Windows Phone Beats 88% of Competitors in Speed Test

[watcha]

[citation][nom]alikum[/nom]My point is, all mobile platforms start with 0 app. Instead of arguing with the availability, let's argue with the growth. Do a check on statistics and you'll realize that WP7 has one of the largest growing app market, perhaps surpassing that of Android at its age.[/citation]

Firstly, they don't all necessarily start off with no apps, the developers of the platform could easily build some initial apps, so you're wrong, but that's beside the point.

Growth is not relevant for a consumer buying today, unless it means that the actual number of apps will match either of the 2 competing systems in the very immediate future (as in days / weeks) - people buying a phone today want to be able to use it today. Even if the growth WAS faster than Android 'at its age' (of which I see no evidence from yourself, saying 'check on statistics' is not evidence), the fact is there are just over 50,000 apps on the Windows marketplace, compared to 10 times that on Android and even more on iOS is a far more compelling reason NOT to buy than the vague promise of possible 'growth' in the future.

The clear point of the original poster remains, and you should not be refuting it - Windows Phone 7 as a proposition obviously suffers due to having 10x fewer apps than two established competing platforms.

 

[watcha]

which is a far more compelling*

 

[alikum]

[citation][nom]watcha[/nom]Firstly, they don't all necessarily start off with no apps, the developers of the platform could easily build some initial apps, so you're wrong, but that's beside the point.Growth is not relevant for a consumer buying today, unless it means that the actual number of apps will match either of the 2 competing systems in the very immediate future (as in days / weeks) - people buying a phone today want to be able to use it today. Even if the growth WAS faster than Android 'at its age' (of which I see no evidence from yourself, saying 'check on statistics' is not evidence), the fact is there are just over 50,000 apps on the Windows marketplace, compared to 10 times that on Android and even more on iOS is a far more compelling reason NOT to buy than the vague promise of possible 'growth' in the future.The clear point of the original poster remains, and you should not be refuting it - Windows Phone 7 as a proposition obviously suffers due to having 10x fewer apps than two established competing platforms.[/citation]
You're wrong. Not everyone goes into a platform looking for apps. I'm not sure about you, but WP7 already came with all the features that I truly need, hence on my phone, I only have games and that's pretty much it.

Of course, I can always provide you with statistics which I was too lazy to dig but since you requested, here we go.
http://www.pcworld.com/article/247076/windows_phone_7_marketplace_hits_50000_apps_still_lags.html

Availability is one thing, but you can't deny that it has a strong growth. Don't expect developers to build apps overnight, they simply can't. But judging by the figures, it looks healthy.

What app is it that you need that is available on iOS / Android but doesn't have an alternative available on WP7? What is that "killer app" there?

 

[alikum]

This http://www.pcworld.com/article/247076/windows_phone_7_marketplace_hits_50000_apps_still_lags.html

 

[alikum]

[citation][nom]watcha[/nom]Firstly, they don't all necessarily start off with no apps, the developers of the platform could easily build some initial apps, so you're wrong, but that's beside the point.Growth is not relevant for a consumer buying today, unless it means that the actual number of apps will match either of the 2 competing systems in the very immediate future (as in days / weeks) - people buying a phone today want to be able to use it today. Even if the growth WAS faster than Android 'at its age' (of which I see no evidence from yourself, saying 'check on statistics' is not evidence), the fact is there are just over 50,000 apps on the Windows marketplace, compared to 10 times that on Android and even more on iOS is a far more compelling reason NOT to buy than the vague promise of possible 'growth' in the future.The clear point of the original poster remains, and you should not be refuting it - Windows Phone 7 as a proposition obviously suffers due to having 10x fewer apps than two established competing platforms.[/citation]
Oh and before I forget, the point about having 0 app is to illustrate that all platforms start from scratch. Duh.

