Todd Allcock

"Your Name" <your.name@isp.com> wrote in message
news:your.name-3108101423580001@203-109-166-240.dial.dyn.ihug.co.nz...
> In article <sBVeo.34645$6o7.14749@newsfe21.iad>, "Todd Allcock"
> <elecconnec@AnoOspamL.com> wrote:
>
>> "Your Name" <your.name@isp.com> wrote in message
>> news:i5h6gh$s8i$1@lust.ihug.co.nz...
>> >
>> > "Todd Allcock" <elecconnec@AnoOspamL.com> wrote in message
>> > news:ArQeo.8196$sL7.4825@newsfe15.iad...
>> >> At 29 Aug 2010 10:14:21 -0500 Jolly Roger wrote:
>> >>
> <snip>
>>
>> > That's why specific mobile versions of websites were created. They
>> > didn't
>> > really become popular because browsing on such hopeless devices was too
>> > tedious and annoying ...
>>
>> Actually they were popular BECAUSE browsing "real" websites on such
>> devices
>> was too tedious and annoying. And far too data intensive when 30-40kpbs
>> GPRS was considered a "high speed" mobile connection. So, most popular
>> commercial websites had mobile versions long before the iPhone was a
>> gleam
>> in Steve's eye. I used to bookmark my favorite mobile sites and visit
>> them
>> on my PC because they are quicker, less ad-filled, and get right to the
>> point without, as JF says, "the fluff and flowers." These days many
>> websites have figured that trick out and force-direct desktop browsers to
>> their real site to insure we get the ad impressions.
>>
>>
>> > until the iPhone arrived and showed how to do it properly.
>>
>> Nice revisionist history. Actually the iPhone promised us "the real web"
>> and sort of delivered. However, since using any browser, regardless of
>> how
>> well it renders, is tedious on a 3 or 4" screen, many websites started
>> offering iPhone-specific pages, giving us the delicious irony that
>> despite
>> the "real web" browser, the iPhone is often viewing the same or similar
>> mobile-formatted pages that those "tedious" other smartphones and most
>> dumbphones are viewing. The BBC webpage referenced in this thread is but
>> one example.
>
> Nope. Web browsing on a mobile device (excluding laptop computers of
> course) was unpopular because it was slow and the user interfaces were
> tedious and difficult to use on such small screens ... not to mention the
> cost of the device and the mobile data connection, but that hasn't really
> changed!

What has changed is that mobile websites have become richer with more
capable devices and faster networks, and that more people can now
comfortably view "real" websites instead of mobile-formatted sites on mobile
devices.

> The iPhone (and iPad) together with the upgrades to 3G networks have made
> it much simpler and much more popular. The iPhone brought mobile web
> browsing to the general public, and it is still the mostly widely used
> device for the task by a huge margin. The March 2010 numbers for the UK
> have the iPhone at 70.2% of mobile web users. Every other mobile company
> has since been rushing around trying to make a clone.

Still quoting AdMob stats? AdMob includes ads served up within iPhone and
Android _apps_ as "mobile data usage" which heavily skews the data towards
iOS and now Android. Even AdMob admits its data is useful only for trend
analysis, and not hard market share or usage statistics.

http://metrics.admob.com/2009/10/pla...cs-in-context/

While certainly much more popular today, mobile browsing has been around for
quite some time, and has been used by quite a few people even before the
iPhone and its iPhoney successors. If it were as unpopular as you seem to
think, why were there literally thousands of mobile sites in existence
pre-iPhone? Because web developers had nothing better to do?

Your Name

"Jon Ribbens" <jon+usenet@unequivocal.co.uk> wrote in message
news:slrni7pfb0.687.jon+usenet@snowy.squish.net...
> On 2010-08-31, Your Name <your.name@isp.com> wrote:
> >
> > For better or worse, these days HTML, CCS, etc. are page layout coding
in
> > a similar way to EPS, PDF or any other page description coding system
and
> > that's how it is meant to work.
>
> It really, really isn't, y'know.

