Slashdot Mirror

Google Listen, the Android podcatcher that Google designed to work with Google Reader, has been dead for a while now, but it was still usable because Google Reader was still working even if they didn't update the Android app. However, it looks like the demise of Google Reader itself will doom Google Listen to uselessness.

Of course, Google claims they dropped Google Listen because there were apps out there that did the same thing better, so it's not exactly the end of the world.

Here: Sprint and here: Verizon

Here: Sprint and here: Verizon

http://www.androidcentral.com/sprint-introduce-local-fm-radio-selected-smartphones-later-year

I think it ranks pretty low on the features people are looking for in a smartphone, which is why hardly anyone bothers to offer it.

For many years, the iPod lacked a FM radio, despite most other portable MP3 players having one. Now it looks like the iPod Nano has it.

"lag" has never been an issue.

So the discussion here is based on nothing, everyone reporting differences here is wrong, and all the people discussing lag here are wrong and that project butter was completely unnecessary and does nothing and google are lying because "Android lag" is just one huge conspiracy? Blind fanboys are one thing, but idiots like you are in such denial you take it to a whole new level of ridiculousness.

Try again. Swype (notice the spelling) has the world record for speed texting both normal and hands free (used by a handicapped man with a mouth controlled pointer).

http://www.androidcentral.com/quadriplegic-sets-world-record-swype

http://techcrunch.com/2010/08/23/world-record-texting-speed-broken-and-once-again-its-with-swype/

Swiftkey only works well if you say the same thing a lot. If all of your texts are in the form of "what you doin" you'll do well with it (of course new versions of Swype have the same feature). If you're texting anything of substance, it does pretty poorly.

Feel free to show your friends though. Make sure they follow the links as well.

See? Your answer is exactly what a lot of people reply on Android forums. I assure you, it's a problem, it's not just me. It does connect fine to some networks, but all devices except my Nexus 7 connect fine to my network.

Top 5 links for "obtaining IP address android" on Google:
I currently have 2 devices (my Nexus 7 and SGS2) N7 has JB running and SGS2 recently upgraded to ICS. BOTH have the same stupid obtaining IP address problem.

This is a common problem in android.

There are some problems highlighted in android os, but android WiFi obtaining IP address problem is consider as one of the major problem in android operating system.

The issue that I was facing was a Wifi issue: a bug that renders the phone incapable of connecting to a specific wireless network!

system/etc/dhcpcd/dhcpcd-run-hooks needs to have permissions fixed to "execute" by "user" "group" and "others" by using your favorite file explorer
this will fix your "obtaining ip address loop" without having to ever use static ip address
or at least it did mine.

When people have a genuine problem, and Google doesn't provide support but users do, interspersed with "it's your router, stupid", it just irks me. The hardware is fine, the software is mostly fine, but things like that don't contribute to a good overall user experience. :(

As long as you don't leave the cached route...

Actually no, the pre-caching is done on an area basis.

In fact, if you're going to pre-cache just 5 minutes before going somewhere and before leaving your home wifi network, it's probably not going to work. It doesn't download just what you need, it downloads everything in a rectangle area that you've specified, thus forcing you to wait a few hours to download everything the first time you enable it.

To make their application more user-friendly, they should recommend that people pre-cache their maps when they first install/update the application, not just before the user goes on a trip somewhere (by then, it's usually too late, and it's a bad first impression for users to have).

You're right that you don't need root, per se, but there are a lot of devices out there with sideloading disabled

AT&T was really the only carrier that did this, and they re-enabled the checkbox (which gives the user the choice) quite a while ago. I don't have AT&T, but Amazon had warnings on their app pages about AT&T, and I haven't seen those in nearly a year.

At this point, no Android device requires root to install an app, regardless of source.

You're right that you don't need root, per se, but there are a lot of devices out there with sideloading disabled and you do then have to root. I'm not an expert, though. It's been a long time since I ran a stock rom. I'm running CM10 on a t959 Vibrant (US Galaxy S variant) and it's been a long time since I ran a stock rom.

