the iPhone 4, then MBGMorden's statement is invalid. Simple logic, right? All you have to do is simply find some numbers which prove/disprove that.
Alternatively, you could simply concede MBGMorden's statement, and then declare another one. How about: "While the iPhone is currently the most popular smartphone, the Android platform is gaining marketshare compared to the iOS platform." or "Despite the popularity of the iPhone, RIM still outsells Apple in terms of number of phones."
The point I'm trying to get across is not which phone is most popular or to be cheerleading for some platform. The point I'm trying to get across is that in order to have a debate, you're either going to have to make a point with some data, counter a point with some data, or concede a point and make a new one.
To answer you directly: 1) I have no gripes about the ~51 million phones, and whatever number of consoles because, frankly, I don't care. I don't know what the numbers are, and they seemed believable. The moment I took issue with the discussion was when I saw you and MBGMorden both ask each other to prove their points without posting any supporting data yourself. The data could have easily pointed the other way, and I'd be fine with that. But, as an aside, starting your request with "Haha," sounds like a dick move to me. 2) Given that your statement was "I imagine you will find that iphone has no where near the most marketshare." I do believe our conversation is about "selling the most right now." If it isn't, then why talk about marketshare? 3) Yes, my "proof" isn't a proof. It's a probabilistic conclusion based off a half-assed google search that says, "to me, it's most likely that MBGMorden is correct. So if you don't think so, show me some more data." It's not going to kill me to say I'm wrong if I'm wrong. 4) It doesn't bother me because as far as I know, I'm trying to follow the definitions I was given, and be clear about what I see I was given. I got these two statements to work with: "The iPhone is the most popular smartphone." "I imagine you will find that iphone has no where near the most marketshare."
If you have data stating that the Curve has outsold the iPhone 4, or the Bold has outsold the iPhone 4, or heck even N900 has outsold the iPhone 4, then what I would say "okay, but over what period?" I can believe that the Curve has outsold the iPhone 4 since it's been out quite a while longer, right? But I'm less likely to believe that the Curve is outselling the iPhone 4.
If you have data stating clearly that the Curve is outselling the iPhone 4, then what I would say is "The Curve is the most popular smartphone."
And I'm not sure I understand where you got this "~2.5 million iPhone 4s" from.
The biggest differentiator between an iPhone and an iPod Touch is the 3G radio. Guess who didn't develop GSM tech, but doesn't adhere to the licensing terms offered by the developer? I guess it's a case of [Apple] doing whatever the hell they please because they have no appreciation for the hard work of [Nokia].
If we're talking about 3G..... Nokia? WTF? Nokia?!?
It's Qualcomm, not Nokia. When it comes to 3G, know who to appreciate, dammit.:)
Yes, but the Pentium M is primarily a P6-core(Pentium Pro -designed in Santa Clara.... the city I'm sitting in at the moment) with some pieces pulled from Netburst (The Pentium 4). It's a CPU that has not any actual significant redesign (despite what marketing would have you believe) since 1995, despite it being a good chip. Yes, it took effort to finalize the Pentium M design, but just because a entirely different design center was working on it doesn't mean they actually designed the entire thing. Afterall, Intel's got a long history of taking existing pieces and recycling it.
And while AMD's foundry (aka, a factory) is in Dresden, the chips being manufactured in there are designed in Santa Clara too.
While we're at it, I believe the fading PowerPC G4 and G5 were both designed in Texas (different groups, different companies, same area of the US)
Either way, if I buy the new AppleTV, it'd be just to jailbreak it and see if I can make that into my home server. It takes only 1 watt more power than my gigabit switch, and I even have the d-link green one!
Given that the assertion was "the iPhone is the most popular smartphone", it's reasonably easy to believe.
One more time... "most popular smartphone." Smartphone. Not smartphones. Not plural. Smartphone. Singular. One phone.
Android is NOT a smartphone. Motorola Droid X is a smartphone. HTC Evo is a smartphone. Blackberry Pearl is a smartphone. iPhone 4 is a smartphone. Palm Pre Plus is a smartphone.
http://comscore.com/Press_Events/Press_Releases/2010/9/comScore_Reports_July_2010_U.S._Mobile_Subscriber_Market_Share Only two models of the iPhone are available at a time (currently 3GS and 4), and that Blackberry has 6 models. Unless one model of Blackberry accounts for over half the sales, it's highly likely that any particular Blackberry is the "most popular smartphone." And I'm thinking that between the iPhone 3GS and the iPhone 4, the iPhone 3GS isn't the most popular one selling now either. This leaves the iPhone 4 as the most probable "most popular smartphone."
