7 Ways Android 2.2 Froyo Tops Apple's iPhone

In alt.cellular.verizon Paul Miner <[email protected]> wrote:
> On 26 May 2010 14:17:04 GMT, "Thomas T. Veldhouse" <[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.
>

So, Apple putting out OS 4.0 is vaporware according to the omniscent Novice
from Silicon Valley with his boat and world record GSM distances ;-)

If Apple OS 4.0 is only vaporware, than this link is awfully damn risky, don't
you think?

http://www.apple.com/iphone/preview-iphone-os/

No, OS 4.0 is NOT vaporware.

--
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

In alt.cellular.verizon John Navas <[email protected]> wrote:
> On 26 May 2010 14:17:04 GMT, "Thomas T. Veldhouse" <[email protected]>

Have we all had enough fun with the triviality of stupid semantics? The whole
point is that a comparison between 2.2 and the iPod OS needs to include OS
4.0. Who gives a crap what you call it ... semantics aside, my point is made.

--
Thomas T. Veldhouse

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

In alt.cellular.verizon Paul Miner <[email protected]> wrote:
>>
>>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?
>

And what escaped you is the "and". Not to mention it is *slang* which means
it has no precisely defined meaning. For those that have been around long
enough to remember when the term vaporware was first used commonly, you know
very well that Apple's OS 4.0 is not vaporware. But, I cite from
Dictionary.com again, since semantics are the theme of the day:

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

--
Thomas T. Veldhouse

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

On 26 May 2010 18:53:26 GMT, "Thomas T. Veldhouse" <[email protected]>
wrote in <[email protected]>:

>In alt.cellular.verizon Paul Miner <[email protected]> wrote:
>> On 26 May 2010 14:17:04 GMT, "Thomas T. Veldhouse" <[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.
>
>So, Apple putting out OS 4.0 is vaporware according to the omniscent Novice
>from Silicon Valley with his boat and world record GSM distances ;-)

'Those who have evidence will present their evidence,
whereas those who do not have evidence will attack the man.'

>If Apple OS 4.0 is only vaporware, than this link is awfully damn risky, don't
>you think?
>
>http://www.apple.com/iphone/preview-iphone-os/
>
>No, OS 4.0 is NOT vaporware.

Until it ships to end users it most certainly *is* vaporware.
--
Best regards,
John

"Never argue with an idiot. He'll drag you down to his level
and then beat you with experience." -Dr. Alan Zimmerman

On 26 May 2010 18:57:09 GMT, "Thomas T. Veldhouse" <[email protected]>
wrote in <[email protected]>:

>In alt.cellular.verizon John Navas <[email protected]> wrote:
>> On 26 May 2010 14:17:04 GMT, "Thomas T. Veldhouse" <[email protected]>
>
>Have we all had enough fun with the triviality of stupid semantics? The whole
>point is that a comparison between 2.2 and the iPod OS needs to include OS
>4.0. Who gives a crap what you call it ... semantics aside, my point is made.

You declare victory just like Dubya, and with just as much validity.
--
Best regards,
John

"Never argue with an idiot. He'll drag you down to his level
and then beat you with experience." -Dr. Alan Zimmerman

On 26 May 2010 19:02:02 GMT, "Thomas T. Veldhouse" <[email protected]>
wrote in <[email protected]>:

>In alt.cellular.verizon Paul Miner <[email protected]> wrote:
>>>
>>>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?
>
>And what escaped you is the "and". Not to mention it is *slang* which means
>it has no precisely defined meaning. For those that have been around long
>enough to remember when the term vaporware was first used commonly, you know
>very well that Apple's OS 4.0 is not vaporware. But, I cite from
>Dictionary.com again, since semantics are the theme of the day:
>
>"Computer Slang. a product, esp. software, that is promoted or marketed while
>it is still in development *and* that may never be produced."

And what escaped you is the "may".
All you're accomplishing is to make yourself look ever more silly.
--
Best regards,
John

"Never argue with an idiot. He'll drag you down to his level
and then beat you with experience." -Dr. Alan Zimmerman

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

> >No, OS 4.0 is NOT vaporware.
>
> Until it ships to end users it most certainly *is* vaporware.

then android 2.2 is vaporware. it has not shipped to end users other
than a few nexus one users, a phone that sold in very small quantities
compared to the other android phones, particularly the droid.

there are probably more iphones running 4.0 betas than android 2.2
right now.

can't have it both ways.