 

[watcha]

[citation][nom]alikum[/nom]You're wrong. Not everyone goes into a platform looking for apps. I'm not sure about you, but WP7 already came with all the features that I truly need, hence on my phone, I only have games and that's pretty much it. Of course, I can always provide you with statistics which I was too lazy to dig but since you requested, here we go.Availability is one thing, but you can't deny that it has a strong growth. Don't expect developers to build apps overnight, they simply can't. But judging by the figures, it looks healthy.What app is it that you need that is available on iOS / Android but doesn't have an alternative available on WP7? What is that "killer app" there?[/citation]

Let me start out with some kind words: this is the most ignorant post I've read since Willards last rant.

Lets journey back and view what my concluding argument was:

[citation][nom]alikum[/nom]Windows Phone 7 as a proposition obviously suffers due to having 10x fewer apps than two established competing platforms.[/citation]

To which your response is: [citation][nom]alikum[/nom]You're wrong[/citation]

That alone, is already ridiculous, to anyone with any concept of objectivity but lets look more closely.

[citation][nom]alikum[/nom]Not everyone goes into a platform looking for apps[/citation]

This sentence doesn't not contradict my claim at all (nor does any of the continued rant about what you, personally, require). Whether everyone goes into a platform looking for apps or not, SOME do. It doesn't even matter how many. And it most certainly does not matter what just 1 person thinks. Lets step away from your ignorance for a second, a consider people who aren't 'you' (or me). Lets clarify that in order to ascertain whether a platform is successful or not, or a good proposition or not, it has to appeal to as many people as possible, so much so that it achieves sales. 1 person buying a £1 million phone does not mean that it is a good proposition. Now, lets combine that obvious reality with the fact that I would contend that the majority of people buying mobile phones are very much interested in having a large app portfolio, and you have a quite simply obvious conclusion that the number of apps, does clearly matter, and it necessarily follows that a lack thereof would harm it as a proposition.

The statistics you provided back up my assertion that Windows Phone 7 is miles behind in terms of apps (the more relevant point) but, to your credit, does indeed provide evidence that Windows Phone 7 is growing faster than Android did. Of course, it's also growing more slowly than iOS did. And of course, it's much more easy to grow an app library more quickly once a collection of apps and the industry in general is already established and just need to be ported over. And of course, I already provided for the possibility that what you said was true, by explaining how growth is irrelevant if people want it today.

What amuses me most about your line of defence is that you first claim that Windows Phone does not suffer because it is growing so fast, gaining apps very quickly, then claim that there are no missing 'killer apps' and that apps don't matter. Do you see the irony?

To conclude, given a) SOME people want a lot of apps and b) Windows Phone has less than 10% of the apps iOS has, c) This means that Windows Phone will suffer as a proposition.

As for an example of a 'killer app' - Sky Sports. A multi billion pound market watched by millions of people every day.

 

[watcha]

[citation][nom]alikum[/nom]Oh and before I forget, the point about having 0 app is to illustrate that all platforms start from scratch. Duh.[/citation]

The design for every phone starts from scratch too. Does that mean that their differences should be ignored?

 

[watcha]

does not contradict*

 

[alikum]