Your "faltering sales" link is from September and says the iPhone 4s sold 4 million in it's first week, and the iPhone 5 sold 5 million in its first week,

Here, have some more recent figures. http://www.androidcentral.com/android-claims-72-mobile-market-sales-q3-2012

Android is replacing iPhones, not dumb phones. The overall handset market is SHRINKING, not growing any longer. 5 million iPhone 5's sold in about the same time that Samsung sold 30 million Galaxy S3 phones.

The market figures disagree.

http://www.androidcentral.com/android-claims-72-mobile-market-sales-q3-2012

That you can't see a trend right before your very eyes

Take some of your wisdom. If you think in any way that iPhone 5 sales are somehow faltering, when they are selling every single one they can build, and have a waiting list for those not yet built, you are delusional.

It's Android that's in trouble.

Look son, I understand the medicine tastes bad, but you have to take it for your own good.

http://www.androidcentral.com/android-claims-72-mobile-market-sales-q3-2012

Android accounted for 72.4% of mobile sales worldwide, which is up from 52.5% at the same time last year.

By comparison, iOS is down to 13.9% from 15%, RIM is down 5.3% from 11%, and Microsoft is up a smidge to 2.4% from 1.5%, though Bada is hilariously beating it with a 3% share. The overall mobile market declined 3.1%, but smartphone growth increased 46.9% year over year.

Five million means nothing, Samsung sold 30 million units of the GS3 is a roughly the same period, and they are just one manufacturer.

Apple Stock has dropped 150 points in the last couple weeks. Its OVER. The market knows its OVER. The innovation has stopped. Maps doesn't work. New phones released don't even the latest technology on board. The screen is pathetic next to top Android models. And the OS is the the same old warmed over childish garbage it was back on the first iphone.

If Android is in trouble, I'll have a double helping of that trouble.

Intel's fabs are the advantage offered by x86. x86 processors are the only processors that can be made by Intel's fabs. If that changes, or if other fabs catch up, then great - use whatever is the best.

I guess I don't remember this as well as I thought I did, but I have been out of school for a while... And hardware never was my thing... I thought chips were burned onto silicon via some sort of lithography process? High intensity light etching the transistors onto a silicon wafer from a VHDL-type specification? What would prevent Intel from burning a 28nm ARM design in their fab?

Android apps are almost all Java - they run on any platform that has a Java runtime, which certainly includes x86.

No they're not and no they don't. They're Dalvik, which is similar enough to Java to make me sound pedantic by pointing it out, but they're not Java.

And while many android apps are written to run against the Dalvik VM, no small amount of them run native code. Opera, for instance by default ships both a ARM5 binary and an ARM7 binary (together) in the app store, and you can download the ARM7 binary by itself directly from them if you're sure your device can run it. Most performance-sensitive apps run natively, and writing native apps is well supported.

If your apps make calls into native code, that native code is shipped by the phone OEM, and you can already buy x86-based Android phones (Motorola sells one using some Intel Atom chip), so it obviously works there too.

Yes, and when that phone shipped you couldn't get Chrome for it, because there was no x86 Android build for Chrome.

In other words, the CPU's ISA is completely invisible to app developers, so I'm not sure what your complaint is there.

Sorry, that's simply not the case. It is invisible if you limit yourself solely to Dalvik apps, but that limits your options.

This makes no sense. Why would Intel have to push an ARM chip for you to be interested? What if Intel pushed a better-performing x86 chip than any ARM chip? Would you not be interested in that because you have some inherent bias against x86?

Hopefully it makes more sense now. No, a better performing x86 chip would not guarantee my interest. I'm not biased enough to completely rule out purchasing an x86-based phone in the future, but as it stands right now x86 looks like a disadvantage as opposed to an advantage.

USB power has a fundamental limitation...

