Sprint and T-Mobile only care about getting customers to sign a contract. Their service is atrocious and cellular coverage is spotty around the city and really crappy in the rural areas.
I would disagree with you on this (about T-Mobile) from my own personal experiences with them in supporting unsupported phones, billing help, contract help and getting coverage (albeit via roaming on ATT or others) with no roaming charges.
And in the US, it seems the customers of these various cell companies disagree with you as well...
As of 2009, T-Mobile USA has captured at least 13 J.D. Power Awards in the areas of customer care, call quality, and overall customer satisfaction. In particular, it has dominated the wireless industry in the area of customer care and customer satisfaction, winning all customer care and satisfaction awards for all six surveyed regions for seven years in a row.
I updated the above from the Wikipedia entry by checking JD Power for the last 2 years (Wikipedia only mentions up to 2007... but guess who won yet again since then? Yup... T-Mobile).
So, I guess your experiences vary from the rest of the population. That does happen... but your experiences aside, overall, cell phone customers seem to disagree.
Well, as one who lives right outside the NYC area and travels into the boonies of upstate or through NYC in West New York (ie: New Jersey) a bunch, I am happy with TMo. When I am in the boonies upstate, it roams (including 3G where available) but I dont get charged for it.
By price and customer service: -T-Mobile (followed by Sprint)
By 3G Coverage: -Verizon
NOTE: though Verizon has the best 3G coverage, do NOT rely on their "lying" maps for it. They are wrong, and show 3G coverage in areas that dont even have voice (where they never plan on having coverage no less... such as Ticonderoga, NY). So regardless of them having more 3G coverage in more areas, their maps cannot be believed... thus, dont expect you will get 3G coverage in areas where they claim you will.
By phone: -Will depend on what you think is a cool phone... for the iPhone, get AT&T. For an Android phone, get T-Mo or Verizon.
For reliable software updates for a smartphone -T-Mobile (nothing but nightmares with AT&T's hosed updates. Each one would claim to fix a botch in another, and introduce a whole new set of problems or not properly fix the others). TMo takes their time releasing their updates, but thoroughly tests them first.
Of course, this does not apply to phones where the updates come directly from the phone manufacturer... but none of my phones have been that sort. They have all been ones where updates get their final customization and work by the carrier.
Basically, it will depend on what area you live in/use the phone and what type of phone you want. On a personal note, I am thrilled with T-Mobile. I have never gotten better customer service or support - even on "unsupported" phones... I've bought quite a few ATT or Cingular smart phones and called TMo to get them up and running on TMo's network and get the "Well, we dont officially support that phone but..." (followed by step by step details on how to set each phone parameter needed while they are configuring things on my account on their end for it)... then, the times I've had to reboot the phone to let the settings take affect, if I am on that phone with them, they call back to make sure it's all up and running. Same type of amazing customer care when it comes to billing. And same mentality on their support forums where they even have entire threads and boards devoted to rooting Android based phones.
As for TMo's worse (though currently fastest) 3G, I have no issues with that as in the office and at home, I connect via WiFi (TMo G1 Android phone) and elsewhere I can connect to any TMo hotspot at no extra charge (McDonalds and numerous other spots)... and everywhere inbetween, EDGE and such more than suffice for my needs (mapping, phone sync'ing and the occassional web surfing when on the road).
But again, your needs (coverage, phone, etc) will determine which is best for you.
While it is writen to say could possibly be modified to work with newer versions of IE, I find that a little unlikely considering the more recent track record of IE's beefing of security. Unfortunately the people writing these articles tend to have bias towards IE as a whole and not just against the mess that IE6 was.
Really? What do you base that on?
- First, there have already been a ton of exploits for IE7 and IE8 - and even some patches.
- Second, Microsoft never seemed to say that IE7 or IE8 were not vulnerable. They very carefully said this instead:
"At this time, we are aware of limited, active attacks attempting to use this vulnerability against Internet Explorer 6. We have not seen attacks against other affected versions of Internet Explorer.” – Microsoft.
That states there are other affected versions... but Microsoft hasn't seen attacks against them. I could care less what Microsoft has seen... they also "saw" XP and IE6 as secure (pre Service Pack 1).
It also means the other affected browsers are... IE4? IE5? IE7? IE8? I wonder which ones of those are the ones they are talking about? I could almost bet you that it's not a pre-IE6 browser that they are talking about.