[citation][nom]watcha[/nom]Let me start out with some kind words: this is the most ignorant post I've read since Willards last rant.Lets journey back and view what my concluding argument was:To which your response is: That alone, is already ridiculous, to anyone with any concept of objectivity but lets look more closely.This sentence doesn't not contradict my claim at all (nor does any of the continued rant about what you, personally, require). Whether everyone goes into a platform looking for apps or not, SOME do. It doesn't even matter how many. And it most certainly does not matter what just 1 person thinks. Lets step away from your ignorance for a second, a consider people who aren't 'you' (or me). Lets clarify that in order to ascertain whether a platform is successful or not, or a good proposition or not, it has to appeal to as many people as possible, so much so that it achieves sales. 1 person buying a £1 million phone does not mean that it is a good proposition. Now, lets combine that obvious reality with the fact that I would contend that the majority of people buying mobile phones are very much interested in having a large app portfolio, and you have a quite simply obvious conclusion that the number of apps, does clearly matter, and it necessarily follows that a lack thereof would harm it as a proposition.The statistics you provided back up my assertion that Windows Phone 7 is miles behind in terms of apps (the more relevant point) but, to your credit, does indeed provide evidence that Windows Phone 7 is growing faster than Android did. Of course, it's also growing more slowly than iOS did. And of course, it's much more easy to grow an app library more quickly once a collection of apps and the industry in general is already established and just need to be ported over. And of course, I already provided for the possibility that what you said was true, by explaining how growth is irrelevant if people want it today.What amuses me most about your line of defence is that you first claim that Windows Phone does not suffer because it is growing so fast, gaining apps very quickly, then claim that there are no missing 'killer apps' and that apps don't matter. Do you see the irony?To conclude, given a) SOME people want a lot of apps and b) Windows Phone has less than 10% of the apps iOS has, c) This means that Windows Phone will suffer as a proposition.As for an example of a 'killer app' - Sky Sports. A multi billion pound market watched by millions of people every day.[/citation]
Instead of reading all 3 statements as a whole, you chose to cherrypick and dissect my statement into parts and interpret without fully understanding my rebuttals. First, I said all platforms begin with 0 app which simply implied that all platforms do start from scratch. It was directed at the person who said

windows phone may be fast but still lacks the app support and customization.

It'll be there in due time. I've never mentioned anything about sales nor have I ever compared market shares. My rebuttals were plain and simple, WP7 has a very strong growth in apps, even more healthy than Android when it was at WP7's age, that being point one, and point two, not everyone goes into smartphones looking for apps.

As for you killer app - Sky Sports, heck, I don't use it, neither do people around me. Then again, I don't live in UK. So what you've mentioned is an isolated case, for the UK market alone. We do have ESPN, if that counts.

As for your final argument about design ... Not sure if trolling, or plain stupid. Before you try to correct others' statements or what you term as "rant", try to understand its contents or you'll just make yourself look stupid.

 

[watcha]

[citation][nom]alikum[/nom]Instead of reading all 3 statements as a whole, you chose to cherrypick and dissect my statement into parts and interpret without fully understanding my rebuttals. [/citation]

This contains no content whatsoever. (and by the way, I carefully read all of your post and took nothing out of context)

[citation][nom]alikum[/nom]First, I said all platforms begin with 0 app which simply implied that all platforms do start from scratch. It was directed at the person who said 'windows phone may be fast but still lacks the app support and customization.'. It'll be there in due time[/citation]

We know what you said, and we know who you said it to. And I clearly demonstrated this in my previous-post-but-one where I stated that his original statement by the original posted to whom you replied still stands. I rebutted your 'rebuttal' on numerous grounds:

1 - People don't care about where a platform WILL be at some unknown point in the future. They care about what it IS, right now
2 - The fact that every platform starts off with zero apps is also irrelevant. They also started off in an ecosystem which didn't contain two massive players with already established app libraries.
3 - You later claimed that by zero apps you meant 'from scratch'. I provided a perfectly valid analogy for you which proved that the point at which you 'start' is not relevant, it's where you ARE, right now. For example, all phone designers start off with a blank page (from scratch - your argument), but not all phones are equal. I don't know why you didn't get this, clearly this proofs by counter-example that something starting from 'scratch' does not have any relevance whatsoever to it's quality right now. I'll give you another analogy (Lets see if this one confuses you too) - it's like someone saying you're a short guy - and you respond by saying 'we were all short once' or 'we were all short when we were born'. Read carefully: this is irrelevant. You are as short or as tall right now as you are, regardless of what height you were before. Are you going to completely fail to see the legitimacy of this comparison again, and call me a troll? Lets see.

