"Industry observers often speculate when Sprint will have to adopt tiered pricing price gouging like AT&T and Verizon Wireless."

FTFA

I take it subby didn't RTFA.

Hesse specifically blames inefficient use of the network by "other mobile operating systems" (READ : ANDROID). Face facts : It just may be that Steve Jobs and Apple got it right the first time with the iPhone. The "walled garden" is more efficient than Android, and it generates more profit to power the ecosystem.

No wonder some "experts" are starting to say Android will be dead sometime in the next five years.

1macgeek: I take it subby didn't RTFA.

Hesse specifically blames inefficient use of the network by "other mobile operating systems" (READ : ANDROID). Face facts : It just may be that Steve Jobs and Apple got it right the first time with the iPhone. The "walled garden" is more efficient than Android, and it generates more profit to power the ecosystem.

No wonder some "experts" are starting to say Android will be dead sometime in the next five years.

How can it be more efficient? Does my Android phone throw out every other packet or something?

1macgeek: I take it subby didn't RTFA.

Hesse specifically blames inefficient use of the network by "other mobile operating systems" (READ : ANDROID). Face facts : It just may be that Steve Jobs and Apple got it right the first time with the iPhone. The "walled garden" is more efficient than Android, and it generates more profit to power the ecosystem.

No wonder some "experts" are starting to say Android will be dead sometime in the next five years.

A website's a website, unless Apple has some cloud-based browser streamlining like Opera and the new Kindle browser, this is a completely baseless claim.

Add to that the "cloud" music player and with the iPhone you've got even more data usage than a phone with local music because you're streaming everything you're listening to.

I call all sorts of bullshiat.

I get far more calls from Android handset users wondering why they are using the levels of data they see than I do iPhone customers. iPhones seem to use less background data. Is this because the apps are better policed, or because of differences in the operating system, or maybe because iPhone customers are more likely to be grandfathered into unlimited data plans instead of thinking that they can get by on 200mb of data? I don't know.

dustlesswalnut: A website's a website, unless Apple has some cloud-based browser streamlining like Opera and the new Kindle browser, this is a completely baseless claim.

You want to know how I know you didn't RTFA?

The problem is the 'openness' of Android. In the article Hesse specifically called out Apple's stringent control of the Apps. In other words, Apple doesn't allow "chatty" Apps to exist. Whereas the Android universe is clogged with them. To wit :

During the company's earnings call on Wednesday, Sprint's CEO Dan Hesse said the iPhone is more than 50% more efficient on Sprint's network than Android devices. "iPhone users are expected to use significantly less 3G data than the typical user of a dual-mode 3G/4G device," Hesse added, noting that his company has found that iPhone applications take better advantage of offloading data onto Wi-Fi networks and that Android apps are "more chatty" with its network.

This has to be the truth, as there is no discernible reason for Hesse to lie. There is absolutely no upside to him making this up. This is but one reason starting to convince the "experts" Android is a dead end, and doomed to failure.

The primary reason is Android users - compared to iOS users - are a bunch of freeloaders and cheapskates who expect everything for free. I know you want to argue this, but Motorola is yet another Android-promoting company that reported yet another quarterly loss. It is a forgone conclusion at least two Android handset manufacturers will be out of business in the next 3 - 5 years. It is a race to the basement where no profits dwell, and the "winner" will be bankrupt and cease to exist.

Without profit the Android ecosystem WILL collapse. It is inarguable. It is inevitable, and the only quibble you could possibly offer up to be taken seriously is one of time. The evidence at hand now, no matter your personal delusions or beliefs, is that Apple may have got it right the first time, and 'open' software is always doomed to failure.

1macgeek: There is absolutely no upside to him making this up.

No? How about making people think that their unlimited plan will be around forever, thus making them want to pick Sprint over AT&T or Verizon?

1macgeek: 'open' software is always doomed to failure.

Heh, Linux would beg to differ.

dustlesswalnut: 1macgeek: 'open' software is always doomed to failure.

Heh, Linux would beg to differ.

I guess you haven't been reading the online techzines this week.

1macgeek: I take it subby didn't RTFA.

Hesse specifically blames inefficient use of the network by "other mobile operating systems" (READ : ANDROID). Face facts : It just may be that Steve Jobs and Apple got it right the first time with the iPhone. The "walled garden" is more efficient than Android, and it generates more profit to power the ecosystem.

