Not sure if anyone here has seen us yet
We're licensed under ASL and using lots of open source techs (WebKit, Chromium, Gears, libXML, to name a few).. come check us out!
http://github.com/marshall/titanium/tree/master
http://titaniumapp.com/
In generic terms, a Flex-Fuel vehicle (a vehicle that accepts any mixture of gasoline and ethanol from 0% ethanol/100% gas, all the way up to 85% ethanol/15% gas) has a mileage depreciation that hovers right around 20-25% from standard gasoline.
So, given a car that gets 30MPG on gasoline with a 12 gallon tank, at today's average price of $2.99 / gallon (according to fuel gauge report), would cost you $35.88 for the tank, which yields a range of 360 miles at a final cost of 9.9 cents per mile. Given the hypothetical $1 per gallon ethanol, it would cost you $12 for the tank, and would yield 270-285 miles for the final cost of 4.1 - 4.5 cents per mile (well under half the cost of current gasoline).
In terms of effeciency, ethanol's biggest problem is that the range is significantly lower with today's ICE. If you take a look at projects like the Chevy Volt, and other GM projects, you'll see that they are trying to add a plug-in charging battery / hybrid system on top of their current FFV fleet, making the range that much better / supplemented by battery technologies. If the Chevy Volt lives up to the hype, it's going to have an approx 500 mile range using ethanol and battery.
Regardless of what you want to do with your phone, the point of a lifestyle device is that it looks good and very quickly and effortlessly performs it's functions without hassle (it does not cause stress or aggravation to your life, it just works). I agree with you only in one class of exceptions: Science and Engineering - people who desire to use a smartphone as a power tool would probably not find a lifestyle phone very attractive. But outside of that very slim demographic (that probably wants quick keypad shortcuts for everything and can tolerate or even desire complex interfaces), I think that everyone benefits from a lifestyle approach, regardless of their usage profiles.People who want "Lifestyle phones" are in a specific demographic. Maybe it's a large demographic, or maybe it's one of the largest demographics, but that still stands. Just because you want this for your phone does not mean everyone does!
Actually, I disagree. I believe this "shotgun approach" is rooted in something much simpler than attempting to reach different market segments. It is simply the lack of any essential insight into how such devices should be designed to cator to all usage profiles seemlessly. The companies are clueless on how to achieve this and therefore have to resort to verticle market strategies to attempt to get coverage and compete in the different artificial smartphone categories. Even claiming that PDA Phone is a market category that makes sense makes my head spin. Perhaps stylus enabled phones are in a seperate class, but PDA Phones? Come on.This is why companies like Nokia, Sony Ericsson, etc have a wide range of offerings to suit different needs. If you don't want a phone that works like a computer than for god's sake don't buy it!
And my point is that "lifestyle" should not be a segment at all, but a firm basic requirement of any phone. I can see the need to specialize in certain respects (e.g. power tool phones for developers, engineers, scientists, high end camera phones for photographers, high end media phones with huge batteries for travelers, stylus phones for MBA PHB types, etc...) - however, all of them should resonate style, simplicity and resonance with stress-free living (e.g. lifestyle). Currently, I don't really think anyone has this right. I am holding out some hope that Apple will give us all a clue as to how next generation handheld devices should integrate with our lives. [ crosses fingers ]My main point is that the "lifestyle phone" segment is covered by every manufacturer, as is the "PDA phone" segment, as is the "low end" segment, as is the "Music phone" segment, etc, ad infinitum.
Xen's performance overhead is about 3-4% of the CPU. So sure things could be improved. But even if VMWare had no overhead (which it probably does) the performance difference is not something you'd really notice unless doing technical benchmarks.
In our hosting setup we have found that Xen is reliable, performs well, and the VPSs are about as functionaly identical as a 'real' dedicated server as you can get.
If your needs happen to be running Linux virtual machines and you're comfortable with the Xen tools then Xen is a great product. Glad to hear VMWare is also improving their products. Competition = good.
Nature always sides with the hidden flaw.