[citation][nom]alikum[/nom]. I've never mentioned anything about sales nor have I ever compared market shares. [/citation]

See, this is where you fall down. In saying 'you're wrong' to me, you necessarily contradicted my conclusion which stated that Windows Phone suffers as a proposition. As I already anticipated your 'rebuttal', I even provided a vague definition of proposition by explaining to you that in order to evaluate a proposition you have to take into account sales and market shares, or more accurately, the potential to gain in both based on the platform as it stands. Clearly, I was correct when I stated that Windows Phone suffers as a proposition due to the lack of apps, and therefore you were incorrect when you absurdly claimed 'you're wrong'. Feel free to take back any claims of me being wrong though, and we'll both be agreed.

[citation][nom]alikum[/nom]My rebuttals were plain and simple, WP7 has a very strong growth in apps, even more healthy than Android when it was at WP7's age, that being point one, and point two, not everyone goes into smartphones looking for apps. [/citation]

Neither of these assertions were disagreed with. Their relevance to the original poster, however, was. How does the fact that WP7 has 'very strong growth in apps' contradict the original posters statement of fact that 'windows... lacks the app support'. Answer? It doesn't, not at all. Neither, while we're at it, does you claiming that not everyone goes into smartphones looking for apps. I already told you - not everyone has to, for it to affect Windows as a proposition. So, you see, it's not those two claims which are being disputed, it's the fact that they do not have any relevance to the original post, and certainly do not refute his claims.

[citation][nom]alikum[/nom]As for you killer app - Sky Sports, heck, I don't use it, neither do people around me. Then again, I don't live in UK. So what you've mentioned is an isolated case, for the UK market alone. [/citation]

This one sentence alone tells me where you were born. Only Americans could be so delusionally arrogant to describe a whole other country as an 'isolated case' or to think that just because you don't use it that it isn't an important app. And you also fail to see that even if it was an 'isolated case' (which by the way, it isn't, since Sky Sports isn't only in the UK, and there are similar apps for various other sports providers in numerous other countries (and that's just sports, and just the ones I know of) you asked for a counter-example and I provided one - I only needed one. It's one app, of 450,000+, that Windows Phone users have to do without. And again, you missed your logical failing. If you claim there are no 'killer apps' missing, why do you use the fact that Windows Phone is gaining apps as an argument? Surely you could just state that 'everything you need is there'. There is a reason you didn't say that, because that is blatantly, obviously, absurd (and ignorant, and arrogant).

[citation][nom]alikum[/nom]We do have ESPN, if that counts.[/citation]

ESPN is part of the Sky Sports pack.

The bottom line is that the original posters comment is still 100% correct, windows DOES lack the app support. The fact this may change in the future, is irrelevant, and the fact that to YOU personally it doesn't matter, is also irrelevant. It matters to a lot of people, and that's why it's absolutely relevant, and does matter when evaluation Windows Phone as a proposition.

 

[watcha]

proves*

when evaluating*

 

[alikum]

