3 ms·
> I'm not convinced there is anything useful here. Well there is indeed something here. The charts are clearly correlated with rich and poor areas (at least fo
by matt-attack 13y ago
> I'm not convinced there is anything useful here.
Well there is indeed something here. The charts are clearly correlated with rich and poor areas (at least for cities I'm familiar with).
Now whether or not it's tied solely to iphone vs android remains to be seen. The results deserve some sort of explanation.
- corresation 13y agoThe charts are of dubious value. As others have send, the z-order puts the iPhone on top, occluding Android. In the "rich" areas, Android and the iPhone are close to identical. Which, of course, makes sense, as there are high end and low end Android devices.
- pessimizer 13y agoBut outside of the "rich" areas, although iPhone tweets are rendered on top of Android tweets, Android dominates. To me this indicates that iPhones are concentrated in the "rich" areas as opposed to Androids, which are more evenly distributed. What am I missing?
- corresation 13y agoYou aren't missing anything. Androids are available from premium Galaxy S4s, to discount pay-as-you-go discount devices. Android is a device for everyone and every demographic, and the charts reflects that. However by using the layering, it suddenly seems like the iPhone is the phone used in the rich areas, when in reality if you compare layers Android and the iPhone have very similar distributions in those areas as well.