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

> Have we all had enough fun with the triviality of stupid semantics? The whole
> point is that a comparison between 2.2 and the iPod OS needs to include OS
> 4.0. Who gives a crap what you call it ... semantics aside, my point is made.

exactly. comparing android 2.2 with iphone 3 is bull****. android 2.2
is starting to appear in very limited numbers of devices and iphone os
4 will appear in a couple of weeks on nearly all devices.

On Wed, 26 May 2010 10:32:43 -0700, nospam <[email protected]>
wrote:

>In article <[email protected]>, Paul Miner
><[email protected]> wrote:
>
>> The key word is 'announced'. It's vapor until it ships.
>
>it *has* shipped. anyone who wants it can sign up as a developer and
>get a beta version. the public release is imminent.
>
>but if you want to call it vapor, android 2.2 is also vapor, and even
>more so.

Agreed. The definition of vapor applies universally. Both are
vaporware until they ship, and "to developers" doesn't count.

--
Paul Miner

In alt.cellular.verizon John Navas <[email protected]> wrote:
> On 26 May 2010 18:27:19 GMT, "Thomas T. Veldhouse" <[email protected]>
> wrote in <[email protected]>:
>
>>In alt.cellular.verizon John Navas <[email protected]> wrote:
>>>
>>> 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.
>>
>>You are a thinker, but you didn't check did you? ;-)
>
> "I would like to take you seriously,
> but to do so would affront your intelligence."
> {William F. Buckley, Jr]

A lot of words when you could have just said "No".

--
Thomas T. Veldhouse

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

In alt.cellular.verizon John Navas <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> Until it ships to end users it most certainly *is* vaporware.

Since it exists and is not simply an idea in the vapor, I respectfully
disagree. If you want to claim victory; it really doesn't matter to me as the
issue, as I said is one of semantics. The real issue is comparing the correct
software platforms.

--
Thomas T. Veldhouse

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

On 26 May 2010 18:57:09 GMT, "Thomas T. Veldhouse" <[email protected]>
wrote:

>In alt.cellular.verizon John Navas <[email protected]> wrote:
>> On 26 May 2010 14:17:04 GMT, "Thomas T. Veldhouse" <[email protected]>
>
>Have we all had enough fun with the triviality of stupid semantics? The whole
>point is that a comparison between 2.2 and the iPod OS needs to include OS
>4.0. Who gives a crap what you call it ... semantics aside, my point is made.

Yes, but for the record, your point was thoroughly discredited.

--
Paul Miner

On 26 May 2010 21:35:57 GMT, "Thomas T. Veldhouse" <[email protected]>
wrote in <[email protected]>:

>In alt.cellular.verizon John Navas <[email protected]> wrote:
>>
>> Until it ships to end users it most certainly *is* vaporware.
>
>Since it exists and is not simply an idea in the vapor, I respectfully
>disagree. ...

Disagree all you want, but that still doesn't make you any less wrong
(or determined to make yourself look foolish for no good reason).

--
Best regards,
John

"A little learning is a dangerous thing." -Alexander Pope
"It is better to sit in silence and appear ignorant,
than to open your mouth and remove all doubt." -Mark Twain
"Being ignorant is not so much a shame, as being unwilling to learn."
-Benjamin Franklin

In alt.cellular.verizon John Navas <[email protected]> wrote:
> On 26 May 2010 18:57:09 GMT, "Thomas T. Veldhouse" <[email protected]>
> wrote in <[email protected]>:
>
>>In alt.cellular.verizon John Navas <[email protected]> wrote:
>>> On 26 May 2010 14:17:04 GMT, "Thomas T. Veldhouse" <[email protected]>
>>
>>Have we all had enough fun with the triviality of stupid semantics? The whole
>>point is that a comparison between 2.2 and the iPod OS needs to include OS
>>4.0. Who gives a crap what you call it ... semantics aside, my point is made.
>
> You declare victory just like Dubya, and with just as much validity.

I didn't declare any victory. I said simply that android 2.2 will be compared
to apple's OS 4.0 and historically that will be the only comparison of meaning
[any comparison to 3.1 is pretty much pointless]. If you call that victory,
then I guess so. I call it getting back on point.

--
Thomas T. Veldhouse

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

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

> I am sure he can argue semantics and warp it to his desired result.

that's what he does.

> The
> simple facts are that android 2.2 will be compared to Apple OS 4.0
> (iPhone,iPod,iPad). Vaporware be damned.

right. android 2.2 is going to be vapor for a lot longer and for a lot
more users than iphone os 4.