[citation][nom]watcha[/nom]This contains no content whatsoever. (and by the way, I carefully read all of your post and took nothing out of context)We know what you said, and we know who you said it to. And I clearly demonstrated this in my previous-post-but-one where I stated that his original statement by the original posted to whom you replied still stands. I rebutted your 'rebuttal' on numerous grounds:1 - People don't care about where a platform WILL be at some unknown point in the future. They care about what it IS, right now2 - The fact that every platform starts off with zero apps is also irrelevant. They also started off in an ecosystem which didn't contain two massive players with already established app libraries. 3 - You later claimed that by zero apps you meant 'from scratch'. I provided a perfectly valid analogy for you which proved that the point at which you 'start' is not relevant, it's where you ARE, right now. For example, all phone designers start off with a blank page (from scratch - your argument), but not all phones are equal. I don't know why you didn't get this, clearly this proofs by counter-example that something starting from 'scratch' does not have any relevance whatsoever to it's quality right now. I'll give you another analogy (Lets see if this one confuses you too) - it's like someone saying you're a short guy - and you respond by saying 'we were all short once' or 'we were all short when we were born'. Read carefully: this is irrelevant. You are as short or as tall right now as you are, regardless of what height you were before. Are you going to completely fail to see the legitimacy of this comparison again, and call me a troll? Lets see.See, this is where you fall down. In saying 'you're wrong' to me, you necessarily contradicted my conclusion which stated that Windows Phone suffers as a proposition. As I already anticipated your 'rebuttal', I even provided a vague definition of proposition by explaining to you that in order to evaluate a proposition you have to take into account sales and market shares, or more accurately, the potential to gain in both based on the platform as it stands. Clearly, I was correct when I stated that Windows Phone suffers as a proposition due to the lack of apps, and therefore you were incorrect when you absurdly claimed 'you're wrong'. Feel free to take back any claims of me being wrong though, and we'll both be agreed.Neither of these assertions were disagreed with. Their relevance to the original poster, however, was. How does the fact that WP7 has 'very strong growth in apps' contradict the original posters statement of fact that 'windows... lacks the app support'. Answer? It doesn't, not at all. Neither, while we're at it, does you claiming that not everyone goes into smartphones looking for apps. I already told you - not everyone has to, for it to affect Windows as a proposition. So, you see, it's not those two claims which are being disputed, it's the fact that they do not have any relevance to the original post, and certainly do not refute his claims.This one sentence alone tells me where you were born. Only Americans could be so delusionally arrogant to describe a whole other country as an 'isolated case' or to think that just because you don't use it that it isn't an important app. And you also fail to see that even if it was an 'isolated case' (which by the way, it isn't, since Sky Sports isn't only in the UK, and there are similar apps for various other sports providers in numerous other countries (and that's just sports, and just the ones I know of) you asked for a counter-example and I provided one - I only needed one. It's one app, of 450,000+, that Windows Phone users have to do without. And again, you missed your logical failing. If you claim there are no 'killer apps' missing, why do you use the fact that Windows Phone is gaining apps as an argument? Surely you could just state that 'everything you need is there'. There is a reason you didn't say that, because that is blatantly, obviously, absurd (and ignorant, and arrogant). ESPN is part of the Sky Sports pack.The bottom line is that the original posters comment is still 100% correct, windows DOES lack the app support. The fact this may change in the future, is irrelevant, and the fact that to YOU personally it doesn't matter, is also irrelevant. It matters to a lot of people, and that's why it's absolutely relevant, and does matter when evaluation Windows Phone as a proposition.[/citation]
Had you read with a slightly better understanding and a little bit more of sense of humor would understand that my point to the original poster wasn't about people deciding to choose the platform whatsoever. It simply implied, "Dude, apps will come in due time". That alone, I have already openly acknowledged that both Android and iOS has a far greater library than WP7 has today.

By saying You're wrong, I wasn't taking anything out of context. I was referring to your counter statement as a whole. Like I explained in the next sentence, I said not everyone goes into smartphones looking for apps. That sums up my argument, in case you didn't get it, which would make your further counter argument point 1 invalid.

As for point 2, the fact that WP7's library continues to grow healthily is very much valid because the whole time I haven't been arguing with you about market share or people's choice. The whole time I was trying to reinforce my initial point regarding WP7 having a healthy growth, which relates back to the original poster's statement.

Point 3, 0 app = from scratch. That is a perfectly valid statement. Isn't mobile platform developed from scratch? They always start off with 0 app. That's a logical answer because regardless of who drops in the first app, be it the OS developers themselves, the platform still starts from 0. Again, had you, with a little bit more of sense of humor would be able to catch that.

As for killer apps, I was trying to say that there are alternatives.

Just so you know, I ain't an American, not even close. Our region doesn't subscribe to Sky Sports, or maybe we do and we do not know. For us, ESPN is sufficient.

Bottomline, I was in nowhere trying to correct the original poster. It was simply a question with a sense of humor.

 

[watcha]

So are you now saying you agree with the original poster? Windows does lack app support?

You repeatedly claim that all you said was that apps will come in due time, but I simply pointed out to you that for people who want apps now (which is a lot of people), that isn't good enough, so his point is still true. Whether you want apps or not.