Believe whatever deluded garbage makes you happy. :-\

Your Name

"Todd Allcock" <elecconnec@AnoOspamL.com> wrote in message
news:2jafo.35720$yr6.6332@newsfe05.iad...
> "Your Name" <your.name@isp.com> wrote in message
> news:your.name-3108101423580001@203-109-166-240.dial.dyn.ihug.co.nz...
> > In article <sBVeo.34645$6o7.14749@newsfe21.iad>, "Todd Allcock"
> > <elecconnec@AnoOspamL.com> wrote:
> >> "Your Name" <your.name@isp.com> wrote in message
> >> news:i5h6gh$s8i$1@lust.ihug.co.nz...
> >> > "Todd Allcock" <elecconnec@AnoOspamL.com> wrote in message
> >> > news:ArQeo.8196$sL7.4825@newsfe15.iad...
> >> >> At 29 Aug 2010 10:14:21 -0500 Jolly Roger wrote:
> >> >>
> > <snip>
> >>
> >> > That's why specific mobile versions of websites were created. They
> >> > didn't really become popular because browsing on such hopeless
> >> > devices was too tedious and annoying ...
> >>
> >> Actually they were popular BECAUSE browsing "real" websites on such
> >> devices was too tedious and annoying. And far too data intensive when
> >> 30-40kpbs GPRS was considered a "high speed" mobile connection.
> >> So, most popular commercial websites had mobile versions long before
> >> the iPhone was a gleam in Steve's eye. I used to bookmark my favorite
> >> mobile sites and visit them on my PC because they are quicker, less
> >> ad-filled, and get right to the point without, as JF says, "the fluff
and
> >> flowers." These days many websites have figured that trick out and
> >> force-direct desktop browsers to their real site to insure we get the
ad
> >> impressions.
> >>
> >> > until the iPhone arrived and showed how to do it properly.
> >>
> >> Nice revisionist history. Actually the iPhone promised us "the real
web"
> >> and sort of delivered. However, since using any browser, regardless of
> >> how well it renders, is tedious on a 3 or 4" screen, many websites
started
> >> offering iPhone-specific pages, giving us the delicious irony that
despite
> >> the "real web" browser, the iPhone is often viewing the same or similar
> >> mobile-formatted pages that those "tedious" other smartphones and most
> >> dumbphones are viewing. The BBC webpage referenced in this thread is
> >> but one example.
> >
> > Nope. Web browsing on a mobile device (excluding laptop computers of
> > course) was unpopular because it was slow and the user interfaces were
> > tedious and difficult to use on such small screens ... not to mention
the
> > cost of the device and the mobile data connection, but that hasn't
really
> > changed!
>
> What has changed is that mobile websites have become richer with more
> capable devices and faster networks, and that more people can now
> comfortably view "real" websites instead of mobile-formatted sites on
mobile
> devices.

Around and around the same old cirlces. :-(

The iPhone was the first product to make that possible in easily and
friendly manner for the general public.



> > The iPhone (and iPad) together with the upgrades to 3G networks have
made
> > it much simpler and much more popular. The iPhone brought mobile web
> > browsing to the general public, and it is still the mostly widely used
> > device for the task by a huge margin. The March 2010 numbers for the UK
> > have the iPhone at 70.2% of mobile web users. Every other mobile company
> > has since been rushing around trying to make a clone.
>
> Still quoting AdMob stats? AdMob includes ads served up within iPhone and
> Android _apps_ as "mobile data usage" which heavily skews the data towards
> iOS and now Android. Even AdMob admits its data is useful only for trend
> analysis, and not hard market share or usage statistics.
>
> http://metrics.admob.com/2009/10/pla...cs-in-context/

ALL surveys / polls / studies / statistics are skewed and faulty ... but
unfortunately there are too many idiots around who insist on numbers, which
is why I gave one.



> While certainly much more popular today, mobile browsing has been around
for
> quite some time, and has been used by quite a few people even before the
> iPhone and its iPhoney successors. If it were as unpopular as you seem to
> think, why were there literally thousands of mobile sites in existence
> pre-iPhone? Because web developers had nothing better to do?