Oh really. Then why doesn't it limit my quad core Nexus 7? Are you saying that Apple's power design is bad?

http://forums.androidcentral.com/google-nexus-7-tablet-forum/192602-how-do-you-charge-your-nexus-7-a.html

"Only thing I don't do is attempt to charge it by USB to the computer. I was listening to Devorak over the weekend complain about the long charge time and he admitting to using USB for charging."

"I received my Nexus 7 yesterday, and it was at 65%
after setting it up through Google Play. I had it connected to the charger that came with, while using it for a few hours, then I powered it off, to charge overnight. After more then 16 hours, it still isn't at 100%.
I'll admit, I have a Non Nexus 7 USB extension between the devices plug, and power adapter at the surge protector."

Maybe your USB port is magic? Or actually non-standard?

The T-mobile G2 has official ICS.
http://www.androidcentral.com/t-mobile-galaxy-s-ii-ice-cream-sandwich-update-now-live
Which G2 are you talking about?

I totally agree. I just am not as excited as I am just so sad about the death of Nokia. I wish they would have come up with their own OS and done all the things we both wish would happen like no carrier interference.

Swipe to unlock is innovation? The device has a touch UI. Drag and drop is a common UI element, on both touch and mouse/pointer interfaces. They took a common UI element and put it on a screen lock. Wow. The first person who thought to put a password prompt on a locked terminal in the 60s should today be rolling in the royaltys, because every screen lock since then has been derivative. Why isn't that the case? Oh, because no one ever thought taking a common input element, and putting it together with a screen that rejects other input was worth patenting, that's why. But Apple, standing where they are on the backs of giants, has decided that every time they plop something into the bowl, it must be an original idea. Well, sorry, they didn't.

The Nexus S in question was only running Gingerbread, the latest version of Android to be exploitable in this way. All Nexus S devices have had Ice Cream Sandwich available via OTA update for a long time, and most are getting Jelly Bean now. I'd imagine the number of vulnerable devices in the wild is incredibly low.

Yup, exactly:
http://www.androidcentral.com/android-nfc-hack-cool-not-new-or-dangerous

Very cool demo/exploit, but:
http://www.androidcentral.com/android-nfc-hack-cool-not-new-or-dangerous

- majority of phones running exploitable version of Android don't support NFC
- majority of phones supporting NFC have patched version of Android
- future phones supporting NFC will all have patched version of Android

Yes, there goal was to reach 250 million people by the end of 2013. http://www.androidcentral.com/sprint-ramps-network-vision-deployment-announces-national-4g-lte-rollout Also, keep in mind, they've only been working on this since about last November, they seem to making rather good pace.

The fact that Apple is suing over Galaxy Nexus is all over the news.

Yes, but we were talking about slide to unlock. So I went and checked for you - it isn't involved the the Galaxy Nexus case:

http://www.androidcentral.com/samsung-galaxy-nexus-unlock-screen-not-targeted-apple-lawsuit-after-all

Get your facts straight instead of being hysterical perhaps?

I'm being intentionally obtuse because the patent in question is so obviously idiotic.

Good plan!

I have already seen a few iDEN towers go offline. They are sending a letter to iDEN customers June 1, 2012 telling them to move to CDMA phones (I have one and it works great, much better PTT). The iDEN network will cease to exist as early as June 30, 2013. As June 30, 2013 approaches, customers will get even more notifications. http://www.androidcentral.com/sprint-set-shut-down-its-iden-network-early-next-summer

Here's Droid 4 which came out 2-3 months ago.

http://www.androidcentral.com/droid-4-root-discovered-already-downloadable-now

Best case scenario, they drop this stupid idea and get to keep my business, and in exchange I plunk down some serious moolah on the latest root-and-rom-able Android powerhouse.

We are talking about Verizon, right?

"root-and-rom-able?"

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!... hahaha... Whoa, that's a good one.

