I'm with you on that one. I suppose we have the benefit of the experience to not get too excited about ADC 2.
On Oct 2, 4:41 pm, Shane Isbell <[email protected]> wrote: > Given how ADC1 was run, none of this surprises me. > > > > On Fri, Oct 2, 2009 at 4:29 PM, JoaJP <[email protected]> wrote: > > > Once everything's said and done... I don't expect we will ever hear > > whether this number is correct or not. * Likely an alarmist figure > > though. BTW. who estimated that (reference to source, please). > > But as an answer to your question, how about: Pushing out new devices > > on a fresh new carrier has precedence over a properly run ADC. > > > Then, it might not be that big of an issue after all. > > > On Oct 2, 9:05 am, Spencer Riddering <[email protected]> wrote: > > Why is Google allowing an estimated 75% of the ADC2 to be judged on a > > platform version that almost no one has had a chance to test on? > > -- > Shane Isbell (Co-founder of SlideME - The Original Market for > Android)http://twitter.com/sisbellhttp://twitter.com/slideme --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Android Discuss" group. To post to this group, send email to [email protected] To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [email protected] For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/android-discuss?hl=en -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
