Slashdot Mirror

Android has 80% of the smartphone market and Apple has 14%, down from 18% last quarter.

Global smartphone shipments grew 47 percent to hit 230 million devices in the second quarter of 2013, according to a new report from research firm Strategy Analytics. And Android captured record market share of 80 percent. Apple iOS reached 14 percent global smartphone share in the quarter.

Microsoft has 4%.

In China, Apple overtaken by Xiaomi in smartphone rankings

And it's only going to get worse for Apple, as the company just announced the Red Rice smartphone, a pretty decently spec'd model priced at a mere 799 yuan ($130). For that pittance, Chinese buyers will get quite a bit: a quad-core MediaTek CPU, 4.7-inch 720p screen (312 ppi) with Gorilla Glass 2, 1GB RAM, 4GB storage, China Mobile's TD-SCDMA 3G, dual-sim / dual standby capability, an 8-megapixel rear camera and Xiaomi's MIUI-flavored Android.

http://www.engadget.com/2013/07/31/xiaomi-unveils-the-red-rice-smartphone/ [engadget.com] http://www.pcworld.com/article/2046019/in-china-apple-overtaken-by-xiaomi-in-smartphone-rankings.html [pcworld.com]

Oddly enough, Slashdot does not consider this to be news.

Android has 80% of the smartphone market and Apple has 14%

Global smartphone shipments grew 47 percent to hit 230 million devices in the second quarter of 2013, according to a new report from research firm Strategy Analytics. And Android captured record market share of 80 percent. Apple iOS reached 14 percent global smartphone share in the quarter.

Microsoft has 4%.

In China, Apple overtaken by Xiaomi in smartphone rankings

And it's only going to get worse for Apple, as the company just announced the Red Rice smartphone, a pretty decently spec'd model priced at a mere 799 yuan ($130). For that pittance, Chinese buyers will get quite a bit: a quad-core MediaTek CPU, 4.7-inch 720p screen (312 ppi) with Gorilla Glass 2, 1GB RAM, 4GB storage, China Mobile's TD-SCDMA 3G, dual-sim / dual standby capability, an 8-megapixel rear camera and Xiaomi's MIUI-flavored Android.

http://www.engadget.com/2013/07/31/xiaomi-unveils-the-red-rice-smartphone/
http://www.pcworld.com/article/2046019/in-china-apple-overtaken-by-xiaomi-in-smartphone-rankings.html

Oddly enough, Slashdot does not consider this to be news.

The execution of C/C++ is faster than Java almost always. The development time of Java is faster than C/C++ almost always.

HFT is now evolving. It's no longer about microseconds but it's more about smarter algorithms. Instead of making 1 penny on a hundred million trades per hour, it's about making $1.00 per million trades per hour. Coding an algorithm sitting next to the Math Ph.D. who came up with it is more important to get it out to market in hours rather than days. You only have a small time period until your algorithm is discovered and opposing HFT machines can re-code their systems to guard against it. Sure, Java will use tons more memory but buying 1TB of ECC RAM is pocket change for these HFT shops. The code will execute slightly slower, but these shops can now deploy their own custom algorithms, going from concept to code to production in a matter of hours. It's much harder to do that with C/C++ because the code is so verbose and it simply takes longer to write equivalent code. In addition, all of the good low level C/C++ devs are paid mid 6-digits or better ($400-600k). It's cheaper and easier to get an expert level Java guy from the internal IT dept for $150k and sit him between an algorithms guy and a trader on the desk than trying to lure a good C++ guy from another shop and dealing with the slimy recruiters and the fraud candidates. You also have the JVM benefits (memory management, type safety,etc.)

Lastly, everybody here is missing the point talking about Java performance. This isn't your stereotypical enterprise data center running a line-of-business app to process invoices. These guys lay out hundreds of millions of dollars just for their hardware/infrastructure budget. Most of these HFT shops have their own custom JVM implementations, made for pauseless GC in low-latency situations along with their own customized Linux kernels or hardware-assisted JVMs. The better shops have their own custom networking stack and protocols. The best of the best run on their own hardware that was designed with customized CPUs for their servers. The future is using these custom fabs to produce RISC-based chips with the customized JVM integrated onto a chip in the form of an ASIC. Throw in gigantic L1 and L2 CPU caches so the instruction code itself is always executed on the chip itself. It's not something commercially viable and has failed in the past, but for a very specific market (HFT for example) you can make Java code scream. Yes, with enough money you can make an ultra-optimized Java implementation run faster than stock C/C++. Source: my career in finance

Is this actually relevant for end-user electronics? Or is it yet another of those wonderful promising potential fast-switching techs that are announced every few months(since 1980 or so) yet never pan out to anything practical.

