MS Mango (30 seconds evaluation)

Started by linnix May 24, 2011
Watched the TV announcement.

Interesting name.  Right physical size, but fat.  At least they didn't
call it "lemon".

Seem to have active app list.  Badly needed for Android.  For Android,
can't tell if an app is active until you bring it up.  Google might
need to "flatter" Microsoft on this.
On May 24, 7:36=A0am, linnix <m...@linnix.info-for.us> wrote:
> Watched the TV announcement. > > Interesting name. =A0Right physical size, but fat. =A0At least they didn'=
t
> call it "lemon". > > Seem to have active app list. =A0Badly needed for Android. =A0For Android=
,
> can't tell if an app is active until you bring it up. =A0Google might > need to "flatter" Microsoft on this.
And now for something completely different: http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2011-05-24/google-seeks-compromise-with-phone= -companies-as-sarkozy-considers-rules.html?cmpid=3Dyhoo Apps like google map is downloading data all the time, without cache, as if the roads are changing every minutes. But that's for driving data revenue for the phone companies in the first place, until it's too much for them to handle. Why can't they (phone co.) just admit that they are under-pricing data?
On Tue, 24 May 2011 17:36:47 -0700 (PDT), linnix
<me@linnix.info-for.us> wrote:

>And now for something completely different: > >http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2011-05-24/google-seeks-compromise-with-phone-companies-as-sarkozy-considers-rules.html?cmpid=yhoo > >Apps like google map is downloading data all the time, without cache, >as if the roads are changing every minutes. But that's for driving >data revenue for the phone companies in the first place, until it's >too much for them to handle. Why can't they (phone co.) just admit >that they are under-pricing data?
Phone companies hardly are "under" pricing data. Most are guilty of gouging customers, charging 100s of times the cost of providing the service. There was an article in the Wall St. Journal last year talking about rates for SMS. They found that the handling cost per message was about 1/10,000th of a cent, while at the same time /most/ customers were being charged 2..10 cents per message. The so-called "unlimited texting" monthly packages were priced so that a customer would have to send 100s of millions of text messages within the monthly time frame to impact the companies profit. George
On May 25, 9:17=A0pm, George Neuner <gneun...@comcast.net> wrote:
> On Tue, 24 May 2011 17:36:47 -0700 (PDT), linnix > > <m...@linnix.info-for.us> wrote: > >And now for something completely different: > > >http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2011-05-24/google-seeks-compromise-with... > > >Apps like google map is downloading data all the time, without cache, > >as if the roads are changing every minutes. =A0But that's for driving > >data revenue for the phone companies in the first place, until it's > >too much for them to handle. =A0Why can't they (phone co.) just admit > >that they are under-pricing data? > > Phone companies hardly are "under" pricing data. =A0Most are guilty of > gouging customers, charging 100s of times the cost of providing the > service. > > There was an article in the Wall St. Journal last year talking about > rates for SMS. =A0They found that the handling cost per message was > about 1/10,000th of a cent, while at the same time /most/ customers > were being charged 2..10 cents per message. =A0The so-called "unlimited > texting" monthly packages were priced so that a customer would have to > send 100s of millions of text messages within the monthly time frame > to impact the companies profit. > > George
Yes, i mean underpricing data cost vs. text. Text and voice users are subsidizing data users.
On Wed, 25 May 2011 22:20:06 -0700 (PDT), linnix
<me@linnix.info-for.us> wrote:

>On May 25, 9:17&#2013266080;pm, George Neuner <gneun...@comcast.net> wrote: >> On Tue, 24 May 2011 17:36:47 -0700 (PDT), linnix >> >> <m...@linnix.info-for.us> wrote: >> >And now for something completely different: >> >> >http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2011-05-24/google-seeks-compromise-with... >> >> >Apps like google map is downloading data all the time, without cache, >> >as if the roads are changing every minutes. &#2013266080;But that's for driving >> >data revenue for the phone companies in the first place, until it's >> >too much for them to handle. &#2013266080;Why can't they (phone co.) just admit >> >that they are under-pricing data? >> >> Phone companies hardly are "under" pricing data. &#2013266080;Most are guilty of >> gouging customers, charging 100s of times the cost of providing the >> service. >> >> There was an article in the Wall St. Journal last year talking about >> rates for SMS. &#2013266080;They found that the handling cost per message was >> about 1/10,000th of a cent, while at the same time /most/ customers >> were being charged 2..10 cents per message. &#2013266080;The so-called
"unlimited
>> texting" monthly packages were priced so that a customer would have to >> send 100s of millions of text messages within the monthly time frame >> to impact the companies profit. >> >> George > >Yes, i mean underpricing data cost vs. text. Text and voice users are >subsidizing data users.
Even so, my own plan has "unlimited" web for $1.00/day (on days of use). But 3.xG service (depending on the phone) is at maximum equivalent to 54g wifi ... about 4GB/day. Only rarely is that maximum speed attainable - usually speeds are closer to 10b - and few if any customers are downloading 24 hours per day. If you figure that a 140 character (+ header) SMS message costs the company 1/10,000th of a cent, then one byte of data is approximately 1/10 millionth of a cent. 4GB of data works out to about 30 cents whereas I'm being charged $1 whether I use it all or not. Obviously MMV with other access plans. And, of course, 4G service is far faster, but worldwide only a few percent of all mobile customers are using it and they are being charged a lot more for it. I just don't believe that the phone companies are giving up anything. George
On Thu, 26 May 2011 16:20:45 -0400, George Neuner
<gneuner2@comcast.net> wrote:

> >If you figure that a 140 character (+ header) SMS message costs the >company 1/10,000th of a cent, then one byte of data is approximately >1/10 millionth of a cent. 4GB of data works out to about 30 cents >whereas I'm being charged $1 whether I use it all or not. >
Whoops! Read the decimal incorrectly. Should be 1/hundred millionth per byte. But 30 cents still is correct. George