I really don't see what all the fuss is about!
Until the iPhone I've had only Nokia phones on the 02 network, my best mate has had Sony Ericsson phones on Vodaphone. Both drop calls regularly, both have other problems (7110 dodgy flip catch, 7210 OS was so bad I junked it, reception problems on the 6210, impossible cover on 7250, sidetalking on the N-Gage, usless GPS on the N95).
His phone works better in basement pubs, mine work better on trains, his doesn't work in my office (or his! and both are in the well covered canary wharf), mine doesn't work in my kitchen.
I'm not discounting the hardware theories but networks have a lot to answer for. Even in a well covered city like London I find EDGE way more reliable than 3G and it doesn't deplete the battery so quickly.
The iPhone 1.0 or the 3G model are still vastly better than the competition, and it's worth remembering that when you buy non-computer stuff from apple you're often buying bleeding edge design and hardware which is bound to have unforeseen problems.
I initially had problems with reception my 3G iPhone and my partner had similar trouble with hers, but once we turned off the wi-fi auto connect feature and wi-fi in general all the reception problems ceased - I found much the same problem/solution with iPhone 1.0.
Bill's justification only makes partial sense, perhaps truth lies in MS's corporate offerings?
I manage web analytics for 30 sites ranging from small businesses to very large corporate and public sector clients; over the last year or so Microsoft's live search has started getting some traction it now ranks 3rd or fourth in visit traffic on almost all but the smallest of sites under my watch. It's stealing that that market share from AOL, ASK and Yahoo not from Google via IE7's default search settings.
Acquiring Yahoo makes sense because its MS Live's only direct competitor. A merger would gain Microsoft second position in the market place overnight (engineers be dammed, in the consumer sector this is about market share and ad revenue) and bring in valuable $$. Merge MSN with Yahoo's community offerings and wrap the whole thing up with live search and you have something on your hands that webmasters might begin to take seriously.
But I think what Bill is really after is a corporate search product that actually works, the perpetual problem with MS's business products has always been an effective search product. They lose a huge volume of cash to Inktomi, FAST (which they recently bought), Google and others. FAST alone won't solve this problem but Yahoo's engineers might.
Slashdot Mirror
I really don't see what all the fuss is about! Until the iPhone I've had only Nokia phones on the 02 network, my best mate has had Sony Ericsson phones on Vodaphone. Both drop calls regularly, both have other problems (7110 dodgy flip catch, 7210 OS was so bad I junked it, reception problems on the 6210, impossible cover on 7250, sidetalking on the N-Gage, usless GPS on the N95). His phone works better in basement pubs, mine work better on trains, his doesn't work in my office (or his! and both are in the well covered canary wharf), mine doesn't work in my kitchen. I'm not discounting the hardware theories but networks have a lot to answer for. Even in a well covered city like London I find EDGE way more reliable than 3G and it doesn't deplete the battery so quickly. The iPhone 1.0 or the 3G model are still vastly better than the competition, and it's worth remembering that when you buy non-computer stuff from apple you're often buying bleeding edge design and hardware which is bound to have unforeseen problems.
I initially had problems with reception my 3G iPhone and my partner had similar trouble with hers, but once we turned off the wi-fi auto connect feature and wi-fi in general all the reception problems ceased - I found much the same problem/solution with iPhone 1.0.
Bill's justification only makes partial sense, perhaps truth lies in MS's corporate offerings? I manage web analytics for 30 sites ranging from small businesses to very large corporate and public sector clients; over the last year or so Microsoft's live search has started getting some traction it now ranks 3rd or fourth in visit traffic on almost all but the smallest of sites under my watch. It's stealing that that market share from AOL, ASK and Yahoo not from Google via IE7's default search settings. Acquiring Yahoo makes sense because its MS Live's only direct competitor. A merger would gain Microsoft second position in the market place overnight (engineers be dammed, in the consumer sector this is about market share and ad revenue) and bring in valuable $$. Merge MSN with Yahoo's community offerings and wrap the whole thing up with live search and you have something on your hands that webmasters might begin to take seriously. But I think what Bill is really after is a corporate search product that actually works, the perpetual problem with MS's business products has always been an effective search product. They lose a huge volume of cash to Inktomi, FAST (which they recently bought), Google and others. FAST alone won't solve this problem but Yahoo's engineers might.