Yet you test your sites on IE6. Is the time not long past where you should just be displaying the same sort of message to IE6 users you would to $random_unsupported browser, or better yet the same one you give to $random_vulnerable browser. I'm afraid you are as much to blame as the governments, non-technical corporates and pro-MS shops for making yourself have to keep the VM around to test the insane browser.
No, because most average computer users will simply not visit the site again.
That is not the reason. Take a good look at the figures. Bing has gained no market share overall from Google. Bing has gained market share by Yahoo and others using Bing for their search services. Hence the drop in other search providers.
This article is (a) misleading, (b) draws incorrect conclusions and (c) is written by someone who knows nothing about the topic at hand.
What we are actually seeing means nothing about Bing since there is no breakout to show how many of Yahoo's (and others') searches are being handled by Bing. Actually, what it does show about Bing is that Google is still gaining ground at the expense of all others... Calculate that by adding up "all others" and comparing to Google: "all others" share is decreasing.
Or one can take this route... add up Bing and "all others now using Bing for search" (since we are likely to never get a breakdown of how many of Yahoo's and others' searches are being attributed to Bing) and compare... same results... Google is gaining marketshare at their expense.
The fact that Google is still gaining marketshare even with Bing being the default in IE (and Google once again being relegated to an "add-on" selection - while other Bing search providers such as Yahoo are less likely not to be relegated to such) makes it even more impressive that Google is still gaining (albeit slowly) marketshare.
I love the article they cited for their browser data - which the author used a company that publishes data that ComputerWorld cannot seem to understand...
Check it out... according the xpnet's graph, IE is used on 80% of the systems, and Firefox on 48% (roughly, from estimating the bars on the graphs). That means... what? The only thing i can think of is it means that 48% of the users/systems are running Firefox - while also running IE (hmmm... Windows Update or other reasons?)
I'd test to see just how large their database fields are... or test to see how long their server will keep a connection open that has a full speed data flow to their server. And open a buncha tabs to do so (ie: scripts running connected to their server). Hmmm... I can hit 10Mbs upstream... figure a 90 second script timeout on their server maybe? Over 100MB of data to them aint that bad. Especially if everyone was doing it until they got the hint. I dunno, maybe a simple "random" generated string saying "stop stealing my keystrokes/clipboard data without my permission" (ok, maybe that's not so random).
I actually have some secure files I keep certain often used account info in that I then copy and paste into the browser as needed... guess I need to stop doing that.
AND diesel engines, especially the solid VW and BMW ones, can run on a plethora of cheap alternatives (many of which are also even less pollution creating) from fryer grease to biodiesel to various types of fruit and vegetable oils...
While gasoline engines, without some sort of modification to the fuel storage portion, are limited to gasoline and... yeah, that's pretty much it (I didnt list ethanol because it's a component of most gas around here anyway). The other alternatives for it are LNG and propane - which require special tanks.
Well, books can be typed in braille, the kindle cannot... The issue might be that with a kindle, the e-books are very accessible compared to your standard book (probably cheaper?). Maybe the organization thinks it's an unfair advantage?
1: Sure e-books can be put into "braille". There are even a plethora of devices that'll do it, or just read teh darn thing aloud.
2: Braille books are EXPENSIVE. They have a far smaller audience, need thicker paper, usually can use only one side of the paper... and can't be printed out on the same equipment as everyone else's books.
Given those two, the association at play should demand GREATER adoption of e-books -- it's a printed book that the blind cannot read, not a properly formatted e-book
You bring up great points... but there is MORE!!! I wish I had the link... found it a while ago and lost it.
...but there are braille devices that will "display" a line or two at a time and then "display" the next set of text when you are ready to move on to the next line. The thing is basically a rectangular device with electronically raised "bumps" that can be changed for each line of text. Kinda like a computer controlled version of that "many pin thing that you can make shapes with when you press an object onto it"
The possiblities with the Kindle and other such devices are thus amazing! It makes even braille cheaper for blind students, as one device is needed, instead of buying dozens of different books.
This, (the Kindle) and one of the electronic braille "readers" attached would level the financial playing field for blind students! Instead of paying many times more for a braille version of a book, or hoping the publisher has one in braille, ANY book (without assinine copyright restrictions) could be "displayed" in braille.
...but at this point, after years of being on/. I figured I shouldnt even be required to read the summary - much less the article (which we all already know we arent supposed to read), so all I read is the title - and if that's too long, I just read the first few words of it and see how the article was tagged.