You'd be surprised of how many of those things that already have found their way into your home but still pop up on slashdot because someone finds out some new production method to make them more viable in other application.
Take for example this article about GaAs semiconductors from 2001
You also have retarded comments like "Ah, Gallium Arsenide chips, thw chip of the future. Always have been, always will be, the chip of the future." from Blaede, a comment that reminds me of yours.
Yet today I'm pretty sure that the RF components in all your wireless devices are GaAs today. We had to replace our RF switches with GaAs a couple of years ago since the old technology was phased out.
Of course you don't see it because that would require opening it up and reading the datasheet for the components.
Technology and science aren't selling points so you will never see the technology written about if you only look at consumer pages and shiny packaging. There are other pages that highlights the news that you are interested in, like PCWorld and Macworld

Does simply not wanting to pay more for something mean there is a shortage?

Yes, that is the definition of a shortage. When demand/supply is high enough that developers can demand salaries that many segments of the market cannot afford, then there is a shortage.

Where are the long lines of companies waiting at the developer stations?

Everywhere. Maybe you have not been paying attention.
http://www.pcworld.com/article/223509/demand_for_workers_outstrips_supply_first_since_2008.html
http://www.careerbuilder.com/share/aboutus/pressreleasesdetail.aspx?id=pr645&sd=7/13/2011&ed=12/31/2011&siteid=cbpr&sc_cmp1=cb_pr645_
http://www.bankrate.com/finance/jobs-careers/biggest-worker-shortages.aspx#slide=4
https://www.nixonwilliams.com/blog/post/07/2013/Temporary-IT-worker-demand-rises-to-two-year-high

Quarter million for a Windows 8 exploit? Serious? It took until this month for it to outpace Vista (at a whopping 5.1%).

Oh, my sides....you're too much, man.

Seriously, how many people are going to switch to Linux over this? Nobody.

Except a whole bunch of OEMs who used to be staunch Microsoft partners.

"HP shows off 21-inch all-in-one Android desktop
PC makers are experimenting with Android given that Microsoft's Windows 8 devices have struggled to attract consumers"

http://www.infoworld.com/d/computer-hardware/update-hp-shows-21-inch-all-in-one-android-desktop-221316

CoolShip,an android desktop computer that looks like a keyboard
CoolShip has a 1.5Ghz dualcore ARM processor inside.It is a low cost home PC,PC for elderly and children,also a solution of hotel PC for guests,educational PC.

http://www.indiegogo.com/projects/coolship-an-android-desktop-computer-that-looks-like-a-keyboard

Acer shows 21-inch Android desktop
Taiwan's Acer is breaking Android out of its comfort zone and has installed the operating system on a 21.5-inch all-in-one desktop PC that is expected on sale in the U.S. later this year.

http://www.pcworld.com/article/2040886/acer-shows-21inch-android-desktop.html

Get used to it.

Not a chance. I'm really enjoying the innovation and competition that's coming our way now the Windows monopoly's tumbling. Can't wait until Office is usurped as well!

The endless Gnome 3 vs 2 discussions are all very well (I ditched Fedora because of it), but in the end let the voters decide:

Apparently in 2010 Fedora was the 2nd most used distro (from http://www.pcworld.com/article/2021273/another-year-another-totally-different-top-10-linux-distros.html).

In 2011 it was 3rd. In 2012 it was 4th.

And looking at the latest Distrowatch page hit rankings (which is what that article was using):
http://distrowatch.com/dwres.php?resource=popularity,
it now is 5th.

News is breaking today that Facebook is doing the same thing. http://www.pcworld.com/article/2043271/facebook-moves-to-remove-ads-displayed-with-controversial-content.html

I don't have any insider knowledge, but I suspect it has something to do with this: https://www.google.com/search?q=coppa+july+1st

Last I heard, Canada was still OK with it as long as you pay taxes on any applicable transactions. I don't know how long it will last.

I gave you a list of cases where Apple was found guilty or being investigated and rather than accept that, or go Google for confirmation, you just pretend it's outright not true.

What cases? Flash? That was answered and it was never a case. Is it so hard for you to understand that you don't get everything you want from a company's product. Ford doesn't have to user Bose radios if they don't want to use them. eBooks? That is still in trial meaning there is no verdict. The only thing I didn't answer was the UK pricing: The EU conducted an investigation as it required to when they receive a complaint. Apple was not found guilty as it never went to trial nor was Apple ever indicted. Apple said that the pricing difference was due to their wholesale prices being higher but agreed to lower all prices. This was 5 years ago.