No wonder some "experts" are starting to say Android will be dead sometime in the next five years.

To say android will be dead soon despite the much higher marketshare than iOS in mobile is pretty absurd.

dustlesswalnut: 1macgeek: There is absolutely no upside to him making this up.

No? How about making people think that their unlimited plan will be around forever, thus making them want to pick Sprint over AT&T or Verizon?

1macgeek: 'open' software is always doomed to failure.

Heh, Linux would beg to differ.

And Apache. A server software for FREE? No way the majority of the Internet will adopt that. And don't get me started on Firefox, that'll never take off.

Some relevant reading: Windows Phone 7 much more data efficient than iPhone and Android (new window). I'm betting it has a lot to do with use-case though.

The only people I know who burn through data limits tend to be tech types, tech types like the iPhone but many are Android fans. I'd like to see some actual numbers based on experimental tests rather than pure datamining that covers all use cases as if each phone were used identically.

Barakku: To say android will be dead soon despite the much higher marketshare than iOS in mobile is pretty absurd.

You want to know how I know you know jack about business and economics?

It's not about market share. I freely admit Android has a greater OS market share than iOS. But guess what? Apple has more than 60% of the profits of the entire industry. With the assets and market cap Apple has RIGHT NOW, they could buy the ENTIRE cell phone industry and have - roughly speaking - about $30 billion dollars in change.

There is no way Android overcomes THAT, except in the wet dreams and delusions of Android fanbois who don't know or understand the first thing about business and economics. Kinda like you.

I'm sure a guy with a screename '1macgeek' has a totally unbiased view of the facts in an Android vs. iPhone debate.

1macgeek has a tiny penis.

Also, you have to pick the best of two nonideal things. You can either get efficient data use but stringent app control (less chance of finding an app for everything), or little app control but less efficient data use.

Barakku: Some relevant reading: Windows Phone 7 much more data efficient than iPhone and Android (new window). I'm betting it has a lot to do with use-case though.

The only people I know who burn through data limits tend to be tech types, tech types like the iPhone but many are Android fans. I'd like to see some actual numbers based on experimental tests rather than pure datamining that covers all use cases as if each phone were used identically.

Don't forget "idiots that stream Pandora all the time"

dustlesswalnut: Heh, Linux would beg to differ.

Really?

Market caps :

RHT (Red Hat) : $ 9.56 B
APPL (Apple) $ 376.03 B
MSFT (Microsoft) $ 229.23 B
VMW (WM Ware) $ 41.95 B

So a company that doesn't even make an OS has a higher market cap than the biggest Linux company? And if we were to talk market share, VM Ware still kicks RHT's ass.

You're right Charlie Sheen -

WINNING !

1macgeek: dustlesswalnut: A website's a website, unless Apple has some cloud-based browser streamlining like Opera and the new Kindle browser, this is a completely baseless claim.

You want to know how I know you didn't RTFA?

The problem is the 'openness' of Android. In the article Hesse specifically called out Apple's stringent control of the Apps. In other words, Apple doesn't allow "chatty" Apps to exist. Whereas the Android universe is clogged with them. To wit :

During the company's earnings call on Wednesday, Sprint's CEO Dan Hesse said the iPhone is more than 50% more efficient on Sprint's network than Android devices. "iPhone users are expected to use significantly less 3G data than the typical user of a dual-mode 3G/4G device," Hesse added, noting that his company has found that iPhone applications take better advantage of offloading data onto Wi-Fi networks and that Android apps are "more chatty" with its network.


You forgot the last part of that paragraph:

"BTIG Research analyst Walter Piecyk explained, noting that Sprint's report is "short on evidence" and that his firm will continue to test those claims."

Having said that, I wouldn't be surprised that, in general, the iPhone may be better at switching to wifi. But I would bet that it's more of the case that a typical iPhone user is just going to be more gadget savvy; like, I would think that the percentage of iPhone users who have wifi at home, or at work, has got to be close to 100%, especially with the need to constantly tether the phone to your computer to really use the full functionality of it. While across the full spectrum of android handsets, well, a large chunk of these people just want a smartphone of some sort, and there's probably a large segment of android users who don't have wifi at home, and who don't care about upgrading to the latest firmware, etc. etc. So their data usage is going to be mostly on the cell package.

