Maybe they're not targeting only the "average user"? One big feature of the Android platform is exactly open development, so maybe they expect to attract new devs to the platform,
But why would they target developers through mainstream TV ads? Any developer who's interested already knows about Android from the web sites they regularly read, or directly from Google. Also, this isn't advertising the Android platform as a whole, it's advertising a specific phone.
The opportunity for increased revenue sits right there in front of you, and if you had any sense, you would LEARN what its good for, and make money SHOWING your clients what they can do with it.
I have several drums of ebola virus sitting in my warehouse. I guess I would be an IDIOT not to take advantage of this opportunity to make money by SHOWING my clients what they can do with the EBOLA VIRUS.
For a phone to be a huge success, it does not have to match the sales of the iPhone, but if you get 4 or 5 phones that get more than a quarter of the users of the iPhone, Android is suddenly winning.
Fair enough.
I didn't say it was inevitable,
Actually, you did. You said "it's only a matter of time" and time is inevitable, we can't hold it back. You didn't mention any other option. If you said "it's a matter of time, and the successful execution of other company's plans" then you wouldn't be saying it's inevitable. But you said that it's only time and nothing else.
The problem is that the cost of reducing CO2 is largely unknown, as is the damage caused to the global economy.
Why do you assume that cutting CO2 emissions will damage the economy, and not hgelp it?
One thing is pretty clear; if we want to reduce carbon emissions, we need to put a price on CO2, and it needs to rise fast. And it will be painful.
Where's your evidence of this? If we reduce our emissions,doesn't that save us money? What's painful about that? How does using less gasoline cost you more money, for example?
It is only a matter of time before a blockbuster Android phone comes out because any company can make one for any network.
Anybody could have come out with a blockbuster iPod competitor, because music players don't even require any network or carrier. But nobody ever did. So why is it inevitable in the phone market?
If the ISP's are treated as content providers, then the Fairness Doctrine will have more impact when it gets reapplied - they can try to force ATT, Comcast, L3, etc. to manipulate their traffic in a way that promotes "fairness". So the carriers could be forced to, say, throttle traffic from Rush Limbaugh's website so that its traffic level matches, say, Public Radio International (PRI). Or the NRA's website until it matches the Brady campaign.
Slashdot really needs a new mod-tag: "-1: Insane nutburger who's off his medication."
Why do you single out Sony in your comments, when there are so many other companies involved in this? Moreover, your semi-illiterate ranting is not going to help your cause. You might want to learn some basic spelling and grammar if you want to be taken seriously.
then chances are, your not going to get away with it. However, if your shopping and happen to run into the person, then your obligated to correct anything that might be in violation.
The real question is, are they obligated to correct your grammar?
because the title of the story is "Analyst Predicts Android Overtaking iPhone In 2012
And since when did the title of the story have much to do with the content or meaning of slashdotters' posts? A cursory examination of the majority of posters' comments show that they have little to do with the story. Why should we assume that this post did?
I suspect the number of dead trees used to make such a book is less than the amount of trees necessary to manufacture and power an ebook of any kind over its usable lifespan.
I must have missed the Kindle "wood panel" edition.
Do you even know what milestone means? It doesn't mean "amount sold since launch". How do you know he was talking about hardware milestones and features, as so many of the other posts on this story are?
Because this makes much more sense than (God forbid!) Apple sticking a CDMA chip in some of their phones for compatibility with other networks.
No, that wouldn't make sense. It's not simply a matter of "sticking a CDMA chip in" as the two systems require different antennae, etc. So, Apple would have to re-engineer the product and have multiple SKUs just to service a small amount of users, when the rest of the world uses GSM. The real question is why the hell did Sprint and Verizon choose CDMA in the first place?
In twenty years, they'll be threatening people with fifty years in the electric chair with a gerbil up their arse,
I'd be surprised if they gave us the luxury of the gerbil. After all, if you're being fried on the electric chair, a rectally inserted rodent might offer some comfort and relief.
Why not just eliminate the free cellular access, and just use WiFi for the foreign models instead? The "free cellular access" thing always seemed like an unsustainable gimmick to me. It's not like many users would be inconvenienced by not having it. It seems like an unnecessary dependence on complex deals with unrelated entities. Amazon should just drop the price slightly, and not have to deal with the costs and hassles of dealing with phone companies (or including cellular hardware in the device).
This story isn't about sales figures or visibility, it's about the amount of bandwidth that iPhone users typically use. And that is much higher than for other phones. Did you even bother reading the summary?
Or (and call me crazy for such a ludicrous idea) end the purely greed-motivated exclusivity deal that dumps all the traffic on a single network in the first place.
OK, so the exclusivity deal with AT&T ends (which it will soon, anyway) - what then? The iPhone is a GSM device, so without exclusivity, your options are basically AT&T or T-Mobile. The other major carriers use CDMA. So, to spread the traffic across multiple networks, Sprint and the others need to build... a lot lot more new towers, of a different technology than they currently use.
Slashdot Mirror
Maybe they're not targeting only the "average user"? One big feature of the Android platform is exactly open development, so maybe they expect to attract new devs to the platform,
But why would they target developers through mainstream TV ads? Any developer who's interested already knows about Android from the web sites they regularly read, or directly from Google. Also, this isn't advertising the Android platform as a whole, it's advertising a specific phone.
The same way you develop PC software that has to run on ALL computers when the screen real-estate is so varied.