In case you hadn't heard, Verizon specializes in bootlocked fascism. They're proud of it.. I haven't heard of anyone who's successfully unlocked a recent Verizon Android bootblock. Rootable, sure. For now. (Motofail on Droid devices, for instance.) And 2nd-stage loaders like Safestrap will allow you to load and boot an alternate ROM, but not touch the kernel, so I hope you enjoy ICS on a Gingerbread kernel.

Sorry. Verizon is pretty much bondage-and-domination as far as phone openness is concerned. I am functionally satisfied with my VZW Droid 4, but my needs are modest (root + freeze bloatware), but if I really wanted to load Cyanogenmod or Eclipse, I'd have to settle for half-measures.

And GM's stated public partnership with Google, Google+ and Android has NOTHING to do with this. Right?

http://www.androidcentral.com/tags/gm

http://www.androidcentral.com/tags/chevrolet

http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=9&sqi=2&ved=0CGoQtwIwCA&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.youtube.com%2Fwatch%3Fv%3DhcbTw_dvPgY&ei=SMOzT8vLDIWm8QSphN3uCA&usg=AFQjCNFiOVx-KhoOtBzmZAehYIC1nc2MmQ&sig2=h-EnMGtOVXB7ukBpBKPoig

http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=10&sqi=2&ved=0CHEQFjAJ&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.corvettenewsblog.com%2Ftag%2Fgm-and-android%2F&ei=SMOzT8vLDIWm8QSphN3uCA&usg=AFQjCNHVGF5QkdUkIzrKRroRwqLTbCQUkQ&sig2=dBPvLP-uWArg8lP5ANJWAw

Just another "Hmmmm" tinfoil hat thought for you. I wonder how much input the Feds have in GM making such an announcement just as Facebook is prepping for a IPO?
http://www.digitaltrends.com/cars/feds-freeze-gm-ceo-alan-akersons-salary-at-1-7-million-limit-other-top-exec-pay-in-the-process/

And GM's stated public partnership with Google, Google+ and Android has NOTHING to do with this. Right?

http://www.androidcentral.com/tags/gm

http://www.androidcentral.com/tags/chevrolet

http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=9&sqi=2&ved=0CGoQtwIwCA&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.youtube.com%2Fwatch%3Fv%3DhcbTw_dvPgY&ei=SMOzT8vLDIWm8QSphN3uCA&usg=AFQjCNFiOVx-KhoOtBzmZAehYIC1nc2MmQ&sig2=h-EnMGtOVXB7ukBpBKPoig

http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=10&sqi=2&ved=0CHEQFjAJ&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.corvettenewsblog.com%2Ftag%2Fgm-and-android%2F&ei=SMOzT8vLDIWm8QSphN3uCA&usg=AFQjCNHVGF5QkdUkIzrKRroRwqLTbCQUkQ&sig2=dBPvLP-uWArg8lP5ANJWAw

Just another "Hmmmm" tinfoil hat thought for you. I wonder how much input the Feds have in GM making such an announcement just as Facebook is prepping for a IPO?
http://www.digitaltrends.com/cars/feds-freeze-gm-ceo-alan-akersons-salary-at-1-7-million-limit-other-top-exec-pay-in-the-process/

say what you want about the quality of code, but I promise you Epic has the money get all their apps into the Android market place.. but they're not there..

http://www.androidcentral.com/epic-games-reveals-android-plans

Wilbur: [Takes out a Galaxy S, shows Epic Citadel running on it] We’ve done some development on Android. That’s Epic Citadel running on Android – now, this is not for public release. It’s on iOS first, and then once the iOS version is released then we’ll start considering Android.