;-)
Joking aside, I agree with the AC that LostCluster's above post is not off topic. He's right, and I was wrong or hasty in my original post in an attempt at humor that was missed by many (so I later expounded on my true feelings on how Google screwed up).
Yes, I didnt state it very well. I was trying to say that if they stopped the price wars between each other, they wouldnt be in this boat. But each always has to be the cheapest - until there is little to no margin left.
Still not clearly stating what I mean... but I need more coffee, so that's the best I can do for now.;-)
I think it is natural to make the comparison, one of the only reasons that Apple has an advantage is because of the quality control it offers on its app store. Of course, until recently Apple didn't do any in app checking, to find out what exactly the app was doing.
"Until recently"? So, inotherwords, it took them years, while Google has been at this for a lot less time? I am sure they will learn from their mistakes.
Yet it seems apps that Apple think are bad have slipped through from time to time. That was my point. The comparison would be great if it didnt cover the fact that until recently, such protections werent in place, and things still slip through now and then.
And of course you are happy, until you get your information stolen. You might not even realise it, and even when you do, it would be hard to link it to a phone application rather than one of the usual methods.
I use a very small list of apps, because I am aware of the dangers. The vast majority of those apps are made by Google - thus making their use no more dangerous than my regular online "Google Experience" where they have access to the same exact info.
I find you comment very odd, it adds nothing to the conversation, and complains about the obvious comparison that someone made, and that everybody was thinking about. Android army or just moron?
Really? You cited some reasons why my comment wasn't "very odd" in pointing out that it took a couple years for Apple to make changes to try to prevent such things from occurring.
But that aside... perhaps they should have learned from Apple's mistakes and Apple's improvements by instituting an app marketplace where each app is verified to do only what it claims to do, this could have been prevented.
Because, yes, they shoulda learned... this has already been done, and done better... with their experience in the online area, they shouldnt be playing catch-up to Apple or anyone else.
I just found it odd for someone to jump right on the Apple iPhone vs Android soapbox so quickly without much else to contribute.
My take would have been more along the lines above, indicating I hope they've learned from both this experience and Apples - and that they are making a concerted effort to start checking the 20,000 other apps on the app store.
Agreed... my own experience is this article is nonsense and not indicative of such as a whole.
I've been using computers since 1979 (at the schools I went to), started programming in BASIC back then, worked my way up. I'd been using BBS's since the first computer I owned - which was an IBM PC Portable (an IBM XT in a suitcase sized case with amber screen). I was in the first bunch of people to actually use the Internet (I used OS/2 almost exclusively, and we had actual Internet access long before Windows - while Windows users were suckered... I mean stuck with AOL or NetCom). Nowadays, besides the "Net Generation" stuff, I regularly text, IM, use Facebook, read blogs, etc - along with all of the other "iGeneration" stuff. And accessing all my stuff from my phone (TMo G1) when I am not in front of the computer... email, visual voicemail, IM, chat, text messaging, web, Facebook, etc.
So, if this "old dog can learn new tricks" and my friends have as well... I doubt there is any real divide as indicated by the article. But I could be wrong... most of my friends are very tech savvy - but even so, I doubt the "divide" is anything to speak of. Even my mom text messages and such.
Seriously. Provide a link to the main stori(es) and that's about it. All this extra stuff is simply extraneous. How can we RTFA if we don't know which is the real frikken article?
That is the most stupid thing I have ever heard!!! This is Slashdot!!!! You arent supposed to read the article!!!! Thus, it shouldnt matter how many links there are!!
Get with the program! You've been here long enough to know this!
CompUSA was much the same... but more so with printers... if you sold a printer, it BETTER go out the door with a USB cable and a set of ink cartridges.
Now some people would say "Well, duh, they need a USB cable since they dont come with printers anymore" but the simple fact is most people dont come in to buy their first printer, so most already have a printer cable, and a large portion of those people have a USB cable (while the rest had parallel).
But again, same reasons... $0-$5 a printer doesnt make the store much money.
Funny thing is, if the merchants made a concerted effort to sell the stuff at slightly higher margin, these issues wouldnt arise. Instead, in their zeal to compete with each other and drive each other out of business, they've shot themselves in the foot as they've decreased their profit margin on the stuff to near zero. Yeah, the Internet helped with that... but even there, Internet prices are so low to compete with the store where you wont be paying shipping.