Of course there were, but the devices made it difficult and tedious, which
is why mobile web browsing didn't really happen until the iPhone came along
and made it MUCH easier.

But, believe whatever you want ... I'm done going around the same circle.
:-\

Your Name

"Todd Allcock" <elecconnec@AnoOspamL.com> wrote in message
news:2jafo.35720$yr6.6332@newsfe05.iad...
> "Your Name" <your.name@isp.com> wrote in message
> news:your.name-3108101423580001@203-109-166-240.dial.dyn.ihug.co.nz...
> > In article <sBVeo.34645$6o7.14749@newsfe21.iad>, "Todd Allcock"
> > <elecconnec@AnoOspamL.com> wrote:
> >> "Your Name" <your.name@isp.com> wrote in message
> >> news:i5h6gh$s8i$1@lust.ihug.co.nz...
> >> > "Todd Allcock" <elecconnec@AnoOspamL.com> wrote in message
> >> > news:ArQeo.8196$sL7.4825@newsfe15.iad...
> >> >> At 29 Aug 2010 10:14:21 -0500 Jolly Roger wrote:
> >> >>
> > <snip>
> >>
> >> > That's why specific mobile versions of websites were created. They
> >> > didn't really become popular because browsing on such hopeless
> >> > devices was too tedious and annoying ...
> >>
> >> Actually they were popular BECAUSE browsing "real" websites on such
> >> devices was too tedious and annoying. And far too data intensive when
> >> 30-40kpbs GPRS was considered a "high speed" mobile connection.
> >> So, most popular commercial websites had mobile versions long before
> >> the iPhone was a gleam in Steve's eye. I used to bookmark my favorite
> >> mobile sites and visit them on my PC because they are quicker, less
> >> ad-filled, and get right to the point without, as JF says, "the fluff
and
> >> flowers." These days many websites have figured that trick out and
> >> force-direct desktop browsers to their real site to insure we get the
ad
> >> impressions.
> >>
> >> > until the iPhone arrived and showed how to do it properly.
> >>
> >> Nice revisionist history. Actually the iPhone promised us "the real
web"
> >> and sort of delivered. However, since using any browser, regardless of
> >> how well it renders, is tedious on a 3 or 4" screen, many websites
started
> >> offering iPhone-specific pages, giving us the delicious irony that
despite
> >> the "real web" browser, the iPhone is often viewing the same or similar
> >> mobile-formatted pages that those "tedious" other smartphones and most
> >> dumbphones are viewing. The BBC webpage referenced in this thread is
> >> but one example.
> >
> > Nope. Web browsing on a mobile device (excluding laptop computers of
> > course) was unpopular because it was slow and the user interfaces were
> > tedious and difficult to use on such small screens ... not to mention
the
> > cost of the device and the mobile data connection, but that hasn't
really
> > changed!
>
> What has changed is that mobile websites have become richer with more
> capable devices and faster networks, and that more people can now
> comfortably view "real" websites instead of mobile-formatted sites on
mobile
> devices.

Around and around the same old circles. :-(

The iPhone was the first product to make that possible in easily and
friendly manner for the general public. It's what is commonly referred to as
" a game changer".



> > The iPhone (and iPad) together with the upgrades to 3G networks have
made
> > it much simpler and much more popular. The iPhone brought mobile web
> > browsing to the general public, and it is still the mostly widely used
> > device for the task by a huge margin. The March 2010 numbers for the UK
> > have the iPhone at 70.2% of mobile web users. Every other mobile company
> > has since been rushing around trying to make a clone.
>
> Still quoting AdMob stats? AdMob includes ads served up within iPhone and
> Android _apps_ as "mobile data usage" which heavily skews the data towards
> iOS and now Android. Even AdMob admits its data is useful only for trend
> analysis, and not hard market share or usage statistics.
>
> http://metrics.admob.com/2009/10/pla...cs-in-context/

ALL surveys / polls / studies / statistics are skewed and faulty ... but
unfortunately there are too many idiots around who insist on numbers, which
is why I gave one.