Wilbur: One of the problems with the Android marketplace is hardware fragmentation, that’s a really big issue. The other thing is marketplace fragmentation, there are so many different appstores out there. The Android marketplace is a little more difficult [to develop for] because there is less control. I think the Android marketplace is robust I find it very easy to buy things on it, it’s just that Apple has very tight control. So anything in the Apple world is perfect. It’s just perfect. We like that, we like that a lot. We know that it’s just gonna work. Sometimes that’s not always the case in the Android marketplace.

isn't that why Mika quit.. yep. this sounds identical to Wilbur's comment:

"I would have preferred spending that time on more content for you, but instead I was thanklessly modifying shaders and texture formats to work on different GPUs, or pushing out patches to support new devices without crashing, or walking someone through how to fix an installation that wouldn't go through," one half of the husband and wife duo said. "We spent thousands on various test hardware. These are the unsung necessities of offering our apps on Android.

Prove it. Show us prior art that existed at the time Apple filed the patent application that does each and every element in the claims. That it's publicly known now is irrelevant

Here you go smarty-pants. Apparently the fact that it existed 2 years before Apple "invented" it is also irrelevant...

Followup on my other comment... Here's claim 1 of Apple's patent no. 8046721:

1. A method of unlocking a hand-held electronic device, the device including a touch-sensitive display, the method comprising:
detecting a contact with the touch-sensitive display at a first predefined location corresponding to an unlock image;
continuously moving the unlock image on the touch-sensitive display in accordance with movement of the contact while continuous contact with the touch screen is maintained, wherein the unlock image is a graphical, interactive user-interface object with which a user interacts in order to unlock the device; and
unlocking the hand-held electronic device if the moving the unlock image on the touch-sensitive display results in movement of the unlock image from the first predefined location to a predefined unlock region on the touch-sensitive display.

Now, go to your linked video. Right off the bat, I don't see an unlock image in the predefined location. She sweeps across the screen, but there's no unlock image where she first puts her finger down. Second, since there's no unlock image there, when she sweeps her finger, there's nothing being continuously moved across the display in accordance with her finger. And finally, since there's no unlock image, then it's not unlocking when the unlock image is moved to a predefined unlock region. That video simply doesn't invalidate that claim.

To invalidate a patent, you have to show one or more pieces of prior art that teach or suggest each and every element of the claims, not just something that does something similar or something that could be described with the same title.

Prove it. Show us prior art that existed at the time Apple filed the patent application that does each and every element in the claims. That it's publicly known now is irrelevant

Here you go smarty-pants. Apparently the fact that it existed 2 years before Apple "invented" it is also irrelevant...

See above. Simply pointing to a piece of prior art doesn't actually get you there. It's like pointing to the existence of a dead body to say that therefore, a defendant is guilty of murder. No, it's just the first step... Now you have to map out "each and every element in the claim" to that piece of prior art. If you can't do that, you haven't proven anything. You've just shown a dead body.

Prove it. Show us prior art that existed at the time Apple filed the patent application that does each and every element in the claims. That it's publicly known now is irrelevant

Here you go smarty-pants. Apparently the fact that it existed 2 years before Apple "invented" it is also irrelevant...

Unfortunately, it's limited to Android 4.0 (Ice Cream Sandwich) devices

So are all the people who trashed Apple for making Siri exclusive to the iPhone 4S going to trash Google for making Chrome exclusive to ICS devices? Recall that ICS is currently only on 1% of Android devices.

Tech chops for web perhaps, (although I've seen nothing revolutionary from them for a long time).

Tech chops for multiple mobile platforms, not so much. Late to the game with lame apps, and little ability to follow thru with any of them.

http://www.androidcentral.com/yahoo-lays-some-their-mobile-apps-rest

Maybe 18 months is longer for you than it is for me but...

1/5/2010 Nexus One released
9/24/2011 Nexus One updated to Android 2.3.6

What is this, wikipedia? Your google broken or something? You haven't actually been into a mobile store? Fine - Top 10 best selling Android phones 2011. Best Android phones June 2011 Top 5 selling Android phones 2011. Not a cheap device listed.

Ahem:

http://www.androidcentral.com/netflix-now-available-all-devices-running-22-and-23

A customised version of Android on the Dell Streak has been certified by the DoD.

Ah, makes sense. Certify the discontinued product.

