7 Ways Android 2.2 Froyo Tops Apple's iPhone

In alt.cellular.verizon Justin <[email protected]> wrote:
> Thomas T. Veldhouse wrote on [25 May 2010 21:36:29 GMT]:
>> In alt.cellular.verizon John Navas <[email protected]> wrote:
>>>
>>> In due course it will be, whatever OS 4.0 actually is, not the current
>>> vaporware.
>>
>> It's not vaporware; it has been anounced by Apple. Vaporware defines the
>> rumor of software, but OS 4.0 is no rumor.
>
> Um, until it makes it to the consumer it is not released. Vaporware is
> software or hardare that is announced but never released. Plenty
> of vaporware has "shipped" to developers and review units.

No, that is not what vaporware is.

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/vaporware

Computer Slang. a product, esp. software, that is promoted or marketed while
it is still in development and that may never be produced.

There is no "may" about it; OS4.0 will be produced and released. Vaporware,
as an example, is TiVo for Comcast [nationwide] and TiVo for DirecTV
[nationwide]. Both have been announced for a long time and the scheduled
release date slips ... in the case of Comcast by many many years now.

--
Thomas T. Veldhouse

Religion is a crutch, but that's okay... humanity is a cripple.

---

› See More: 7 Ways Android 2.2 Froyo Tops Apple's iPhone

On 26 May 2010 14:17:04 GMT, "Thomas T. Veldhouse" <[email protected]>
wrote:

>In alt.cellular.verizon Paul Miner <[email protected]> wrote:
>> On 25 May 2010 21:36:29 GMT, "Thomas T. Veldhouse" <[email protected]>
>> wrote:
>>
>>>In alt.cellular.verizon John Navas <[email protected]> wrote:
>>>>
>>>> In due course it will be, whatever OS 4.0 actually is, not the current
>>>> vaporware.
>>>
>>>It's not vaporware; it has been anounced by Apple. Vaporware defines the
>>>rumor of software, but OS 4.0 is no rumor.
>>
>> Not true. Announcements certainly qualify as vaporware, although I
>> understand in this case something has actually shipped (to
>> developers).
>>
>
>Actual release announcements are not vaporware;

Actually, announcements are the epitome of vaporware. Nearly all
vaporware starts with an announcement. A software product stops being
vaporware when it actually becomes available. Announcements !=
available.

--
Paul Miner

On 26 May 2010 14:25:06 GMT, "Thomas T. Veldhouse" <[email protected]>
wrote:

>In alt.cellular.verizon Justin <[email protected]> wrote:
>> Thomas T. Veldhouse wrote on [25 May 2010 21:36:29 GMT]:
>>> In alt.cellular.verizon John Navas <[email protected]> wrote:
>>>>
>>>> In due course it will be, whatever OS 4.0 actually is, not the current
>>>> vaporware.
>>>
>>> It's not vaporware; it has been anounced by Apple. Vaporware defines the
>>> rumor of software, but OS 4.0 is no rumor.
>>
>> Um, until it makes it to the consumer it is not released. Vaporware is
>> software or hardare that is announced but never released. Plenty
>> of vaporware has "shipped" to developers and review units.
>
>No, that is not what vaporware is.
>
> http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/vaporware
>
>Computer Slang. a product, esp. software, that is promoted or marketed while
>it is still in development and that may never be produced.
>
>There is no "may" about it; OS4.0 will be produced and released. Vaporware,
>as an example, is TiVo for Comcast [nationwide] and TiVo for DirecTV
>[nationwide]. Both have been announced for a long time and the scheduled
>release date slips ... in the case of Comcast by many many years now.

I guess the part about being "promoted or marketed while it is still
in development" escaped you. Did you read what you copied/pasted?

--
Paul Miner

Thomas T. Veldhouse wrote on [26 May 2010 14:25:06 GMT]:
> In alt.cellular.verizon Justin <[email protected]> wrote:
>> Thomas T. Veldhouse wrote on [25 May 2010 21:36:29 GMT]:
>>> In alt.cellular.verizon John Navas <[email protected]> wrote:
>>>>
>>>> In due course it will be, whatever OS 4.0 actually is, not the current
>>>> vaporware.
>>>
>>> It's not vaporware; it has been anounced by Apple. Vaporware defines the
>>> rumor of software, but OS 4.0 is no rumor.
>>
>> Um, until it makes it to the consumer it is not released. Vaporware is
>> software or hardare that is announced but never released. Plenty
>> of vaporware has "shipped" to developers and review units.
>
> No, that is not what vaporware is.
>
> http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/vaporware
>
> Computer Slang. a product, esp. software, that is promoted or marketed while
> it is still in development and that may never be produced.
>
> There is no "may" about it; OS4.0 will be produced and released. Vaporware,
> as an example, is TiVo for Comcast [nationwide] and TiVo for DirecTV
> [nationwide]. Both have been announced for a long time and the scheduled
> release date slips ... in the case of Comcast by many many years now.

TiVo has been available on DirecTV for years and years, it's been pulled but it was released.

Until something is released it is vaporware. That's how it goes.

vaporware ( ) n. New software that has been announced or marketed but has not been produced.

