BitStream's outlandish claims about Bolt browser speed
Thursday, 15. October 2009, 10:29:04
In comprehensive speed testing of a variety of Web pages from different websites, BOLT was routinely 25 to 50 percent faster than the next fastest mobile browser.
BOLT is the fastest mobile browser currently available – routinely at least 25 to 50 percent faster than the next fastest
And yet, several independent reviews seem to dispute that.
To be honest, I don't think speed tests like the ones above are a very useful basis for making general claims about browser speed. How fast the proxy browser is doesn't just depend on how optimized the servers and clients are, but also on your location in relation to the servers, traffic on the network, your connetion speed at any given time, and so on. All those speed tests really show is that that particular person got that particular result at that particular time under those particular circumstances.
"At least 25-50 percent faster than the next fastest"? Seriously, BitStream. Even if you had actual speed tests placing Bolt ahead of other browsers, that still wouldn't justify your claims. All you would be able to show is that it was faster for that person at that time.
Maybe it's time to adjust your PR claims a little?



tomassplatch # 15. October 2009, 11:17
sirnh1 # 15. October 2009, 11:42
Granted opera mini 5 looks horrible for me, since the skin is bigger than my phone, but at least it seems to fully work, while bolt doesn't even start...
No internet access? How do they think I got that application on my phone in the first place?
Edit: works as soon as I discovered the light version. (Anyone know the difference between the full and the light version?) I like the default page, since it has history + feeds + favorites, but then that's it. I really miss opera link just to much...
Chas4 # 15. October 2009, 12:50
thobi # 15. October 2009, 12:57
so, everyone is talking about it?
serola # 16. October 2009, 09:43
qlue # 16. October 2009, 23:45
IceArdor # 24. October 2009, 08:59
53north # 24. October 2009, 22:24
=o}
qlue # 15. November 2009, 20:42
Vodacom, MTN and CellC. And one virtual provider, Virgin Mobile!
Vodacom and MTN both have there own infrastructure. CellC uses some of their own towers, but mostly rely on the pre-existing Vodacom infrastructure. Virgin Mobile doesn't have an infrastructure and simply piggyback off of whichever network is available.
That Virgin mobile is said to be the cheapest for data usage suggests that the other networks are ripping us off since Virgin is simply re-selling bandwidth from those, more expensive, networks!
Vodacom is the only network with a 'Vodashop' in every town. Having said that though, their 'customer service' sucks! Since I've switched to MTN, I haven't needed to contact 'customer service' so I don't know if MTN's customer service is any better. But not needing customer service in the first place is a great plus for me!
What's strange though, is that Vodacom is basically a join venture between Vodafone, arguably the largest mobile service provider outside of the USA, and Telkom, South Africa's only landline service! You'da thought that with all that financial clout and ready-made infrastructure that they'da had the better coverage!
It looks like they just ride on a strong propaganda machine
Vodacom regularly advertises their 'broadband' service, among other things, but this service is only available in one or two isolated business centres. It's almost non-existent in residential zones.
Clearly they only intend to cater for the 'suits' the plant their butts in office chairs for life!. If you're actually mobile, their network is practically useless!
Purdi # 15. November 2009, 21:13
Chas4 # 15. November 2009, 22:40