> While certainly much more popular today, mobile browsing has been around
for
> quite some time, and has been used by quite a few people even before the
> iPhone and its iPhoney successors. If it were as unpopular as you seem to
> think, why were there literally thousands of mobile sites in existence
> pre-iPhone? Because web developers had nothing better to do?

Of course there were, but the devices made it difficult and tedious, which
is why mobile web browsing didn't really happen until the iPhone came along
and made it MUCH easier.

But, believe whatever you want ... I'm done going around the same circle.
:-\

Jon Ribbens

On 2010-08-31, Your Name <your.name@isp.com> wrote:
> "Jon Ribbens" <jon+usenet@unequivocal.co.uk> wrote in message
> news:slrni7pfb0.687.jon+usenet@snowy.squish.net...
>> On 2010-08-31, Your Name <your.name@isp.com> wrote:
>> >
>> > For better or worse, these days HTML, CCS, etc. are page layout
>> > coding in a similar way to EPS, PDF or any other page description
>> > coding system and that's how it is meant to work.
>>
>> It really, really isn't, y'know.
>
> Believe whatever deluded garbage makes you happy. :-\

Well, it seems to be working for you.

Todd Allcock

"Your Name" <your.name@isp.com> wrote in message
news:i5jrce$e1m$2@lust.ihug.co.nz...
> "Todd Allcock" <elecconnec@AnoOspamL.com> wrote in message
> news:2jafo.35720$yr6.6332@newsfe05.iad...

>> > The iPhone (and iPad) together with the upgrades to 3G networks have
> made
>> > it much simpler and much more popular. The iPhone brought mobile web
>> > browsing to the general public, and it is still the mostly widely used
>> > device for the task by a huge margin. The March 2010 numbers for the UK
>> > have the iPhone at 70.2% of mobile web users. Every other mobile
>> > company
>> > has since been rushing around trying to make a clone.
>>
>> Still quoting AdMob stats? AdMob includes ads served up within iPhone
>> and
>> Android _apps_ as "mobile data usage" which heavily skews the data
>> towards
>> iOS and now Android. Even AdMob admits its data is useful only for trend
>> analysis, and not hard market share or usage statistics.
>>
>> http://metrics.admob.com/2009/10/pla...cs-in-context/
>
> ALL surveys / polls / studies / statistics are skewed and faulty ... but
> unfortunately there are too many idiots around who insist on numbers,
> which
> is why I gave one.

Quoting the current usage statistics don't support your contention that few
used mobile web browsing in the past. You might as well try to prove that
since personal computers make typing much easier than in the past, few books
were written prior to 1980, when people had to use typewriters and pens.

Opera, the browser maker, regularly publishes a report called The State of
the Mobile Web. The following link, from April 2008, records the number of
page views transcoded by Opera's servers by Opera Mini users.

http://www.opera.com/smw/2008/04/#chart_pages

It shows a steady rise in usage, both pre- and post- iPhone. (Keep in mind
this is just the mobile web usage of Opera Mini users, which typically
excludes smartphones, which have their own browsers.) Even in June 2007,
the last month pre-iPhone, Opera Mini users hit 3/4 of a billion web pages
that June.

http://www.nielsenmobile.com/documents/CriticalMass.pdf (Warning- this PDF
is 1.5MB, and I know you've got issues with your ISP.) Nielsen research,
the guys and gals behind American Television ratings, published this report
in July 2008. It says there were 22.4 million active mobile internet users
in the US in July 2006, 29.7 million in May 2007, and 40.4 in May 2008. A
significant jump in that 1st iPhone year. Do you want to guess what was the
handset used by more mobile web users in the US in Q1 2008?

Nope. The Motorola RAZR, used by 10% of US mobile web users. The iPhone
was second, at 4%.