On 26 May 2010 14:14:50 GMT, "Thomas T. Veldhouse" <[email protected]>
wrote in <[email protected]>:

>In alt.cellular.verizon nospam <[email protected]> wrote:

>> not only has it been announced but it has shipped to developers. apple
>> said the final version will ship in summer 2010 and it's not summer
>> yet. nothing vapor about it.
>>
>> compare that to adobe flash for mobile, which was supposed to be done
>> *last* year and it's still not done.
>
>Steve Jobs doesn't seem to like Adobe much at all and it seems that Flash on
>the iPod is influenced by this.

I think it's essentially a control (and revenue) issue -- Steve is
determined to control all things Apple, and Adobe software (not only
Flash, but also products like Photoshop) has always threatened that
control (and revenue) -- Flash is just the biggest threat at the moment.
--
Best regards,
John

If the iPhone is really so impressive,
why do iFans keep making excuses for it?

On 26 May 2010 14:17:04 GMT, "Thomas T. Veldhouse" <[email protected]>
wrote in <[email protected]>:

>In alt.cellular.verizon Paul Miner <[email protected]> wrote:
>> On 25 May 2010 21:36:29 GMT, "Thomas T. Veldhouse" <[email protected]>
>> wrote:
>>
>>>In alt.cellular.verizon John Navas <[email protected]> wrote:
>>>>
>>>> In due course it will be, whatever OS 4.0 actually is, not the current
>>>> vaporware.
>>>
>>>It's not vaporware; it has been anounced by Apple. Vaporware defines the
>>>rumor of software, but OS 4.0 is no rumor.
>>
>> Not true. Announcements certainly qualify as vaporware, although I
>> understand in this case something has actually shipped (to
>> developers).
>
>Actual release announcements are not vaporware; they require demonstration
>[kind of like Windows beta and release candidates come before the
>announcement]. There is working software out there which makes it real
>software, not vaporware. My statement that OS 4.0 is no rumor is a shorter
>way of saying the obvious which I apparently just had to explain.

It's vaporware until it's actually released (to everyone) --
<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vaporware>:

Vaporware is a word used to describe products, usually computer
hardware or software, not released on the date announced by their
developer...

The good reason for this is that actual products all too often fail to
ship on dates promised, fail to contain all features promised, etc.
--
Best regards,
John

If the iPhone is really so impressive,
why do iFans keep making excuses for it?

On 26 May 2010 14:20:27 GMT, "Thomas T. Veldhouse" <[email protected]>
wrote in <[email protected]>:

>In alt.cellular.verizon John Navas <[email protected]> wrote:
>>
>> Irrelevant: prototype, not released, and nothing to do with the OS.
>>
>> "Stay on target, Luke, stay on target!"
>
>Funny, considering you are one to often divert attention from the target.

You are of course entitled to your opinion, no matter how unjustified.
--
Best regards,
John

"Nothing is as peevish and pedantic as men's judgments of one another."
-Desiderius Erasmus

On 26 May 2010 14:25:06 GMT, "Thomas T. Veldhouse" <[email protected]>
wrote in <[email protected]>:

>In alt.cellular.verizon Justin <[email protected]> wrote:
>> Thomas T. Veldhouse wrote on [25 May 2010 21:36:29 GMT]:
>>> In alt.cellular.verizon John Navas <[email protected]> wrote:
>>>>
>>>> In due course it will be, whatever OS 4.0 actually is, not the current
>>>> vaporware.
>>>
>>> It's not vaporware; it has been anounced by Apple. Vaporware defines the
>>> rumor of software, but OS 4.0 is no rumor.
>>
>> Um, until it makes it to the consumer it is not released. Vaporware is
>> software or hardare that is announced but never released. Plenty
>> of vaporware has "shipped" to developers and review units.
>
>No, that is not what vaporware is.
>
> http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/vaporware
>
>Computer Slang. a product, esp. software, that is promoted or marketed while
>it is still in development and that may never be produced.
>
>There is no "may" about it; OS4.0 will be produced and released. Vaporware,
>as an example, is TiVo for Comcast [nationwide] and TiVo for DirecTV
>[nationwide]. Both have been announced for a long time and the scheduled
>release date slips ... in the case of Comcast by many many years now.

It's vaporware until it's actually released (to everyone) --
<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vaporware>:

Vaporware is a word used to describe products, usually computer
hardware or software, not released on the date announced by their
developer...

The good reason for this is that actual products all too often fail to
ship on dates promised, fail to contain all features promised, etc.
--
Best regards,
John

"Usenet is like a herd of performing elephants with diarrhea - massive,
difficult to redirect, awe inspiring, entertaining, and a source of mind
boggling amounts of excrement when you least expect it." --Gene Spafford

In article <[email protected]>, Thomas T. Veldhouse
<[email protected]> wrote:

> > more importantly, not all devices will run android 2.2, including the
> > t-mobile g1 which is currently being sold, *new*, right *now*.
>
> Not all iPods that run 3.1.x will run 4.0 either. Only iPod Touch Gen 3 and
> iPhone GS models (not sure about any previous iPhone model) will accept OS
> 4.0.

all 2nd and 3rd gen ipod touches and the iphone 3g and 3gs can run 4.0,
plus whatever is released this year.

only the 1st gen ipod touch and original iphone cannot. they're 3 year
old devices and very, very few are still in use.

compare that with android devices that are shipping *now* that can't
ever run 2.2, and some that won't run it for a while, whenever the
manufacturer decides it will update it.