And there in lies the problem. People want something, but disregard exactly how that thing they want came to be.
If the iPod wasn't backed by a desktop-based management software (in most cases, iTunes), it wouldn't be as good of a product as it is now.
Much of the ease of use and the polished experience comes from leverage of other software and hardware.
For those who want a portable music player without the Apple ecosystem, whatever their reasoning is, the iPod isn't for them. And there's plenty of other options.
Haha, people keep complaining "why do I have to use iTunes?", "why does it rename all my files into obscure 4 letter filenames?", "why can't I just mount the iPod as a USB device and drag files on there?"
The answer isn't: 1) To lock people in. 2) To annoy Linux users. 3) some evil conspiracy.
And the real answer is:
USB drives work too but it takes ages to read the filing system every time you switch the car on.
Slashdot Mirror
No. Absolutely not.
Hmm, interesting. Maybe it differs by state or country?
In my experience, in California, I get my pink slip when I finish paying for the car. So either immediately if I pay in full, or 3 years later when my loan is done.
Since he said that Nook is uninstalling, as opposed to refusing to run, wouldn't that be like the onboard navi decides to eject itself from your car and scatter itself on the road as you drive over the border?
Doesn't the loan company have the pink slip for the car? (until you pay it off?)
Therefore, under law, the loan company owns the car?
Ah, I see. That's interesting. Not sure if I'd like it, but I'd have to try it first to see.
So Home hides the current stack, and Back pops the current activity.
Does Home also bring you to the application launcher or the home screen when the current stack gets hidden?
Yes it sounds like a scare tactic, but it really isn't.
As much as we'd like to be able to simply restore to factory condition, almost every computer/phone has some data stored that is unique and irrecoverable if lost.
In the case of the bricked iPhones, it was the info that controls the identity of the phone on the cell network.
That's never supposed to be lost because nobody's supposed to be able to write to it. Hence there's no tools distributed to change that data, which is a good thing too because you don't want people changing the identity of a phone to be the same as another.
http://code.google.com/p/iphone-elite/wiki/iPhoneBrick
Actually...
The iPhone in question (the iPhone 2G) has that. Which is why PwnageTool isn't ever going away for those devices. The exploit used to update the application processor is in ROM.
But the problem in this case was with the modem, which is a completely separate processor.
The firmware used in the Infineon cellular modem, because of the unlock, got patched in a way that spams unique data structures with garbage.
So when an update is applied, no matter by who, you lose data.
See this: http://code.google.com/p/iphone-elite/wiki/iPhoneBrick
So yeah, you CAN always reflash it. But reflashing it doesn't get you lost data back.
The desktop equivalent is flashing your BIOS after nuking your ethernet card's ROM. No matter how many times you reflash, you'll never figure out what your unique address was in the first place, thereby making your ethernet card useless.
Come on, that's outright dishonest. They have outright threatened to cripple devices that were unlocked in the past (see, for example, here),
Wait wait, now THAT's outright dishonest.
Specifically, Apple didn't threaten to cripple devices.
Apple posted a warning that they found out that the baseband update code is broken on unlocked devices and doesn't function correctly.
In other words, Apple didn't cripple your device, the unlockers screwed up.
Says who? Says people who worked on the unlocks in the first place.
http://code.google.com/p/iphone-elite/wiki/iPhoneBrick
(you can use the home button though, but that's so un-androidy...)
So... I have to ask since I've only used friend's Android phones but regularly use both an Moto WinMo 6.5 and old school iPhone original.
Why should leaving the application not be done through the home button? Why the back button? This seems weird to me since I would have expected back to be in the context of the app and home to be "go to phone's default screen".
Motorola makes other devices besides phones that use Windows. Why is Microsoft suing one of their own partners? Do they want Motorola to drop Windows all together? Dell, Acer, Symbol, Samsung etc. will all pay attention to this. Microsoft to partners: "In the future, as a Microsoft partner, we will dictate to you the OS your product uses or else we will sue you! We don't care if your hardware requirements cost more using our software."
Actually, a few years ago, Motorola closed the entire division that worked on WinMo phones.
It was talked about a lot on howardforums.com; the Q9n (as forum people called it) was basically ready to ship as the next generation of Q but got canned as a result.
People lost jobs, and there's a picture floating around with the Moto building and an actual "for lease" sign. They closed down an entire building.
So... Motorola can't drop Windows altogether now. They already did, long ago.