>> While certainly much more popular today, mobile browsing has been around
> for
>> quite some time, and has been used by quite a few people even before the
>> iPhone and its iPhoney successors. If it were as unpopular as you seem
>> to
>> think, why were there literally thousands of mobile sites in existence
>> pre-iPhone? Because web developers had nothing better to do?
>
> Of course there were, but the devices made it difficult and tedious, which
> is why mobile web browsing didn't really happen until the iPhone came
> along
> and made it MUCH easier.
>
> But, believe whatever you want ... I'm done going around the same circle.
> :-\

Me too, except I backed up my point.

Your Name

"Todd Allcock" <elecconnec@AnoOspamL.com> wrote in message
news:94gfo.105165$4B7.84738@newsfe16.iad...
>
>
> "Your Name" <your.name@isp.com> wrote in message
> news:i5jrce$e1m$2@lust.ihug.co.nz...
> > "Todd Allcock" <elecconnec@AnoOspamL.com> wrote in message
> > news:2jafo.35720$yr6.6332@newsfe05.iad...
>
> >> > The iPhone (and iPad) together with the upgrades to 3G networks have
> > made
> >> > it much simpler and much more popular. The iPhone brought mobile web
> >> > browsing to the general public, and it is still the mostly widely
used
> >> > device for the task by a huge margin. The March 2010 numbers for the
UK
> >> > have the iPhone at 70.2% of mobile web users. Every other mobile
> >> > company
> >> > has since been rushing around trying to make a clone.
> >>
> >> Still quoting AdMob stats? AdMob includes ads served up within iPhone
> >> and
> >> Android _apps_ as "mobile data usage" which heavily skews the data
> >> towards
> >> iOS and now Android. Even AdMob admits its data is useful only for
trend
> >> analysis, and not hard market share or usage statistics.
> >>
> >> http://metrics.admob.com/2009/10/pla...cs-in-context/
> >
> > ALL surveys / polls / studies / statistics are skewed and faulty ... but
> > unfortunately there are too many idiots around who insist on numbers,
> > which
> > is why I gave one.
>
> Quoting the current usage statistics don't support your contention that
few
> used mobile web browsing in the past. You might as well try to prove that
> since personal computers make typing much easier than in the past, few
books
> were written prior to 1980, when people had to use typewriters and pens.
>
> Opera, the browser maker, regularly publishes a report called The State of
> the Mobile Web. The following link, from April 2008, records the number
of
> page views transcoded by Opera's servers by Opera Mini users.
>
> http://www.opera.com/smw/2008/04/#chart_pages
>
> It shows a steady rise in usage, both pre- and post- iPhone. (Keep in
mind
> this is just the mobile web usage of Opera Mini users, which typically
> excludes smartphones, which have their own browsers.) Even in June 2007,
> the last month pre-iPhone, Opera Mini users hit 3/4 of a billion web pages
> that June.
>
> http://www.nielsenmobile.com/documents/CriticalMass.pdf (Warning- this
PDF
> is 1.5MB, and I know you've got issues with your ISP.) Nielsen research,
> the guys and gals behind American Television ratings, published this
report
> in July 2008. It says there were 22.4 million active mobile internet
users
> in the US in July 2006, 29.7 million in May 2007, and 40.4 in May 2008.
A
> significant jump in that 1st iPhone year. Do you want to guess what was
the
> handset used by more mobile web users in the US in Q1 2008?
>
> Nope. The Motorola RAZR, used by 10% of US mobile web users. The iPhone
> was second, at 4%.
>
>
> >> While certainly much more popular today, mobile browsing has been
around
> > for
> >> quite some time, and has been used by quite a few people even before
the
> >> iPhone and its iPhoney successors. If it were as unpopular as you seem
> >> to
> >> think, why were there literally thousands of mobile sites in existence
> >> pre-iPhone? Because web developers had nothing better to do?
> >
> > Of course there were, but the devices made it difficult and tedious,
which
> > is why mobile web browsing didn't really happen until the iPhone came
> > along
> > and made it MUCH easier.
> >
> > But, believe whatever you want ... I'm done going around the same
circle.
> > :-\
>
> Me too, except I backed up my point.

Again: believe whatever you want ... I'm DONE going around the same circle.
:-\