Then again I see charts like this (average data usage per smartphone):


...and say "Okay, iphones may be more efficient, but it's pretty damn clear who is using a lot more data than others. I'm not sure where the Sprint guy is coming off saying that iPhones use less cell data than other OSs (OSes? OS's?)."

Honest Bender: How can it be more efficient? Does my Android phone throw out every other packet or something?

I wondered this as well... Hesse (I think it was him) said it's almost entirely because the iPhone is much better at finding available WiFi and using it whenever possible. That also made me wonder how much that plays into the iPhone having superior battery life when compared to Android. WiFi requires a fraction of the power that 3G/4G requires.

1macgeek: There is no way Android overcomes THAT, except in the wet dreams and delusions of Android fanbois who don't know or understand the first thing about business and economics. Kinda like you.

Yeah- there's no possible way that a product that generates more revenue per unit sold will lose out in volume to a cheaper, more open alternative, leaving the premium product in a small niche with far less support and marketshare.

That would certainly never, ever happen to Apple.

Barakku: And Apache. A server software for FREE? No way the majority of the Internet will adopt that. And don't get me started on Firefox, that'll never take off.

I take it you have no clue how either one makes money... of course you don't, because in your mind open = free. If that were the case, then Apache and Mozilla would have died very quick deaths.

HINT : If Google dies, then so does Mozilla. Exactly where did you think Mozilla was getting $60 plus million per year? The tooth fairy, perhaps?

So just because the money isn't coming out of your pocket doesn't mean it isn't being generated at all. And if you think Apache is so "open", you really should RTFL. Please do not confuse benevolence with permission to be doing anything you wish. At any point in time the Apache Foundation could require each web server using Apache to pony up a $10,000 license fee. or $100K. Or anything they wished. There wouldn't be jack you could do about it; they hold all the copyrights, patents, trademarks and IP. I'm not saying it is a probability, but it is always a possibility. They own "it" and you do not.

So with that being said, go forth and find me an example of a commercially successful "open" software as you define it. I'll wait here.

1macgeek: Apple has more than 60% of the profits of the entire industry.

And how many phones split the remaining profit? Also if you make a phone that runs android, you're just paying licensing and having someone else handle the development. Plus by being open source, if you want, you can offer novel features other phone makers using Android don't.

snowshovel: You forgot the last part of that paragraph:

"BTIG Research analyst Walter Piecyk explained, noting that Sprint's report is "short on evidence" and that his firm will continue to test those claims."

So some jackhole "analyst" pulls an unverified opinion out of his ass and that - SOMEHOW! - carries more weight than the CEO of Sprint?

You want to know how I know you are completely lost in your delusion-cum-masturbatory fantasy?

1macgeek: they hold all the copyrights, patents, trademarks and IP

Thanks for letting us know you have no idea what you're talking about.

The Android operating system is thrown on almost any phone that Google and the carriers can think to put it on. Apple has a total of five phones in the market with iOS and another two tablets and Apple still has a 25% market share. How many Android powered phones are out there? 50? 60? All of them trying to compete with one another, all trying to be called the best and most inexpensive. The economics of Android is hilarious. It is the WalMart of the phone industry. Apple does it better, period.

Terlis: The economics of Android is hilarious. It is the WalMart of the phone industry.

lolwut.jpg

adenosine: Is this because the apps are better policed, or because of differences in the operating system, or maybe because iPhone customers are more likely to be grandfathered into unlimited data plans instead of thinking that they can get by on 200mb of data? I don't know.

200mb of data?! Who could get by with a smart phone with only 200mb? I hate that freaking plan it's there just so ATT can say they gave people options. 200mb is just enough to get email and a few webpages but thats it. I think most people are just using wifi, if they can.

I

1macgeek: HINT : If Google dies, then so does Mozilla.

Isn't Google slowly pulling out of Mozilla? I think that's why Mozilla just partnered with MS... they realize too much money from too few sources will always end badly. And FWIW, (from what I understand) the only reason Google started funding Mozilla in the first place was to take market share away from IE, until they finished Chrome.

TNel: 200mb of data?! Who could get by with a smart phone with only 200mb? I hate that freaking plan it's there just so ATT can say they gave people options. 200mb is just enough to get email and a few webpages but thats it. I think most people are just using wifi, if they can.