USA! USA! All the Way!

how about the Neonode N1m from 2005 not prior art? certainly the judge in the netherlands who was shown this decided it was.

http://www.androidcentral.com/apple-granted-patent-slide-unlock-even-though-it-existed-2-years-they-invented-it There is a video showing the Neonode N1m using slide to unlock.

What about prior art? The actual law, not to mention the spirit of the law, suggests that this patent should be invalid.

Personally I don't think that patents should be allowed for simply making a representation of a basic hardware switch in a software UI. In fact I don't think any patents on UI design should be allowed at all. As a programmer, I don't think patents should be allowed on software either, because many of us will recreate each day as a matter of course something that someone else probably will try to patent just because they're an ass that's obsessed with money and doesn't feel bad taking advantage of idiots.

Yeah, you're about the only one. Ever.

http://androidcommunity.com/forums/f41/home-screen-lag-12132/

http://androidforums.com/android-lounge/7884-htc-hero-reduce-lag.html

http://forums.androidcentral.com/verizon-fascinate-rooting-roms-hacks/34047-lag-fix.html

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Rrpd-ZDHHlk

But you're right, you've never experienced it, so it NEVER happens.

I, too, agree that Samsung (and others) are copying Apple in some ways more than others.

The questions are...

1. Is that a bad thing?
For the end-users, I would say it isn't.

For Apple, I would say it isn't either. Nobody's going to walk around with Device X that may look like e.g. an iPhone and claim it's an iPhone - that would just make them posers.
Without the claim, if you were to see such a Device X and think "ooh! iPhone sure seems popular!", I can't see how that would hurt Apple either, except from the anti-popular-things crowd.
No store is going to put the Device X in their shop and then try to suggest it's an iPhone either.
The people who buy a Device X, in short, buy it not because it's "just like an iPhone", but in part because it's [i]not[/i] an iPhone.. either in design details or in operating system or.. etc. Whatever the reason, it was reason enough not to just get the iPhone.

Now it may be a matter of principle, and that's all fine and dandy and they're in their right to defend that principle.

But if Apple are essentially just saying "you can't make a device that copies ours because with those copied elements your device is better than ours - please stick to crappy design elements so that our device is the only one the majority of people could reasonably want, thanks"... well, that's just sad.

2. At what point does the copying become something different?
What I mean by that is this... you already point out that obviously it's not [i]just[/i] about having a rectangle with rounded corners, it's the complete package.

But presumably just doing a single thing different wouldn't break enough from that 'complete package' to get the case dropped.

I.e. if they dropped the 'the color gray appears as a rectangle at the front, center of the screen' and instead went with a bluish one, I'm going to guess that would not get them off the hook. I'm going to guess that if it was actually a shape with two curved edges going across the screen that it would also not be enough. Maybe the combination of curved shape + blue would be enough... but only for that single point. It would leave all the others.
The problem with 'all the others' is that they're pretty generic.
( Mind you, even that rectangle is pretty generic if they're literally referring to the screen itself. Making the screen 'blue' would mean nothing less than tinting the LCD thus giving everything a bluish cast. Really now? I was half hoping they meant the grey rectangle used for the bottom set of icons, which could indeed be designed in a billion ways not 'copying' Apple.. but they specifically list that separately and as being 'silver' so perhaps the "[the screen]" is indeed meant literally. )

Yes, the older comparison model shows a completely different design direction that doesn't appear to copy most of the points made. But it still copies 4 of the 15 points. Is [i]that[/i] enough, then?
Let's assume, just for kicks, 'yes' here. Now let's add one thing back in - colored icons. The black/white design is nice for those who like it, but most people are going to want colored icons these days. Putting aside the 'icon design' issues, the device would now find itself 'copying' the fact that it may use 'black, blue, brown, brown-gray (and a host of other colors) as part of its design. It would also make it vastly more appealing to the masses. So would it now be a target of litigation again?