CompUSA used to do that ($20), but we'd actually optimize the various settings (all the tweaks that a power user would do to increase performance), remove the crapware, install all the updates, activate Windows (and Office or whatever else was bought/came with the machine), activate and update the AV/AS software, configure the network settings so the machine would go online right out of the box (keep in mind this was back in the day when Windows post-setup would pop up an idiotic list of choices on how to get on the Internet that made little to no sense to the average user, followed by the first time you ran IE, it trying to get you to sign up to AOL or connect to their site to choose an ISP... you know... their older, useless, "sell someone else's Internet service for them" Internet Connection Wizard crap, and so on... and it was never mandatory for the customer.
Wasn't too bad of a deal back then, considering just how difficult it was to even get online for the average user without being suckered into an AOL or Earthlink subscription (especially on the HPs which included their own Internet Wizard and post-install full screen pop-ups that hitting exit would just reload a different variant of them until you did that a couple times or went through the steps).
Your sentiment is correct on it's face... but fact is, nowadays, people (for the most part) do not pay "lots of money for" computers. They pay near nothing, and part of the costs are subsidized by the crapware that comes on the machines. After all, how much do you think it costs to make that $299 laptop at BestBuy (hardware and OS and such)?
There was actually an episode of a show on TV about it (Conspiracy Theory with Jesse "The Body" Ventura)... dunno how much of it you can believe, but if even some of it, then this is sinister.
This would not be the first time that the government has helped/hired/worked with outside agencies to collect information that they cannot legally collect directly. My presumption would be that with updating such records about the members of InfraGuard, they can find the InfraGuard members best suited for covert information gathering of a technical nature. But that's just a guess.
I could be way off base, especially after the latest thing with Interpol (for probably similar reasons)... so who knows?
Slashdot Mirror
Sprint and T-Mobile only care about getting customers to sign a contract. Their service is atrocious and cellular coverage is spotty around the city and really crappy in the rural areas.
I would disagree with you on this (about T-Mobile) from my own personal experiences with them in supporting unsupported phones, billing help, contract help and getting coverage (albeit via roaming on ATT or others) with no roaming charges.
And in the US, it seems the customers of these various cell companies disagree with you as well...
As of 2009, T-Mobile USA has captured at least 13 J.D. Power Awards in the areas of customer care, call quality, and overall customer satisfaction. In particular, it has dominated the wireless industry in the area of customer care and customer satisfaction, winning all customer care and satisfaction awards for all six surveyed regions for seven years in a row.
I updated the above from the Wikipedia entry by checking JD Power for the last 2 years (Wikipedia only mentions up to 2007... but guess who won yet again since then? Yup... T-Mobile).
So, I guess your experiences vary from the rest of the population. That does happen... but your experiences aside, overall, cell phone customers seem to disagree.
Well, as one who lives right outside the NYC area and travels into the boonies of upstate or through NYC in West New York (ie: New Jersey) a bunch, I am happy with TMo. When I am in the boonies upstate, it roams (including 3G where available) but I dont get charged for it.
By price and customer service:
-T-Mobile (followed by Sprint)
By 3G Coverage:
-Verizon
NOTE: though Verizon has the best 3G coverage, do NOT rely on their "lying" maps for it. They are wrong, and show 3G coverage in areas that dont even have voice (where they never plan on having coverage no less... such as Ticonderoga, NY). So regardless of them having more 3G coverage in more areas, their maps cannot be believed... thus, dont expect you will get 3G coverage in areas where they claim you will.
By phone:
-Will depend on what you think is a cool phone... for the iPhone, get AT&T. For an Android phone, get T-Mo or Verizon.
For reliable software updates for a smartphone
-T-Mobile (nothing but nightmares with AT&T's hosed updates. Each one would claim to fix a botch in another, and introduce a whole new set of problems or not properly fix the others). TMo takes their time releasing their updates, but thoroughly tests them first.
Of course, this does not apply to phones where the updates come directly from the phone manufacturer... but none of my phones have been that sort. They have all been ones where updates get their final customization and work by the carrier.
