Maybe read the article and the few opening posts again.
Someone above attacked myBB and Pieter for quoting a ballpark figure of 60/40 instead of a more (but not quite) accurate 65/35.
As you wish:
@RPM, it would be advisable to check numbers, especially when they come from cellular providers. Clearly Jannie didn't check Pieter's numbers, or he would have corrected them:
- A "ten-fold" increase in data means exactly that, 10x which is 1000% and not 100%. (The term "two-fold" is used correctly later with two factors).
- The ratio of dongle/smartphone data usage on the Vodacom network is 65/35 (rounded) and not 60/40.
- Assuming the 80/20 ratio for the previous year was calculated correctly, it means there were around 3.1 million smartphones on Vodacom' network as well as the 1 million dongles. (This number seems to correspond roughly with a Moneweb article from September 2010.) How does this relate to the 1.138 million "Data connectivity customers" Vodacom had at the end of March 2010 (Vodacom's annual report) :erm: A smartphone without data connectivity is (just) a phone.
Oh my word! And it's post number 3 in the thread. The very first point raised by post number 3. Wow. Just absolutely wow!
I pointed out the irony (and childishness) of attacking others for using ballpark figures but then not using accurate numbers yourself by extrapolating the ratio to the Nth-degree.
And at the same time you arrogantly ignore the most glaring mistake in the article which effectively equates "tenfold" and 100%, which, since you obviously still don't get it, I'll clearly state for your benefit: is not the same!
Furthermore, if we're using the percentage form, then 65% and 60% differ by ZERO decimal places. My nephew in primary school knows this. How you got to FIVE decimal places the normal people among us will never know.
Clearly a question you should be asking yourself.
While on the topic and what mostly triggered my response, something that really gets my goat with comments on articles on this board is this tendency of forumites to try and out-do each other by showing their 'coolness' in attacking anything written and/or quoted. I find this a new(ish) tendency on myBB and I suspect is a function of the average age drop we saw in data consumers. For sure in the early days this was not seen.
Coolness? I guess the thought never crossed your mind that perhaps the readers are merely correcting the blatant errors in the article. Oh, and while on the topic of blatant errors in the articles: for sure in the early days this was not (often) seen. Perhaps the correlation should be between the
quality of the article and the level of criticism.
But I suppose it is not surprising that you would instead seek a correlation with lack of maturity, given your own not-so-grown-up post.
While questioning anything published and especially numbers quoted is good, to do so without actually reading the article (to understand the difference between handset/modem numbers and the ratio of data consumed, for example) or doing a few elementary calculations to check the facts only shows lack of education.
Yes, 2 is
not equal to 10. I cannot state it any more simply than that. If you still don't get it, then I really cannot help you.
Again, read the article and the first bunch of (quite aggressive) posts and you'll see the statements made by Pieter and Rudolph around the numbers being wrong boils down to people not reading the article in the first place. Specifically around the 60/40 issue.
No, what this boils down to you is you
completely being blind to the actual mistakes, and making silly snide comments about the valid criticisms that merely shows your level of maturity (or more accurately: the lack thereof).
So you're still under the impression that 65 and 60 only start differing by the 5th decimal place? And do you still believe 2 and 10 are equal?
While I'm rambling, notice another tendency on this forum:
1. Article is written by myBB.
2. First post is either positive or negative.
3. Subsequent posts tend to follow first post and not the actual article content.
1. Article is written by myBB.
2. Article is either of qood quality or bad quality, the first post points this out.
3. Subsequent posts tend to add on to what the first post missed.
This thread is a case in point. The first few posts attacked the author and this then set the tone for the thread. Everyone is now trying to out-do the previous poster. But it seem none of them actually went back to the article to make sure the first poster was correct in the first place.
True, the first reply demonstrates a misunderstanding of the article. The second reply, however, is spot on. And your point is..?
We've even had forumites openly admit they don't see the need to read the articles but feel justified in giving their two cents.
Yeah that's crazy. But think of the company representative on mBB who appears to believe that 2 and 10 are equal, and that 60 and 65 starts differing only by the 5th decimal place. Utterly ridiculous, don't you think?