If so, that would mean that a whole range of devices would be fair game.
E.g. the Dell Aero:
http://cdn.androidcentral.com/sites/androidcentral.com/files/articleimage/Jerry%20Hildenbrand/2010/05/Dell-Aero.jpg

• Configuration of a rectangular electronic device with rounded corners etc. etc.: check for all 3 times this claim is listed
• The colors (of the rainbow): check, twice
• Rounded silver edges: check
• Black face: chec

Since Android has more free and ad-supported apps and fewer commercial developers, inevitably the total revenue for the entire market is going to be lower. To look at which platform is more profitable for developers, you need to look at actual profit figures for individual developers. Some developers now make more money on Android than on iOS.

I mean, it's like saying that the Windows software market is 100x bigger than the Mac software market, therefore Windows developers must make 100x more profit than Mac developers. It just doesn't follow.

Worthless for anything that requires typing because typing on an on-screen keyboard is a nightmare.

Beats the hell out of using thumbs on a screen a quarter of the size, though, don't it? Or for that matter, why not use voice recognition? If you haven't looked at it lately, you really really should. Google's voice recognition is simply worlds better than that old dragon was, and without spending 6 hours training it to recognize an individual's voice, either. Sit down with it for half an hour and actually train it, and it supposedly gets better... but I didn't bother because it works so well "out of the box".

Terrible web browsing experience.

Not as terrible as trying to use a laptop or netbook while standing up on a moving bus.

Rubbish for gaming because of the lack of physical controls.

Pocket Legends has over a million users. There are literally millions of downloads of console emulators. EVE Online is also coming to the mobile space. StarCraft looks like it was MADE for a touchscreen interface. Last but not anywhere near least, the Xperia Play - and if you go over my comment history, you will see that I absolutely hate Sony, so I'm the last guy anyone would expect to be pimping their products.

Useless for watching videos because who wants to hold their display while watching a film.

Try looking for protective cases that have kickstands built in, or just go low-tech and use a document holder. Duh.

Can't be used for any RealWork such as programming, graphic design, stock trading or anything else.

I'll grant some of this point. With typing being more difficult due to a lack of keyboard, coding would be a pain... assuming you don't change the interface. But I'm going to have to call "citation needed" on your "graphic design", your "stock trading", and with 4.5 billion app downloads last month just on the official android market and over 100,000 apps specifically for iPads released in the past 16 months, your "anything else".

I can't really think what else they could be used for.

There's really only a few things that PCs are better at, and that's a combination of sheer horsepower and input hardware. Toss a bluetooth keyboard into the mix, add a kickstand to the back, and 90% of the PC market will evaporate as people realize they don't need a $1200 monster to check their email and surf the web. Admittedly, that's just replacing a PC with a different piece of hardware... but I will point out that hospitals and law firms figured out that tablets roxor their soxors years ago.

In other words, Tablet + WiFi + content server = It's not the tablet that's useless for most people, it's the PC. With the advent of streaming media and wireless connec

The CEO of Acer sounds like he's trying to make noise because Acer isn't in the competitive tablet business.

Actually, Acer has sold tablets than any other Android tablet maker, and they had features that Xoom STILL can't get working (MicroSD card writing). Everything on the acer worked out of the box, and they had sold a million of them before the other Android Tablet guys got to market.

Sure, the year's head start that Apple had means they are still at the top of the total sales chart.

Acer also sells ChromeBooks and regular laptops, and I suggest the CEO is probably in a pretty good position to measure sales trends.

The trend isn't surprising. Every new device a huge run-up in sales when first released, and then people find out the limitations, the warts, and the unmet needs, and decide they really do need a laptop after all. Everyone who wanted one badly already has one. It was iPad users that first discovered that tablets ultimately proved to hold way less appeal than they originally believed, and they were using them less than they thought.

There will be a lot of tablets of all flavors under the Christmas tree this year.