You're the one who started with the 'you're wrong' on my obviously correct claim. My statement as a whole was that Windows Phone suffers as a proposition due to having fewer apps. That is an undeniable and obvious fact. The only reason we're still having this discussion is because you responded with 'you're wrong', immediately in reply to that obvious truth.

You say you were simply explaining that not everyone goes into smartphones looking for apps - but that would not make any of what I said wrong. Which I already explained to you. Which makes the sentence 'you're wrong' of yours, wrong. You claim I 'don't get' this argument, no what I don't get is how anybody can believe that just because one person doesn't care about apps, that the platform doesn't suffer?

You say you haven't been arguing with me about market share or people's choice. Are we agreed, therefore, that the market share will be less and peoples choices will less often be Windows Phone due to the lack of apps? Since that has been mine (and the original posters) comments all along. The fact that WP7 has healthy growth does not answer the original posters statement, it affirms it. The fact that such growth is need shows the gap which needs to be filled. And remember, nobody said you were wrong in saying that it is growing fast - simply that a) it doesn't make the platform good now, b) It therefore impacts the platform as a proposition, and c) you therefore shouldn't say 'you're wrong' to such obvious deductions.

Regarding point 3 - it's also a valid statement to reply 'we were all short once' to a guy who calls you short. Does that mean it matters? Answer - no. Was anybody denying such a pointless statement is true? No. We were denying it had any relevance, or at least I was (and still am). It doesn't matter if everybody had to start from nothing, that's no reason to overlook the differences now. If you want me to have a sense of humour and laugh, and reduce your comment to a joke, then maybe I understand.

There aren't any alternatives to the Sky Sports app. You cannot watch Sky Sports on your phone in many countries unless you have an iPhone. That is an example of why apps matter (an example of why I was not 'wrong').

I don't believe that you're not American or Canadian, but I guess it's racist to generalise, all we know for sure is that you're ignorant.

I am glad you agree that you were not trying to correct the original poster and that the points of his which I have been defending are absolutely true. If you journey back, my initial posts were not 'correcting' you either - simply adding more facts to show how relevant your comments were and alerting you to the fact that they didn't contradict his. The only time any of us started 'correcting' each other was when YOU I was wrong (which clearly I wasn't). And since then I've simply been proving to you why it was not, in fact, wrong. If we both agree that I was right all along and you were joking then fair enough. 'heh'.

 

[watcha]

And by the way, in regards to whether they always 'start off' with 0 apps - it depends whether you define 'start off' as launching the operating system (which most people would), or if by 'start off' you actually mean months or years before it was released. With the former, clearly they could start with more than 0 apps.

And before you answer, if you mean the latter then you render your comment even more irrelevant, since it doesn't even apply to Windows Phone now.

 

[alikum]

[citation][nom]watcha[/nom]And by the way, in regards to whether they always 'start off' with 0 apps - it depends whether you define 'start off' as launching the operating system (which most people would), or if by 'start off' you actually mean months or years before it was released. With the former, clearly they could start with more than 0 apps.And before you answer, if you mean the latter then you render your comment even more irrelevant, since it doesn't even apply to Windows Phone now.[/citation]
Like I said, had you read with a little more sense of humor, you'd realize the sarcasm in my statement. What doesn't start off with 0? The statement is perfectly logical with slight sarcasm.

And no, I was not trying to correct the original poster, or anyone (including you) for that matter. I pointed out facts which you took a little too seriously and turned it into your arguments. As for saying you're wrong, like I said, the next sentence following "You're wrong" sums it all up, but you failed to comprehend that. Let me sum it up again, not everyone goes into smartphones for the apps. By generalizing all people who use smartphones are in there for the apps, whatever the size of the market may be, is just wrong. Everyone has their reason to get a smartphone, some are sheeps, some geeks, some casual users ... etc. Friends around me got their smartphones because of peer pressure, not apps.

Clearly, had you been more careful in reading, you'd realize that all along, I have not been trying to correct what the original poster said. It was merely a statement with a slight tone of sarcasm to compliment the poster's statement.