In other words, badly? This is still a big problem with current desktop GUIs. If your screen is too big or too small, the interface suffers.
The other big advantage being power consumption, as these minis are really easy on the juice.
The opportunity for increased revenue sits right there in front of you, and if you had any sense, you would LEARN what its good for, and make money SHOWING your clients what they can do with it.
I have several drums of ebola virus sitting in my warehouse. I guess I would be an IDIOT not to take advantage of this opportunity to make money by SHOWING my clients what they can do with the EBOLA VIRUS.
For a phone to be a huge success, it does not have to match the sales of the iPhone, but if you get 4 or 5 phones that get more than a quarter of the users of the iPhone, Android is suddenly winning.
Fair enough.
I didn't say it was inevitable,
Actually, you did. You said "it's only a matter of time" and time is inevitable, we can't hold it back. You didn't mention any other option. If you said "it's a matter of time, and the successful execution of other company's plans" then you wouldn't be saying it's inevitable. But you said that it's only time and nothing else.
The problem is that the cost of reducing CO2 is largely unknown, as is the damage caused to the global economy.
Why do you assume that cutting CO2 emissions will damage the economy, and not hgelp it?
One thing is pretty clear; if we want to reduce carbon emissions, we need to put a price on CO2, and it needs to rise fast. And it will be painful.
Where's your evidence of this? If we reduce our emissions,doesn't that save us money? What's painful about that? How does using less gasoline cost you more money, for example?
Except that Nokias don't really qualify as smartphones, at least not in the way the iPhone/Pre/Droid do.
It is only a matter of time before a blockbuster Android phone comes out because any company can make one for any network.
Anybody could have come out with a blockbuster iPod competitor, because music players don't even require any network or carrier. But nobody ever did. So why is it inevitable in the phone market?
Just what everyone needs, a backwards phone that is nearly a thousand years behind the times and if you do anything it doesn't like it will blow up.
Sorry, that design is already patented by Windows Mobile.
Wait, Labour is left-wing? I don't think so.
If the ISP's are treated as content providers, then the Fairness Doctrine will have more impact when it gets reapplied - they can try to force ATT, Comcast, L3, etc. to manipulate their traffic in a way that promotes "fairness". So the carriers could be forced to, say, throttle traffic from Rush Limbaugh's website so that its traffic level matches, say, Public Radio International (PRI). Or the NRA's website until it matches the Brady campaign.
Slashdot really needs a new mod-tag: "-1: Insane nutburger who's off his medication."
Why do you single out Sony in your comments, when there are so many other companies involved in this? Moreover, your semi-illiterate ranting is not going to help your cause. You might want to learn some basic spelling and grammar if you want to be taken seriously.
I'm interesting...
Not as much as you think you are.
then chances are, your not going to get away with it. However, if your shopping and happen to run into the person, then your obligated to correct anything that might be in violation.
The real question is, are they obligated to correct your grammar?
because the title of the story is "Analyst Predicts Android Overtaking iPhone In 2012
And since when did the title of the story have much to do with the content or meaning of slashdotters' posts? A cursory examination of the majority of posters' comments show that they have little to do with the story. Why should we assume that this post did?
I suspect the number of dead trees used to make such a book is less than the amount of trees necessary to manufacture and power an ebook of any kind over its usable lifespan.
I must have missed the Kindle "wood panel" edition.
Do you even know what milestone means? It doesn't mean "amount sold since launch". How do you know he was talking about hardware milestones and features, as so many of the other posts on this story are?
Because this makes much more sense than (God forbid!) Apple sticking a CDMA chip in some of their phones for compatibility with other networks.
No, that wouldn't make sense. It's not simply a matter of "sticking a CDMA chip in" as the two systems require different antennae, etc. So, Apple would have to re-engineer the product and have multiple SKUs just to service a small amount of users, when the rest of the world uses GSM. The real question is why the hell did Sprint and Verizon choose CDMA in the first place?
In twenty years, they'll be threatening people with fifty years in the electric chair with a gerbil up their arse,
I'd be surprised if they gave us the luxury of the gerbil. After all, if you're being fried on the electric chair, a rectally inserted rodent might offer some comfort and relief.
Though I'm not sure I would want to store my data in it.
Why not just eliminate the free cellular access, and just use WiFi for the foreign models instead? The "free cellular access" thing always seemed like an unsustainable gimmick to me. It's not like many users would be inconvenienced by not having it. It seems like an unnecessary dependence on complex deals with unrelated entities. Amazon should just drop the price slightly, and not have to deal with the costs and hassles of dealing with phone companies (or including cellular hardware in the device).
So, T-Mobile, Sprint and Verizon are going to build whole new GSM networks at great expense, just to sell the iPhone? I don't think so.
Where the hell are you getting your free iPhone data plan from?
This story isn't about sales figures or visibility, it's about the amount of bandwidth that iPhone users typically use. And that is much higher than for other phones. Did you even bother reading the summary?
Or (and call me crazy for such a ludicrous idea) end the purely greed-motivated exclusivity deal that dumps all the traffic on a single network in the first place.
OK, so the exclusivity deal with AT&T ends (which it will soon, anyway) - what then? The iPhone is a GSM device, so without exclusivity, your options are basically AT&T or T-Mobile. The other major carriers use CDMA. So, to spread the traffic across multiple networks, Sprint and the others need to build... a lot lot more new towers, of a different technology than they currently use.