Lots of people. People who mainly use the smart features on the phone for email (read: Blackberry users), or people who are always in the presence of wifi hotspots, or people who have a smartphone mainly to play games and listen to music instead of web browsing. I've seen people with iPhones who for months don't use over 100mb of data in any billing period.

Just because I choose to store all my music on Amazon cloud drive and use tons of data doesn't mean that's what other people do.

Terlis: Apple does it better, period.

The plethora of android phones is a pro, not a con. With android I have the freedom to choose my price point. Do I want a free phone (with contract) or a top of the line expensive model? I can chose the physical layout of the phone. Do I want one with a forward facing camera? A keyboard? Big screen? Bigger battery? Memory card slot? I even get a choice on the style of interface. Do I want vanilla Android? Do I want sense? Swype? Or something completely different (custom rom)?

Remind me again why Apple is better? Period?

snowshovel: Then again I see charts like this (average data usage per smartphone):
techblog.dallasnews.com

...and say "Okay, iphones may be more efficient, but it's pretty damn clear who is using a lot more data than others. I'm not sure where the Sprint guy is coming off saying that iPhones use less cell data than other OSs (OSes? OS's?)."

Apparently Windows Phone 7 is the most efficient OS known to man

Friend of mine had to move to another state and where she is there is no Sprint coverage. Her plan is supposed to include unlimited roaming but, of course, Sprint sent her a letter saying that she was using too much roaming and they were going to shut off her service. other than this she's been happy with them. Guess we'll see what happens but fark an AT&T.

WhyteRaven74: Thanks for letting us know you have no idea what you're talking about.

Thanks for letting us know you didn't RTFL :

"2. Grant of Copyright License...
3. Grant of Patent License....
6. Trademarks..."

Thanks for letting us know that you are stupid and lazy as well.

Quick Wrap-up : Apache Foundation owns Apache, you don't. They get to tell you how to use it, you don't. Apache is only "open" to the extent the Apache Foundation says it is, not by what you say. At any point in time the Apache Foundation COULD make you pay to use it because there is nothing legally stopping them from doing so.

Class dismissed.

1macgeek: . They get to tell you how to use it, you don't

I could download the source code, rework half of it and distribute it to my heart's desire, however I want, could even sell it. In other words, they don't say crap about how to use it. Hell you can redistribute Apache from your own site if you want.

Hesse is just saying anything that comes to mind to distract the shareholders. Sprint hasn't been a profitable company since the mid-2000s. Seriously, they hemorrhage a couple/few billion dollars every year. The only thing that keeps them in business is their cash flow and the market's willingness to underwrite them in hopes of some day showing a profit.

The scary truth is iPhone 5. Sprint won't have an LTE network operating yet (they are trying to get someone to loan them $7-9B right now to pay for it), so when that device hits in summer 2012 it will have to run on EVDO because it won't have Wimax in it. That means they are going to have to sell it against Verizon which will cover most of the country with LTE and AT&T which will have it in many urban areas. Sprint has foolishly agreed to some serious iPhone purchases (31B!!) and will be unable to sell many iPhone 5 devices because it will be stuck on a six year old network.

My prediction - Sprint bankruptcy or Asian buyout in Q2-2012.

Honest Bender: How can it be more efficient? Does my Android phone throw out every other packet or something?

There are two main reasons why the iPhone rides lightly on networks, according to Hesse. The first is that the device is good at hunting for Wi-Fi connections and notifying users when Wi-Fi is available. That helps carriers like Sprint offload data traffic from their networks.

The iPhone's other strength stems from Apple's tight control over iPhone applications. Since Apple makes iPhone apps meet network efficiency thresholds, iPhone apps tend to "ping" networks less often than other mobile operating systems do. Cutting down on app "noise" lets carriers operate their networks in a more productive and ultimately more profitable manner. "It's almost like a Prius," said Hesse, comparing the iPhone to Toyota's fuel-efficient car.

Honest Bender: Remind me again why Apple is better? Period?

Because Apple is making a majority of the profit; therefore the resources are in place to not only build the largest, most stable ecosystem, but a sustainable one as well.

Tell me, how many existing Android phones even have the ability to use the latest OS? And how long was it AFTER the release of Netflix on iOS was it before even a majority of Android users could use it? And why were there recently a bunch of warnings about the "explosion" of malware on Android?

Tell me again why, except in the depths of your wildest delusions, you would even think Android even has a shot at being a "better" platform?