Basically, it will depend on what area you live in/use the phone and what type of phone you want. On a personal note, I am thrilled with T-Mobile. I have never gotten better customer service or support - even on "unsupported" phones... I've bought quite a few ATT or Cingular smart phones and called TMo to get them up and running on TMo's network and get the "Well, we dont officially support that phone but..." (followed by step by step details on how to set each phone parameter needed while they are configuring things on my account on their end for it)... then, the times I've had to reboot the phone to let the settings take affect, if I am on that phone with them, they call back to make sure it's all up and running. Same type of amazing customer care when it comes to billing. And same mentality on their support forums where they even have entire threads and boards devoted to rooting Android based phones.
As for TMo's worse (though currently fastest) 3G, I have no issues with that as in the office and at home, I connect via WiFi (TMo G1 Android phone) and elsewhere I can connect to any TMo hotspot at no extra charge (McDonalds and numerous other spots)... and everywhere inbetween, EDGE and such more than suffice for my needs (mapping, phone sync'ing and the occassional web surfing when on the road).
But again, your needs (coverage, phone, etc) will determine which is best for you.
While it is writen to say could possibly be modified to work with newer versions of IE, I find that a little unlikely considering the more recent track record of IE's beefing of security. Unfortunately the people writing these articles tend to have bias towards IE as a whole and not just against the mess that IE6 was.
Really? What do you base that on?
- First, there have already been a ton of exploits for IE7 and IE8 - and even some patches.
- Second, Microsoft never seemed to say that IE7 or IE8 were not vulnerable. They very carefully said this instead:
"At this time, we are aware of limited, active attacks attempting to use this vulnerability against Internet Explorer 6. We have not seen attacks against other affected versions of Internet Explorer.” – Microsoft.
That states there are other affected versions... but Microsoft hasn't seen attacks against them. I could care less what Microsoft has seen... they also "saw" XP and IE6 as secure (pre Service Pack 1).
It also means the other affected browsers are... IE4? IE5? IE7? IE8? I wonder which ones of those are the ones they are talking about? I could almost bet you that it's not a pre-IE6 browser that they are talking about.
Yet you test your sites on IE6. Is the time not long past where you should just be displaying the same sort of message to IE6 users you would to $random_unsupported browser, or better yet the same one you give to $random_vulnerable browser. I'm afraid you are as much to blame as the governments, non-technical corporates and pro-MS shops for making yourself have to keep the VM around to test the insane browser.
No, because most average computer users will simply not visit the site again.
That is not the reason. Take a good look at the figures. Bing has gained no market share overall from Google. Bing has gained market share by Yahoo and others using Bing for their search services. Hence the drop in other search providers.
This article is (a) misleading, (b) draws incorrect conclusions and (c) is written by someone who knows nothing about the topic at hand.
What we are actually seeing means nothing about Bing since there is no breakout to show how many of Yahoo's (and others') searches are being handled by Bing. Actually, what it does show about Bing is that Google is still gaining ground at the expense of all others... Calculate that by adding up "all others" and comparing to Google: "all others" share is decreasing.
Or one can take this route... add up Bing and "all others now using Bing for search" (since we are likely to never get a breakdown of how many of Yahoo's and others' searches are being attributed to Bing) and compare... same results... Google is gaining marketshare at their expense.
The fact that Google is still gaining marketshare even with Bing being the default in IE (and Google once again being relegated to an "add-on" selection - while other Bing search providers such as Yahoo are less likely not to be relegated to such) makes it even more impressive that Google is still gaining (albeit slowly) marketshare.
LoL! True! I stand corrected! :-)
I love the article they cited for their browser data - which the author used a company that publishes data that ComputerWorld cannot seem to understand...
Browser Stats
Check it out... according the xpnet's graph, IE is used on 80% of the systems, and Firefox on 48% (roughly, from estimating the bars on the graphs). That means... what? The only thing i can think of is it means that 48% of the users/systems are running Firefox - while also running IE (hmmm... Windows Update or other reasons?)
You know, I really love Iron Maiden... but I guess the WHO gets my vote now... I didnt know they were that active in saving the world!!!
;-)
I'd test to see just how large their database fields are... or test to see how long their server will keep a connection open that has a full speed data flow to their server. And open a buncha tabs to do so (ie: scripts running connected to their server). Hmmm... I can hit 10Mbs upstream... figure a 90 second script timeout on their server maybe? Over 100MB of data to them aint that bad. Especially if everyone was doing it until they got the hint. I dunno, maybe a simple "random" generated string saying "stop stealing my keystrokes/clipboard data without my permission" (ok, maybe that's not so random).