If we look at the closest existing Android phone to the iPhone 3G, it lost Cyanogen support around the same time Apple dropped the iPhone 3G. The G1 lost "official" support far earlier, at Android 1.6. Look at my link in the post you replied to about what versions people are actually running in their Android phones. The number that are stuck on 2.1 is a little lame. The glut held back to 2.2 is a flat-out embarrassment. I'd one to see a counter-argument supported with facts, but as far as I can see, Android users can rely on being abandoned by the OEM within two years of release in most (all?) cases. Apple, on the other hand, has supported a given phone for at least three years from release.

If only Apple would withdraw it's lawsuit against Samsung over the same ridiculous "look and feel" claim. Why should either Samsung or Apple have exclusive rights over what's ultimately a rectangular grid of icons? It would be like giving the company that released the first touch-tone phone exclusive rights over the layout and appearance of the touch-tone keypad.

Android Market has always had a refund mechanism - if you uninstall the app within 15 minutes of purchasing it, you get a refund. Developers cannot opt out of this, either (but they don't process refunds, Google does). In fact, the trial period used to be 24 hours until the end of last year.

So it's not a matter of technical feasibility or implementation cost of the feature, but solely of Google marketing policy. It seems that they think they'll lose more money with those refunds than they'll gain from app sales in Taiwan.

You need to buy a phone from Virgin. Virgin uses Sprint's CDMA network, which (at least in the US) does not take advantage of SIM cards. Virgin's LG Optimus V is a very nice smartphone, though -- Android 2.2, fast, stock, etc.

You should really consider rooting it and putting CM7 on it from http://forum.androidcentral.com/optimus-v-rooting-roms-hacks/61901-rom-wip-alpha-aospcmod-aosp-2-3-4-cm7-gingerbread.html . Then you can give it a little overclock and underclock to help get better battery life and enjoy how much better CM7 is in comparison to the stock rom. Just be sure to make a back up of your phone's stock rom incase you ever need to flash back to that to have your number changed or something of the similar.

With virtually all carriers capping virtually all plans these days, any rationale for preventing tethering disappeared.

Now it is simply GREED. They have special plans that add tethering. Therefore you can't tether for free any more.
They can't claim network impact. As long as you stay under your Cap what is the problem?

There is precious little data to suggest tethering users actually use more data. I know I don't. Sometimes I just want to
send an email attachment that happens to be on my laptop. Some times I need to SSH into a server and can't put up with
trying do deal with a command line task on that tiny screen.

But it seems the defenders of this clamp down all seem to be rushing to defending the carriers because the carriers
rely on the "over sell" of their bandwidth. Any user that approaches his CAP is therefore somehow stealing from
the carrier. (I kid you not, I've seen this argument posted).

But even to reach that level of gullibility you have to buy into the idea that people who tether use more data. But its just not supported by the facts.

The coming release of a flood of WIFI only tablets, with no continuing data plan for the carriers has a lot of people planning to tether these tablets for those few times a year when traveling where there is no handy WIFI. The carriers are trying to nip this in the bud, and they believe that every handheld device needs to have a carrier plan.

You are exactly Correct.
This article specifies what Andorid keeps and why these are kept.

Last 50 cell towers, and last 200 wifi routers seen (not necessarily connected to). It does not keep a running computation of your exact position, and it truncates what it does keep. And it does not transfer this data to google in any identifiable way. (Google does crowd source traffic data from cell phones using Google Maps)

In a big city/urban area, you might truncate you cell towers seen list in a couple hours, as you commute past dozens of towers each day.

Of course once you fire up search (either on Android or IOS) you are transmitting that info to the search engine, (google or bing) if you enable local searching capability.

Of course, contributing to Android is to undermine open source as a whole, seeing as how they continue to hide the Honeycomb source but deliver it to Intel. If you truly appreciate open source and want it to succeed in the mobile space, you should support and push for MeeGo (and stop buying shit from companies like Motorola.)

Really? http://www.androidcentral.com/gpl-portions-honeycomb-entered-aosp