Lucian Armasu

Lucian Armasu


46 comments posted · 0 followers · following 0

262 weeks ago @ 9 to 5 Mac | Apple Int... - New iPad's A5x chip be... · 0 replies · -2 points

It's a dual core.

262 weeks ago @ 9 to 5 Mac | Apple Int... - New iPad's A5x chip be... · 2 replies · -15 points

How exactly? In a benchmark test? You play the actual game, not a benchmark. The games looked a lot better and richer on Tegra 3.

263 weeks ago @ 9 to 5 Mac | Apple Int... - The new iPad has 10-ho... · 0 replies · -6 points

0.6mm thicker?? I think you meant to say 6 mm thicker..or 0.6cm thicker.

288 weeks ago @ ConceivablyTech - Rapid Release Process ... · 0 replies · +4 points

Net Applications always shows misleading data, because they incorporate the iOS browser numbers into the desktop Safari numbers, but they only do it for Apple, and they don't add the mobile browser numbers for the other companies.So don't trust them as source again.

295 weeks ago @ asymco - The Verizon small bang · 0 replies · -2 points

I don't think you realize what you're saying. All the iPhone did to Android is to stop it growing over 50% market share for new quarterly sales. Android was at 53% the previous quarter and growing, and when iPhone appeared on Verizon it dropped back to 50%. Android's growth in USA is still 50% vs iPhone's like 26-29% (don't remember the exact number here).

Android's total user base is 39% in USA and keeps growing (to reach parity with the 50% quarterly sales), and iPhone's user base is 29%, according to the recent stat from Nielsen.

295 weeks ago @ asymco - The Verizon small bang · 0 replies · -3 points

I don't think you've watched the tech blogosphere for that long if you say people didn't believe iPhone on Verizon will have a huge impact on Android. In fact on this very site, Horatiu said that, or at least implied it.

I find it very amusing how everyone now thinks that i was so OBVIOUS Android would get this kind of market share. Perhaps the people commenting now about this aren't the same people commenting about 1.5 years ago, but I remember very well that the odds against Android were huge against Android and it wasn't a very popular opinion at all to say Android will overcome iPhone with 100k apps and 25% of quarterly sales for smartphones in USA, when Android had in the hundreds of several thousands of apps and like 2-4% market share.

In fact the sentiment about Android tablets right now is very much like the sentiment about Android smartphones back then. I imagine 2 years from now, people will say it was so obvious Android tablets will overtake iPad, too. Maybe I should save these posts somewhere for reference later :)

295 weeks ago @ asymco - The Verizon small bang · 2 replies · -2 points

ok, I see you've already found that "next" reason. Good! I was getting worried there might not be one for a second. I'll be happy see you're wrong on that one, too. Aliyun is the next oPhone, which also failed. The reason they fail is because they can't keep up with Google's pace, and they end up being several versions behind.

But even if they simply fork it, and they actually successful doing that (also one of the reason oPhone failed), it will only be for the China market, which granted is a huge market, but it won't really corrode Android in any way. Also, the China market is not the whole Asian market. So Android will remain at 50% market share instead of the potential 70% - what can I say, I'm not even sure I'd want them to go to 70%. That's too big for one company to have (just look at all the problems Microsoft created in the past by having 90% market share).

But Aliyun corroding Android in a big way is VERY optimistic of you, either way.

295 weeks ago @ asymco - The Verizon small bang · 12 replies · -7 points

So "the iPhone will kill Android when it gets on all carriers" was just a myth and wishful thinking. Ok, so now what? What is the "next" reason iPhone will kill Android? There's always another one (and it always turns out wrong).

295 weeks ago @ 9to5 Google - Beyond G... - Survey: Buyers want su... · 0 replies · +1 points

$250 for a "low-end" tablet tablet (with supposedly a dual core) with a high res screen like 1280x800 or similar for 7", and low on everything else, would've been perfect. They would completely dominate not only the low-end market of Android tablets, but the whole market because it would sell in many millions.

The quad core Tegra 3 tablet should also be $400. $450 is nice, too. But $400 would be the sweet spot. You need a significantly smaller price than iPad even for high-end similarly specced Android tablets, because iPad still has a big advantage in branding and in number of apps. So at least until Android tablets become more popular, they should take advantage of lower pricing, while still being well built and having high quality displays, and with good processors. The rest of the specs are pretty irrelevant.

Motorola got it backwards with Xoom. They thought all the other specs ARE relevant, so they just wanted to make a huge bullet point list of features, and they also thought price is irrelevant. Huge mistake, which was proven in the market. Consumers only care about the tablet being priced right (especially compared to iPad right now), well built and nicely designed, having a gorgeous screen, and for tech influencers, to have a cutting edge chip in them, too (depending on price level). All the other specs matter much less, so they can cut into them almost as deep as they want.

298 weeks ago @ ConceivablyTech - WebGL Security - Kill ... · 1 reply · +1 points

Supposedly, Microsoft paid Context firm to do this "research". Not saying some or even all of it isn't true, but it does take away from the credibility of their research, considering Microsoft doesn't want WebGL to become the standard for GPU rendering in the browser.