1macgeek: WhyteRaven74: Thanks for letting us know you have no idea what you're talking about.

Thanks for letting us know you didn't RTFL :

"2. Grant of Copyright License...
3. Grant of Patent License....
6. Trademarks..."

Thanks for letting us know that you are stupid and lazy as well.

Quick Wrap-up : Apache Foundation owns Apache, you don't. They get to tell you how to use it, you don't. Apache is only "open" to the extent the Apache Foundation says it is, not by what you say. At any point in time the Apache Foundation COULD make you pay to use it because there is nothing legally stopping them from doing so.

Class dismissed.

2. Grant of Copyright License. Subject to the terms and conditions of this License, each Contributor hereby grants to You a perpetual, worldwide, non-exclusive, no-charge, royalty-free, irrevocable copyright license to reproduce, prepare Derivative Works of, publicly display, publicly perform, sublicense, and distribute the Work and such Derivative Works in Source or Object form.

3. Grant of Patent License. Subject to the terms and conditions of this License, each Contributor hereby grants to You a perpetual, worldwide, non-exclusive, no-charge, royalty-free, irrevocable (except as stated in this section) patent license to make, have made, use, offer to sell, sell, import, and otherwise transfer the Work, where such license applies only to those patent claims licensable by such Contributor that are necessarily infringed by their Contribution(s) alone or by combination of their Contribution(s) with the Work to which such Contribution(s) was submitted.

----------------

I could drill down further into the agreement, but as long as you abide by the original license, which basically means you attach notice that it's Apache code that you've modified, you cannot be charged for it. You cannot retroactively change an agreement without nullifying it unless you include that language in the contract, which this license doesn't include. That would be something to the effect of :

"Apple reserves the right to modify, suspend, or discontinue the iTunes Service (or any part or content thereof) at any time with or without notice to you, and Apple will not be liable to you or to any third party should it exercise such rights."

If you hit CTRL+F, you'll find that Apache doesn't even have the word 'reserve' in the agreement. So you're wrong in just about every sense of the argument.

1macgeek: snowshovel: You forgot the last part of that paragraph:

"BTIG Research analyst Walter Piecyk explained, noting that Sprint's report is "short on evidence" and that his firm will continue to test those claims."

So some jackhole "analyst" pulls an unverified opinion out of his ass and that - SOMEHOW! - carries more weight than the CEO of Sprint?

You want to know how I know you are completely lost in your delusion-cum-masturbatory fantasy?

As an owner of a iPhone and an iPad, I'm not sure what fantasy you speak of. The CEO of Sprint made a claim. An analyst had an opinion that, currently, Sprint's claims are short of evidence.

Can you show me in the claims by Sprint where the evidence exists that supports the idea that iPhone phones use less data than android phones? When the overall general data of the cell phone industry is that iPhone users actually use more bandwidth than almost all other OS phones combined? Again, I accept the fact that iPhone may truly be more efficient at network switching, but I have no evidence of this. And, Sprint has not provided any.

And of course, iphone users seem happy with the speed they are getting on the Sprint network: (new window), so maybe they'll be using more of the cellular network now.

madgonad: they are trying to get someone to loan them $7-9B right now to pay for it)

Funny, according to Sprint they've already budgeted the money for the LTE addition to their network.

1macgeek: Market caps :

RHT (Red Hat) : $ 9.56 B
APPL (Apple) $ 376.03 B
MSFT (Microsoft) $ 229.23 B
VMW (WM Ware) $ 41.95 B

So a company that doesn't even make an OS has a higher market cap than the biggest Linux company? And if we were to talk market share, VM Ware still kicks RHT's ass.

You might want to rethink your argument there, sparky. VMW produces ESXi, which is, wait for it.....Linux.

I'm waiting for you to tell us how much BSD obviously sucks while talking about APPL's market cap....

1macgeek: Tell me again why, except in the depths of your wildest delusions, you would even think Android even has a shot at being a "better" platform?

Because it's wide open, someone could come up with something completely new and have it for people to use no problem. And where's a 4G iPhone? That's the one issue with the new iPhones, but it's a huge issue. Oh and as for the latest Android release working on older phones, nothing stops a crafty developer from tweaking it to work on any phones it wouldn't work on.

kingoomieiii: you should switch to a non-free alternative immediately?

If they started charging for Apache someone would take the source code that was available and start a fork and be able to distribute that freely.