31–40 of 56 posts
I'm so frustrated that this is on the BBC, on The Verge, it's everywhere. It is TOTAL NONSENSE. I don't even need to comment much, if you read the original research you will quickly discover just how poor this paper is. They haven't remotely correctly characterised it and a holistic approach would show the ridiculousness of the claims. People are too busy to read a few pages though, but not too busy to write a bunch…
Why do "journalists" always forget to link to the primary source? http://research.microsoft.com/en-us/people/mzh/eurosys-2012.... is the original research paper and also provides interesting insights for smartphone app developers. [edit] Oops, I completely ignored that orange/light grey markup. Must have been an over-active form of ad-blindness.
Linking to a primary source takes people away from your site. That's why news sites don't like to do it. I'd suggest that the amount of inline linking in blogs would be a counterpoint to that argument, but that's another story.
If you are not paying for the product, you are paying in other ways, this just puts a number on it. If you consider the implications, you are paying quite a bit in power in addition to privacy issues. This is why: a) my gps AND network location is turned off 99.99% of the time. b) I have ad-blocking software which prevents lots of this network overhead. ^^ the above is justified because it actually costs me, want to…
> the above is justified because it actually costs me, want to serve me ads? fine, but not when they come at a price How do you expect them to serve you ads? They have to get to your phone _somehow_ so there will always be network overhead. This just feels like an attempt to justify using applications while removing their revenue stream based on impossible requirements.
The amount of network overhead can vary wildly. If the app is polling the ad network API on startup and at a fixed interval, it can keep the radio awake for longer than it would otherwise, or wake it up and keep it in a high power state for the duration of the CELL_DCH timer.
It's not an impossible requirement to queue ads, reduce the frequency of polling, and coalesce the ad network API calls with other app network traffic.
If you are not paying for the product, you are paying in other ways, this just puts a number on it. If you consider the implications, you are paying quite a bit in power in addition to privacy issues. This is why: a) my gps AND network location is turned off 99.99% of the time. b) I have ad-blocking software which prevents lots of this network overhead. ^^ the above is justified because it actually costs me, want to…
My primary reason to get root on my Android was... well, let's be honest, like every other HN denizen I wanted to explore and control it. But among my other reasons was to be able to run DroidWall, an interface to iptables firewalling.
Ads are definitely not worth the $2 you save for an app that you like and use regularly. This is just another reason why...
Why do "journalists" always forget to link to the primary source? http://research.microsoft.com/en-us/people/mzh/eurosys-2012.... is the original research paper and also provides interesting insights for smartphone app developers. [edit] Oops, I completely ignored that orange/light grey markup. Must have been an over-active form of ad-blindness.
Why do "journalists" always forget to link to the primary source? http://research.microsoft.com/en-us/people/mzh/eurosys-2012.... is the original research paper and also provides interesting insights for smartphone app developers. [edit] Oops, I completely ignored that orange/light grey markup. Must have been an over-active form of ad-blindness.
Since when is Microsoft so interested in doing Android-related research?
4.4 Accounting for High Rate Components The FSM power model does not cover RAM and Organic LED screen (OLED) since these components are accessed at much higher rates (and hence called high rate components) resulting in high overheads in event based modeling. [...] we leave RAM/OLED accounting as future work.
If I'm understanding that correctly it's a rather big factor to decide to casually ignore.
source: http://www.reddit.com/r/technology/comments/r39lz/free_apps_...
I'm so frustrated that this is on the BBC, on The Verge, it's everywhere. It is TOTAL NONSENSE. I don't even need to comment much, if you read the original research you will quickly discover just how poor this paper is. They haven't remotely correctly characterised it and a holistic approach would show the ridiculousness of the claims. People are too busy to read a few pages though, but not too busy to write a bunch…
Am I missing something? I admit to having only read the paper once.