OTOH, Apple has its own, not-so-obvious goals, mostly having to do with holding more money than the US Treasury and China combined, methinks.
Haha, it seems like Apple's goal isn't to own the entire market, it's to embarrass everybody who called it beleaguered all those years :P
Either way, whatever it is, seems like it's a working business plan.
It won't support SIM cards. "Droid" is a marketing brand for Verizon's flagship line of Android OS-based phones.
Verizon uses CDMA2000/EVDO, and does not use USIMs, therefore no SIM cards.
That's IF they can steal more. So far, they can get your device ID, and access the address book.
I'm more concerned about the address book than I am about the device ID.
Given the APIs, that's probably about all they can take from you.
And for readers of thedailywtf.com... "What? No wooden table?"
That CDMA and W-CDMA are not the same thing.
That, I know. I do find it annoying that the industry uses the acronym "CDMA" for both the channel access method, and for shorthand for cdma2000/IS-95.
No-one's disputing Qualcomm's patents are necessary for 3G GSM, however that doesn't mean Qualcomm created 3G GSM.
And I don't dispute that either. But between Qualcomm, Nokia, and NTT DoCoMo, I'd say Nokia contributed the least of the three to making 3G GSM. (Unless there's some major thing I missed.)
Nice timeline.
So let's see...
In Sept 1998, Nokia makes the first call on a WCDMA trial network.
According to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/W-CDMA, WCDMA was developed by NTT DoCoMo using CDMA (the channel access method, not the mobile phone standard abbreviation).
According to http://books.google.com/books?id=p631MJdn4XAC&lpg=PA25&ots=X2rRYLiVWN&pg=PA25#v=onepage&q&f=false, usage of CDMA (the access method) for mobile communications was widely believed be impossible except by Qualcomm.
According to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/W-CDMA, "Qualcomm was the first company to succeed in developing a practical and cost-effective CDMA implementation for consumer cell phones."(wikipedia)
So Nokia made the first WCDMA handset using NTT DoCoMo's research, which built on top of Qualcomm's research/patent portfolio. And Nokia and NTT DoCoMo also tried challenging the patents and lost http://www.fool.com/portfolios/rulemaker/2000/rulemaker001124.htm
Did I miss anything?
EnglishTim was talking about installed base.
MBGMorden could be either marketshare or installed base.
When you said "I imagine you will find that iphone has no where near the most marketshare.", it's clear you're talking about marketshare since you refer directly to marketshare.
So I simply thought, "In terms of marketshare, is the iphone the most popular smartphone or not? let's google, 'smartphone marketshare'" and brought up that URL. Why that URL? First link Google gave me.
Who knows if their research is correct or not, but it seems to state in the chart that, in terms of marketshare, companywise, RIM is 1st, Apple is 2nd, and so on.
And while I still have no exact numbers of each particular smartphone model sale, it's looking to be a pretty likely case that MBGMorden's statement is valid. If the reality is that the Curve is outselling the iPhone 4, then MBGMorden's statement is invalid. Simple logic, right?
All you have to do is simply find some numbers which prove/disprove that.
Alternatively, you could simply concede MBGMorden's statement, and then declare another one.
How about:
"While the iPhone is currently the most popular smartphone, the Android platform is gaining marketshare compared to the iOS platform."
or
"Despite the popularity of the iPhone, RIM still outsells Apple in terms of number of phones."
The point I'm trying to get across is not which phone is most popular or to be cheerleading for some platform. The point I'm trying to get across is that in order to have a debate, you're either going to have to make a point with some data, counter a point with some data, or concede a point and make a new one.
To answer you directly:
1) I have no gripes about the ~51 million phones, and whatever number of consoles because, frankly, I don't care. I don't know what the numbers are, and they seemed believable. The moment I took issue with the discussion was when I saw you and MBGMorden both ask each other to prove their points without posting any supporting data yourself. The data could have easily pointed the other way, and I'd be fine with that. But, as an aside, starting your request with "Haha," sounds like a dick move to me.
2) Given that your statement was "I imagine you will find that iphone has no where near the most marketshare." I do believe our conversation is about "selling the most right now." If it isn't, then why talk about marketshare?
3) Yes, my "proof" isn't a proof. It's a probabilistic conclusion based off a half-assed google search that says, "to me, it's most likely that MBGMorden is correct. So if you don't think so, show me some more data." It's not going to kill me to say I'm wrong if I'm wrong.
4) It doesn't bother me because as far as I know, I'm trying to follow the definitions I was given, and be clear about what I see I was given.