The Commission was satisfied that the price differential was not the result of collusion between Apple and the record companies. The probe "allowed the Commission to clarify that there is no agreement between Apple and the major record companies regarding how the iTunes store is organized in Europe. Rather, the structure of the iTunes store is chosen by Apple to take into account the country-specific aspects of copyright laws," the Commission said. . . It added that it is aware that some record companies, publishers and collecting societies still apply licensing practices which can make it difficult for iTunes to operate stores in a uniform manner in all European countries.

This is really the point, this is why you don't deserve proper answers, you seem to want to continue this discussion but as I said before, if you can't even accept reality then what's the point?

You're being as non-commital as you can be. I wonder if you are one of the SCO lawyers. I think it's because if you actually responded with specifics, you know I'd look up check up on it. If you had any specifics on the MS findings, I would point you to the exact paragraphs that disagree with you.

There's really no helping you, you're irrationally defending a firm in spite of the facts and that is why you can be clearly defined as nothing more than a pointless irrelevant fanboy. When you're that far gone your opinion is just meaningless and does not matter.

I'm the one asking for specifics and logical reasons. The only thing you keep doing is levying insults and not answering a single point. That's all you really have. It's not my opinion by the way. US v Microsoft disagrees with you.

How can you censor the element that helped the most to make the internet what it is today?

...just like I'm sure the Obama Administration would never obtain the phone and email records for every American!

What?

Are you trolling or just stupid?
http://www.pcworld.com/article/2020725/apple-macbooks-lead-in-laptop-features-and-reliability.html
http://www.engadget.com/2009/11/17/laptop-reliability-survey-asus-and-toshiba-win-hp-fails/

So...shut the fuck up. I fix and sell laptops at my shop. You have no idea what you're talking about.

Where or where are my mods points when I need them? Intel is a dirty filthy company who plays dirty filthy pool debasing the whole idea of a free market and undermining the progress of CPUs in the process.

http://www.pcworld.com/article/184882/A_History_of_Intels_Antitrust_Woes.html

http://www.osnews.com/story/21468/Source_Intel_To_Be_Found_Guilty_of_Monopoly_Abuse

http://abcnews.go.com/Business/story?id=7574976&page=1#.Ua94NkDrz4M

and plays hardball against even the smallest of critics-

http://www.faceintel.com/kenwonintellost2.htm

All the while sucking as hard as any monopoly at the public teat:

http://www.faceintel.com/tax$subsidizeintel.htm

Intel is a dirty, disgusting company that debases the whole idea of a free market.

That was just the payload, that with the appropiate sources could vary. Bricking your laptop could be the less harmful thing it could do, you will still be free and have money in the bank to buy another.

Two articles (three pages NetworkWorld without images and one page PCWorld with images) on "How hacking fixed the worst video game of all time... So why should you give it another chance? Because code hackers managed to fix some of the games most glaring problems, and now it's actually fun to play..."

Just take a look at the numbers. See how many Microsoft Windows only malware "products" come out each day, and then compare that to other platforms. Make your own decision as to how "real" the threat is.

You don't need many malware products if the user base don't take it seriously. It wasn't Debian, but since you mention "other platforms" - the single biggest malware epidemic in modern times was Mac Flashback, infecting as much as 1% of the OS-X user base (beating Windows Conficker for the honor, at 0.7% of user base infected).

It's an intersection of concerns with facial recognition, tagging and Big Tech's seemingly callous indifference to our privacy , all of that hitting up against our evolutionarily bequeathed intuition that when we walk along in life, we have more than a modicum of privacy amongst strangers. Basically people fast forwarded in their imaginations to (creepy... or otherwise) people using Google Goggles to look at us on the street and download a ton of information about us by matching our face to social media pictures of us or our house to information about us or our license plate to stuff people have said about our driving.

Take a picture of something and start talking about it with everyone quickly becomes take of picture of something which identifies us and start gossiping with strangers about us in even ordinary people's minds.

FB is bad enough. Now we're going to be tagged and bagged as we walk down the street. Hot girl? Who is she? Where does she live? Whoa look as this... DUDE!!!

That kind of thing is fantastically invasive and creepy and it's exactly what will happen because all new technology becomes porn why? because we're monkeys whose chief and overwhelming concern was is and always will be reproducing our genes with the hottest thing we can land in order to maximize our genetic fitness. Even if you don't think that's the reason all new technology becomes porn, the fact is , all new technology becomes porn of some sort , if only gossip porn.

So yeah, that's why people hate Google Goggles.

Google should have, at all times and at all places loudly ferociously and very publicly defended the anonymity of their users come hell or high court subpena.