I actually have some secure files I keep certain often used account info in that I then copy and paste into the browser as needed... guess I need to stop doing that.
AND diesel engines, especially the solid VW and BMW ones, can run on a plethora of cheap alternatives (many of which are also even less pollution creating) from fryer grease to biodiesel to various types of fruit and vegetable oils...
While gasoline engines, without some sort of modification to the fuel storage portion, are limited to gasoline and... yeah, that's pretty much it (I didnt list ethanol because it's a component of most gas around here anyway). The other alternatives for it are LNG and propane - which require special tanks.
Well, books can be typed in braille, the kindle cannot... The issue might be that with a kindle, the e-books are very accessible compared to your standard book (probably cheaper?). Maybe the organization thinks it's an unfair advantage?
1: Sure e-books can be put into "braille". There are even a plethora of devices that'll do it, or just read teh darn thing aloud.
2: Braille books are EXPENSIVE. They have a far smaller audience, need thicker paper, usually can use only one side of the paper... and can't be printed out on the same equipment as everyone else's books.
Given those two, the association at play should demand GREATER adoption of e-books -- it's a printed book that the blind cannot read, not a properly formatted e-book
You bring up great points... but there is MORE!!! I wish I had the link... found it a while ago and lost it.
...but there are braille devices that will "display" a line or two at a time and then "display" the next set of text when you are ready to move on to the next line. The thing is basically a rectangular device with electronically raised "bumps" that can be changed for each line of text. Kinda like a computer controlled version of that "many pin thing that you can make shapes with when you press an object onto it"
The possiblities with the Kindle and other such devices are thus amazing! It makes even braille cheaper for blind students, as one device is needed, instead of buying dozens of different books.
This, (the Kindle) and one of the electronic braille "readers" attached would level the financial playing field for blind students! Instead of paying many times more for a braille version of a book, or hoping the publisher has one in braille, ANY book (without assinine copyright restrictions) could be "displayed" in braille.
I didn't start the flame war. It was started by the summary.
Yes, you are correct, and I stand corrected...
...but at this point, after years of being on /. I figured I shouldnt even be required to read the summary - much less the article (which we all already know we arent supposed to read), so all I read is the title - and if that's too long, I just read the first few words of it and see how the article was tagged.
Joking aside, I agree with the AC that LostCluster's above post is not off topic. He's right, and I was wrong or hasty in my original post in an attempt at humor that was missed by many (so I later expounded on my true feelings on how Google screwed up).
Yes, I didnt state it very well. I was trying to say that if they stopped the price wars between each other, they wouldnt be in this boat. But each always has to be the cheapest - until there is little to no margin left.
Still not clearly stating what I mean... but I need more coffee, so that's the best I can do for now. ;-)
To be fair, the Iphone comparison was introduced in TFS.
This is Slashdot... I'm not supposed to read those things before I post... you should know that!!!
Ah... well, I use text messaging and Google Chat more than voice. And even text message responses for Google Voice messages (when appropriate).
LoL... I think I said that! ;-)
I think it is natural to make the comparison, one of the only reasons that Apple has an advantage is because of the quality control it offers on its app store. Of course, until recently Apple didn't do any in app checking, to find out what exactly the app was doing.
"Until recently"? So, inotherwords, it took them years, while Google has been at this for a lot less time? I am sure they will learn from their mistakes.
Yet it seems apps that Apple think are bad have slipped through from time to time. That was my point. The comparison would be great if it didnt cover the fact that until recently, such protections werent in place, and things still slip through now and then.
And of course you are happy, until you get your information stolen. You might not even realise it, and even when you do, it would be hard to link it to a phone application rather than one of the usual methods.
I use a very small list of apps, because I am aware of the dangers. The vast majority of those apps are made by Google - thus making their use no more dangerous than my regular online "Google Experience" where they have access to the same exact info.
I find you comment very odd, it adds nothing to the conversation, and complains about the obvious comparison that someone made, and that everybody was thinking about. Android army or just moron?
Really? You cited some reasons why my comment wasn't "very odd" in pointing out that it took a couple years for Apple to make changes to try to prevent such things from occurring.
But that aside... perhaps they should have learned from Apple's mistakes and Apple's improvements by instituting an app marketplace where each app is verified to do only what it claims to do, this could have been prevented.
Because, yes, they shoulda learned... this has already been done, and done better... with their experience in the online area, they shouldnt be playing catch-up to Apple or anyone else.