I got these two statements to work with:
"The iPhone is the most popular smartphone."
"I imagine you will find that iphone has no where near the most marketshare."
If you have data stating that the Curve has outsold the iPhone 4, or the Bold has outsold the iPhone 4, or heck even N900 has outsold the iPhone 4, then what I would say "okay, but over what period?"
I can believe that the Curve has outsold the iPhone 4 since it's been out quite a while longer, right?
But I'm less likely to believe that the Curve is outselling the iPhone 4.
If you have data stating clearly that the Curve is outselling the iPhone 4, then what I would say is "The Curve is the most popular smartphone."
And I'm not sure I understand where you got this "~2.5 million iPhone 4s" from.
The biggest differentiator between an iPhone and an iPod Touch is the 3G radio. Guess who didn't develop GSM tech, but doesn't adhere to the licensing terms offered by the developer? I guess it's a case of [Apple] doing whatever the hell they please because they have no appreciation for the hard work of [Nokia].
If we're talking about 3G..... Nokia? WTF? Nokia?!?
It's Qualcomm, not Nokia. When it comes to 3G, know who to appreciate, dammit. :)
Yes, but the Pentium M is primarily a P6-core(Pentium Pro -designed in Santa Clara.... the city I'm sitting in at the moment) with some pieces pulled from Netburst (The Pentium 4). It's a CPU that has not any actual significant redesign (despite what marketing would have you believe) since 1995, despite it being a good chip. Yes, it took effort to finalize the Pentium M design, but just because a entirely different design center was working on it doesn't mean they actually designed the entire thing. Afterall, Intel's got a long history of taking existing pieces and recycling it.
And while AMD's foundry (aka, a factory) is in Dresden, the chips being manufactured in there are designed in Santa Clara too.
While we're at it, I believe the fading PowerPC G4 and G5 were both designed in Texas (different groups, different companies, same area of the US)
Parent's argument seems reasonable.
As far as I know, 720p is HD.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/High-definition_video
Either way, if I buy the new AppleTV, it'd be just to jailbreak it and see if I can make that into my home server.
It takes only 1 watt more power than my gigabit switch, and I even have the d-link green one!
Given that the assertion was "the iPhone is the most popular smartphone", it's reasonably easy to believe.
One more time... "most popular smartphone."
Smartphone.
Not smartphones. Not plural.
Smartphone. Singular.
One phone.
Android is NOT a smartphone.
Motorola Droid X is a smartphone.
HTC Evo is a smartphone.
Blackberry Pearl is a smartphone.
iPhone 4 is a smartphone.
Palm Pre Plus is a smartphone.
http://comscore.com/Press_Events/Press_Releases/2010/9/comScore_Reports_July_2010_U.S._Mobile_Subscriber_Market_Share
Only two models of the iPhone are available at a time (currently 3GS and 4), and that Blackberry has 6 models. Unless one model of Blackberry accounts for over half the sales, it's highly likely that any particular Blackberry is the "most popular smartphone." And I'm thinking that between the iPhone 3GS and the iPhone 4, the iPhone 3GS isn't the most popular one selling now either. This leaves the iPhone 4 as the most probable "most popular smartphone."
Ahem... keep in mind, the jailbreakme.com PDF exploit stems from FreeType.
http://www.kb.cert.org/vuls/id/275247
Blaming Apple for an exploit in FOSS code they probably didn't write, is a little unfair, yeah?
Afterall, Red Hat was kind enough to at least credit Apple with the fix in their software update:
https://rhn.redhat.com/errata/RHSA-2010-0607.html
How about a Mac Mini running Windows 7 sitting on a TV set? ;) :)
Not only that, people can run your game on the average desktop computer too!
And there in lies the problem. People want something, but disregard exactly how that thing they want came to be.
If the iPod wasn't backed by a desktop-based management software (in most cases, iTunes), it wouldn't be as good of a product as it is now.
Much of the ease of use and the polished experience comes from leverage of other software and hardware.
For those who want a portable music player without the Apple ecosystem, whatever their reasoning is, the iPod isn't for them. And there's plenty of other options.
Haha, people keep complaining "why do I have to use iTunes?", "why does it rename all my files into obscure 4 letter filenames?", "why can't I just mount the iPod as a USB device and drag files on there?"
The answer isn't:
1) To lock people in.
2) To annoy Linux users.
3) some evil conspiracy.
And the real answer is:
USB drives work too but it takes ages to read the filing system every time you switch the car on.
(Well, in normal cases, the mp3 player.)