Before I sign off, let me sum it up another time for you.

1. I was in no way trying to correct what the original poster said. It was merely sarcasm.
2. By saying you're wrong, I meant the whole statement. I ain't free enough to dissect each sentence and attack one by one. So I said you're wrong which simply means, some where in your statement, I do not agree with, and that's about generalizing people who get smartphones for apps.
3. You asked for figures, I showed you figures. Simple as that.
4. No, I'm not an American, neither am I a Canadian. I'm an Asian. As for being ignorant, well, if that's referring to not knowing what Sky Sports is, then I guess you really need to pardon me as it's the first time I hear it. Well, if I do not know what Sky Sports is, then I am willing to bet many in my region do not know. Hence saying Sky Sports is a killer app is simply ... overrated. For sports, ESPN News is good enough for me. My interest is still with CNN.

 

[back_by_demand]

[citation][nom]watcha[/nom]And by the way, in regards to whether they always 'start off' with 0 apps - it depends whether you define 'start off' as launching the operating system (which most people would), or if by 'start off' you actually mean months or years before it was released. With the former, clearly they could start with more than 0 apps.And before you answer, if you mean the latter then you render your comment even more irrelevant, since it doesn't even apply to Windows Phone now.[/citation]
The return of Watcha and his 30 useless posts
...
Riddle me this genius, out of the hundreds of thousands of Apps available for the iPhone, how many are pointless multiple duplications of another App also available on the App Store? Do you really need 300 fart apps, 500 torch apps, 400 weather apps?
...
I reckon if you bold it down each platform probably has the same number of unique apps but there is a hell of a lot more duplication in each platform the older it gets as brainless coders try to make a fast buck selling old rope
...
Don't like what I say? Prove me wrong, links if you will...

 

[back_by_demand]

And, by the way, nice trick turning the focus of the story from WP being the fastest handset in 88% of REAL WORLD tests, including against the iPhone with it's much advertised (mainly by you) fastest CPU/GPU combination - into a swinging dicks contest about who has the most Apps, well done, good job

 

[alikum]

[citation][nom]back_by_demand[/nom]And, by the way, nice trick turning the focus of the story from WP being the fastest handset in 88% of REAL WORLD tests, including against the iPhone with it's much advertised (mainly by you) fastest CPU/GPU combination - into a swinging dicks contest about who has the most Apps, well done, good job[/citation]
Any comments past the first page is already pointless, so we can always play along. Not like anyone would actually read all the comments.

 

[watcha]

[citation][nom]back_by_demand[/nom]The return of Watcha and his 30 useless posts...Riddle me this genius, out of the hundreds of thousands of Apps available for the iPhone, how many are pointless multiple duplications of another App also available on the App Store? Do you really need 300 fart apps, 500 torch apps, 400 weather apps?...I reckon if you bold it down each platform probably has the same number of unique apps but there is a hell of a lot more duplication in each platform the older it gets as brainless coders try to make a fast buck selling old rope...Don't like what I say? Prove me wrong, links if you will...[/citation]

If that was true, then you would render the argument 'it is growing' irrelevant, which is one of the points I made. See, I catered for either scenario (true genius).

And for what it's worth, it is my personal opinion that a certain % of apps in any app store are pointless and/or duplicates. But that % is broadly the same for any app store at any particular number of apps. That is fine, and obviously that means you will have more pointless or duplicated apps the bigger the app store goes. But it is also highly unlikely that all of the 450,000 additional apps are duplicates and/or useless, indeed I have provided an example which proves this is not the case. Thus, I have already proved that whether the gain is 1 useful app, or 449,000 useful apps, there is definitely a gain, which satisfies your criteria. Please feel free to prove that every iPhone or Android app has a Windows Phone counterpart (a far bigger claim) with comprehensive sources and links.

;-)

 

[watcha]

[citation][nom]alikum[/nom]Like I said, had you read with a little more sense of humor, you'd realize the sarcasm in my statement. What doesn't start off with 0?[/citation]

A mobile operating system launch.