I just found it odd for someone to jump right on the Apple iPhone vs Android soapbox so quickly without much else to contribute.
My take would have been more along the lines above, indicating I hope they've learned from both this experience and Apples - and that they are making a concerted effort to start checking the 20,000 other apps on the app store.
Wow, second post and already we've got the "iPhone vs Android" debate started! Kudos!
That aside, or the apps Apple has had to remove aside... I'm happy with 99% of the quality control on the Android Apps.
Agreed... my own experience is this article is nonsense and not indicative of such as a whole.
I've been using computers since 1979 (at the schools I went to), started programming in BASIC back then, worked my way up. I'd been using BBS's since the first computer I owned - which was an IBM PC Portable (an IBM XT in a suitcase sized case with amber screen). I was in the first bunch of people to actually use the Internet (I used OS/2 almost exclusively, and we had actual Internet access long before Windows - while Windows users were suckered... I mean stuck with AOL or NetCom). Nowadays, besides the "Net Generation" stuff, I regularly text, IM, use Facebook, read blogs, etc - along with all of the other "iGeneration" stuff. And accessing all my stuff from my phone (TMo G1) when I am not in front of the computer... email, visual voicemail, IM, chat, text messaging, web, Facebook, etc.
So, if this "old dog can learn new tricks" and my friends have as well... I doubt there is any real divide as indicated by the article. But I could be wrong... most of my friends are very tech savvy - but even so, I doubt the "divide" is anything to speak of. Even my mom text messages and such.
Seriously. Provide a link to the main stori(es) and that's about it. All this extra stuff is simply extraneous. How can we RTFA if we don't know which is the real frikken article?
That is the most stupid thing I have ever heard!!! This is Slashdot!!!! You arent supposed to read the article!!!! Thus, it shouldnt matter how many links there are!!
Get with the program! You've been here long enough to know this!
CompUSA was much the same... but more so with printers... if you sold a printer, it BETTER go out the door with a USB cable and a set of ink cartridges.
Now some people would say "Well, duh, they need a USB cable since they dont come with printers anymore" but the simple fact is most people dont come in to buy their first printer, so most already have a printer cable, and a large portion of those people have a USB cable (while the rest had parallel).
But again, same reasons... $0-$5 a printer doesnt make the store much money.
Funny thing is, if the merchants made a concerted effort to sell the stuff at slightly higher margin, these issues wouldnt arise. Instead, in their zeal to compete with each other and drive each other out of business, they've shot themselves in the foot as they've decreased their profit margin on the stuff to near zero. Yeah, the Internet helped with that... but even there, Internet prices are so low to compete with the store where you wont be paying shipping.
CompUSA used to do that ($20), but we'd actually optimize the various settings (all the tweaks that a power user would do to increase performance), remove the crapware, install all the updates, activate Windows (and Office or whatever else was bought/came with the machine), activate and update the AV/AS software, configure the network settings so the machine would go online right out of the box (keep in mind this was back in the day when Windows post-setup would pop up an idiotic list of choices on how to get on the Internet that made little to no sense to the average user, followed by the first time you ran IE, it trying to get you to sign up to AOL or connect to their site to choose an ISP... you know... their older, useless, "sell someone else's Internet service for them" Internet Connection Wizard crap, and so on... and it was never mandatory for the customer.
Wasn't too bad of a deal back then, considering just how difficult it was to even get online for the average user without being suckered into an AOL or Earthlink subscription (especially on the HPs which included their own Internet Wizard and post-install full screen pop-ups that hitting exit would just reload a different variant of them until you did that a couple times or went through the steps).
Your sentiment is correct on it's face... but fact is, nowadays, people (for the most part) do not pay "lots of money for" computers. They pay near nothing, and part of the costs are subsidized by the crapware that comes on the machines. After all, how much do you think it costs to make that $299 laptop at BestBuy (hardware and OS and such)?
There was actually an episode of a show on TV about it (Conspiracy Theory with Jesse "The Body" Ventura)... dunno how much of it you can believe, but if even some of it, then this is sinister.
This would not be the first time that the government has helped/hired/worked with outside agencies to collect information that they cannot legally collect directly. My presumption would be that with updating such records about the members of InfraGuard, they can find the InfraGuard members best suited for covert information gathering of a technical nature. But that's just a guess.
I could be way off base, especially after the latest thing with Interpol (for probably similar reasons)... so who knows?