Jan 26th 2010 5:07AM For those readers who are too young to recall - or who weren't particularly interested, at the time - it might help to get some background on the whole Leno v. Letterman story. Read all about how Jay Leno acquired The Tonight Show hosting gig, way back in 1993.
http://bit.ly/6FjAQq (article from NY Times; 1994)
Jan 26th 2010 2:29AM For those readers who are too young - or just weren't particularly interested, at the time - to recall, it might help to get some background on the whole Leno v. Letterman story. Read all about how Jay Leno acquired The Tonight Show hosting gig, way back in 1993.
http://bit.ly/6FjAQq (article from NY Times; 1994)
Jan 21st 2010 5:32AM For those who are too young - or were too uninterested, at the time - to recall, it might help to get some background on this story. Read all about how Leno acquired The Tonight Show gig, back in 1993.
http://bit.ly/6FjAQq (NY Times; 1994)
Dec 15th 2009 8:49PM Excellent analysis and the only one I've seen on this angle. But let's also note that downward pressure on carrier rates presents a huge problem for Apple, too.
Unlike Google, the folks in Cupertino can't fall back on advertising fees - they sell hardware. If/when it comes to pass that either the service providers (a) decide lower rates mean can't afford to pay the Apple tax or (b) decide that the availability of cheap, excellent Android handsets means they no longer _have_ to pay the Apple tax, then iPhone's salad days are over.
Were I sitting in a tastefully designed office at One Infinite Loop, I'd be very worried. And today's news about the mash-up of Doubletwist and Amazon doesn't help...not one bit.: http://bit.ly/7cu2aQ
Dec 6th 2009 9:48AM @Tom Tunguz:
> The key to avoiding the disaster scenario of device,
> marketplace and operating system fragmentation [...]
You want to know what the real key is? Its simple, really: non-coder 'tech writers' and uninformed hack freelancers should not be allowed to write about subjects they don't understand and in which they have no direct experience. At very least, they should explain their own limitations, up-front, before presenting hearsay and innuendo as 'facts'.
Now, I know that won't happen on its own. So, it's up to those of us who (a) do know what we're doing and (b) care about what gets reported to straighten these clowns out, at every opportunity. Plus, we should make our dissatisfaction known to the goofballs who run any website so irresponsible as to allow this kind of non-story to be published, in the first place.
It's bad enough that so many of the comment-posters have no clue what they're talking about (700k Android phones, total? Oh, please!), but at least whatever nonsense they spout doesn't receive the website's tacit imprimatur. People believe what they see in print, even if its virtual ink. And if the guys who run 'informational' sites won't police themselves, then we need to raise the issue.
Dec 6th 2009 9:36AM @pk de cville:
> Total Android Install Base (multiple disparate
> versions 1.0 to 2.0): 700,000
Uh, no - not even close, FUD boy. I'd say your guess is off by nearly a factor of five...maybe more.
T-Mobile USA (alone) announced sales of HTC's Dream/G1 model hit 1,000,000 in April, '09. Let's note that this was before that phone's overseas intro. In fact, all the way back in December '08, HTC said they would reach 1,000,000 units (at wholesale) by _1Q09_.
Since then, we've seen the release of at least half a dozen Android-powered handsets. And recent estimates for Motorola's Droid set current sales at between 500,000 and 700,000. So, I think 3 Mil. is a good, conservative estimate of Android's total installed base, across all iterations.
Nov 6th 2009 6:44PM This is textbook example of the corporation's left hand not knowing - or understanding - what the right one is doing. Somebody from AT&T marketing needs to meet with their OGC and crack some skulls...or, maybe just pay them in stock, so they have a stake in the company's public relations.
Most remarkable, to me, is that this suit comes after Verizon revised the ads by adding descriptive captions ('3G coverage map'), in response to AT&T's initial complaints. Why in heck would you repeatedly insist that your biggest competitor explain your own, flawed service with such crystal clarity? 'That's right, we demand red text in all-caps. And, hey - use a bigger font, dammit!'
Were I advising Verizon, I'd suggest a new series of ads with a comic known for subtlety and mock solemnity (John Cleese and Martin Mull, come to mind), posing as spokesman...maybe even as a corporate attorney. Standing before some visual aids, he apologizes profusely for any mis-communication, then - carefully thanking AT&T for their expressed concerns - hammers home the punchline with cheerful incredulity.:
'As you can see, AT&T's 3G coverage zone is approximately 45% smaller than Verizon's, with slower speeds in most of the top twenty major, metropolitan areas. Got that? Good. Thanks for the opportunity to clear up any misunderstanding.'