[citation][nom]alikum[/nom]The statement is perfectly logical with slight sarcasm.[/citation]

1=2 is logical with sarcasm

[citation][nom]alikum[/nom]And no, I was not trying to correct the original poster, or anyone (including you) for that matter.[/citation]

So we're agreed 🙂

[citation][nom]alikum[/nom]I pointed out facts which you took a little too seriously and turned it into your arguments.[/citation]

Should I not take 'facts' seriously? Were they sarcastic facts? I didn't turn them into an argument, I put them into context, with more facts.

[citation][nom]alikum[/nom]As for saying you're wrong, like I said, the next sentence following "You're wrong" sums it all up, but you failed to comprehend that. Let me sum it up again, not everyone goes into smartphones for the apps. By generalizing all people who use smartphones are in there for the apps, whatever the size of the market may be, is just wrong. Everyone has their reason to get a smartphone, some are sheeps, some geeks, some casual users ... etc. Friends around me got their smartphones because of peer pressure, not apps.Clearly, had you been more careful in reading, you'd realize that all along, [/citation]

I think it is you who has failed to grasp the bigger issue which pre-empts this whole rant. Please find anywhere in my comment to which 'you're wrong' was a reply, where I generalized 'all people'? And if you look, you'll realise I didn't, and your failure to notice that is why you're STILL not realising why saying 'not everybody wants apps' doesn't in any way contradict what I said. To reiterate, it doesn't even matter if 90% of people don't care about apps. If 10% of them do, the platform suffers as a proposition as a result of having fewer apps. It's very simple, and going on about people buying for different reasons means that the entire point escapes you. Which again, is why you were wrong to say I was wrong.

[citation][nom]alikum[/nom]1. I was in no way trying to correct what the original poster said. It was merely sarcasm. [/citation]

Fantastic, my point all along.

[citation][nom]alikum[/nom]2. By saying you're wrong, I meant the whole statement. I ain't free enough to dissect each sentence and attack one by one. So I said you're wrong which simply means, some where in your statement, I do not agree with, and that's about generalizing people who get smartphones for apps. [/citation]

I agree you meant the whole statement. And I'm being nice, you don't even have to attack each sentence one by one (you know, specificity). But what you do have to prove is that something was wrong within that statement. I did not 'generalize people' at all - as I've already explained to you (3 times now). The fact that lower apps can be to the detriment of a platform as a proposition does not require or imply any generalisations at all. In fact, the only thing it implies, logically, is that at least SOME people care about apps. YOU would have to be generalizing to contradict that.

[citation][nom]alikum[/nom]You asked for figures, I showed you figures. Simple as that[/citation]

Your figures were not disputed anywhere, so this sentence does not cover any of the criticisms set out in the previous point. The reason you actually provided figures was to prove your point that the app library is growing, which I have already shown to be irrelevant to people buying today.

[citation][nom]alikum[/nom]Simple as that.4. No, I'm not an American, neither am I a Canadian. I'm an Asian. As for being ignorant, well, if that's referring to not knowing what Sky Sports is, then I guess you really need to pardon me as it's the first time I hear it. Well, if I do not know what Sky Sports is, then I am willing to bet many in my region do not know. Hence saying Sky Sports is a killer app is simply ... overrated. For sports, ESPN News is good enough for me. My interest is still with CNN.[/citation]

Actually, I called you ignorant for describing it as an 'isolated case', because it was only in the UK, or because you or your 'friends' hadn't used it. THAT is ignorance. It's fine that you don't know about Sky Sports, but it's NOT fine to disregard it on that basis, or to make claims about where it applies if you, as you readily admit, know nothing about it. Do you see the difference?

So in summary, everything I've said has been correct, you've been reduced to agreeing with the original poster, and you've falsely accused me of generalizing when in fact generalization is the only method by which your post could ever have any relevance to the platform as a whole. Oh and of course, it was all sarcastic ;-)