In article <[email protected]>, Paul Miner
<[email protected]> wrote:

> Actually, announcements are the epitome of vaporware. Nearly all
> vaporware starts with an announcement. A software product stops being
> vaporware when it actually becomes available. Announcements !=
> available.

it *has* shipped, to developers, four versions so far. it's not vapor.
developers are using it and developing for it. the public release will
be soon, probably about two weeks.

In article <[email protected]>, John Navas
<[email protected]> wrote:

> >Steve Jobs doesn't seem to like Adobe much at all and it seems that Flash on
> >the iPod is influenced by this.
>
> I think it's essentially a control

partly true. apple doesn't want another company, adobe, controlling
their platform with their proprietary and buggy technology. adobe has
demonstrated that they do not fix bugs very quickly. apple would have
to wait on them for any fixes. that's dumb.

another part is flash for mobile is not even done yet. it's barely even
beta! it is supposed to be done by the end of 2010. the iphone came out
3 years ago, how could apple have offered flash?

lastly, flash on mobile is just not very good. look at the demos of
flash on android. it stutters, battery life drops and some things don't
work because it's designed for mouse/keyboard.

> (and revenue) issue --

except that developers can write web apps that not only provide no
revenue to apple, but don't even go through the store. they can also
write native apps that are free. people love to say it's money related
but it clearly is not.

> Steve is
> determined to control all things Apple, and Adobe software (not only
> Flash, but also products like Photoshop) has always threatened that
> control (and revenue) --

how in the world does photoshop affect control or revenue? apple does
not compete with photoshop on any level.

> Flash is just the biggest threat at the moment.

it's not a threat. flash is proprietary, buggy, a cpu hog and a
security risk. there are much better ways to do what flash does, such
as html5.

look at flash on the nexus one. pocketnow did a comparison of three
devices. without flash, the nexus one browser was the fastest, but with
flash installed it was the slowest, and that was compared to the
current iphone whose specs are not as good as a nexus one. it will be
even more dramatic with the next model (they could have used an ipad
which will be similar in speed to the next iphone).

In article <[email protected]>, John Navas
<[email protected]> wrote:

> It's vaporware until it's actually released (to everyone) --
> <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vaporware>:
>
> Vaporware is a word used to describe products, usually computer
> hardware or software, not released on the date announced by their
> developer...

not that wikipedia is a good reference, but according to that
definition, it's not vapor since the ship date announced is 'summer
2010.'

as i said, it has shipped, to developers. they're using it right now.

meanwhile, android 2.2 is vapor. motorola said 'soon' for the droid.
not even a date. other devices might not ever get it.

> The good reason for this is that actual products all too often fail to
> ship on dates promised, fail to contain all features promised, etc.

apple has a history of shipping when promised. every iphone os release
has been exactly when they said.

On Wed, 26 May 2010 09:41:33 -0700, nospam <[email protected]>
wrote:

>In article <[email protected]>, Thomas T. Veldhouse
><[email protected]> wrote:
>
>> > more importantly, not all devices will run android 2.2, including the
>> > t-mobile g1 which is currently being sold, *new*, right *now*.
>>
>> Not all iPods that run 3.1.x will run 4.0 either. Only iPod Touch Gen 3 and
>> iPhone GS models (not sure about any previous iPhone model) will accept OS
>> 4.0.
>
>all 2nd and 3rd gen ipod touches and the iphone 3g and 3gs can run 4.0,
>plus whatever is released this year.
>
>only the 1st gen ipod touch and original iphone cannot. they're 3 year
>old devices and very, very few are still in use.

What could possibly justify very, very few 3 year old i* devices being
still in use? If true, that's not good for anyone, including Apple.

--
Paul Miner

On Wed, 26 May 2010 09:41:38 -0700, nospam <[email protected]>
wrote:

>In article <[email protected]>, Paul Miner
><[email protected]> wrote:
>
>> Actually, announcements are the epitome of vaporware. Nearly all
>> vaporware starts with an announcement. A software product stops being
>> vaporware when it actually becomes available. Announcements !=
>> available.
>
>it *has* shipped, to developers, four versions so far. it's not vapor.
>developers are using it and developing for it. the public release will
>be soon, probably about two weeks.

Good, so going by what you wrote, it will no longer be vapor in about
two weeks. Development efforts and beta code aren't enough to get it
out of vapor status.

--
Paul Miner

In article <[email protected]>, Paul Miner
<[email protected]> wrote:

> >only the 1st gen ipod touch and original iphone cannot. they're 3 year
> >old devices and very, very few are still in use.
>
> What could possibly justify very, very few 3 year old i* devices being
> still in use? If true, that's not good for anyone, including Apple.

why isn't it good?