Instead, they got Eric Schmidt :

http://www.pcworld.com/article/217313/googles_eric_schmidt_ex_ceos_most_memorable_quotes.html

"With Street View, we drive by exactly once, so you can just move." (if you don't like your residence being online)

"I actually think most people don't want Google to answer their questions, ...They want Google to tell them what they should be doing next."

"If I look at enough of your messaging and your location, and use Artificial Intelligence...we can predict where you are going to go,"

"Show us 14 photos of yourself and we can identify who you are. You think you don't have 14 photos of yourself on the Internet?"

"One day we had a conversation where we figured we could just try to predict the stock market,....And then we decided it was illegal. So we stopped doing that."

"If you have something that you don't want anyone to know, maybe you shouldn't be doing it in the first place,"

If they were uniquely noted for their commitment to privacy, then maybe people would have trusted them with their faces. As it is, it's too late unwind it all and people are rightly concerned.

A better reason to ignore the torrent of mobile malware FUD being spewed by all the Windows AV vendors.

They're terrified because their business model involves being parasites bandaiding a virus ridden OS that's now failing in the market. Like fleas without a dog, hey're desperate to find a new host, but since modern mobile OSs aren't as colander-like as Windows, they're being forced further and further into snake-oil realms.

This story deserves nothing but ridicule.

I'm an Android user myself, but I think we need to be careful with this sentiment. For Mac users this kind of sentiment led to OS-X Flashback being the biggest malware epidemic in modern times in terms of percentage of user base infected. Beating Windows Conficker for this honor. Yes, the number of Windows users are obviously larger, but in terms of infection risk and infectability of a platform, percentage of user base is the right measure.

Later versions of Flashback even did completely silent drive-by infection on OS-X, no user interaction or admin password needed, just visiting a web site was enough, something many Mac users still seem to think only happen on Windows. Even Apple has admitted that Unix-based OS-X need dedicated malware detection and cleaner tools.

There is a very sophisticated multi-billion dollar malware industry out there. Android is not immune to this threat. And its volume is making it an increasingly likely target. Especially since the far majority of the Android user base is on old vulnerable versions, with added vulnerabilities from handset makers and operators, long after Google has patched vulnerabilities and improved security.

Not if you're these guys.

Who's to say AT&T isn't doing this already in USA?

Verizon is already doing this, and has been for a while, according to
PC World's article about this

Verizon has posted changes to its privacy policy stating that it will now share user location data, Web browsing history and demographic information with marketers.

While Verizon insists that it will not provide third parties with any information identifying users on a personal basis, it will give them a wide array of its users' information, including websites they frequent on their Verizon devices, places where their devices have been, and demographic categories such as gender and age range. Verizon will also share user interests with marketers, such as whether they're a sports fan, own a pet or what sort of restaurants they frequent.

The Department of Justice in the USA already wants carriers to keep user location data for further review by DOJ as needed, warranted or not.

Apple already got slogged for tracking user location data in articles and on South Park's "Human Centipad" episode, if you remember that. And that was followed by Android having to deal with user location tracking issues in May of 2011.

All of this just by searching for [ +"user location data" ] on your favorite search engine! So why aren't people up in arms about this?? Oh yeah, because not only do they accept this voluntarily, they pay the damn phone companies a monthly allotment to take their personal data and sell it! Damn sheep!

Fact: Microsoft is desperately plugging Office 365 to avoid losing its one remaining cash cow, now that Windows is sliding downhill.

Fact: Microsoft are lying about adaption rates in MSM and online media

http://www.pcworld.com/article/2036178/microsoft-says-office-365-adoption-accelerating-but-questions-remain.html

http://blog.bettercloud.com/google-apps-vs-microsoft-office-365/

Fact: Microsoft's Office 365 adoption rates are a fraction of those of Google Apps.

http://blog.useractivation.com/2013/04/11/showdown-google-apps-vs-microsoft-office-365-by-industry-2/

Fact: The only growth market Microsoft has for Office 365 is to government and education (where their underhand "lobbying and personal incentives" practices are less likely to be detected).

Fact: Microsoft uses Burson Marsteller for astroturfing.

http://ucheadline.wordpress.com/2011/09/19/the-biggest-corporations-youve-never-seen-burson-marsteller/

Fact: You are an astroturfer.

http://slashdot.org/~UneducatedSixpack

It's all a matter of perspective: If It Ain't Broke, Don't Fix It: Ancient Computers in Use Today. Be glad they're running something written since the advent of the PC.

BTW, I'm an old Unix hacker who has moved on to Linux but the command line still rules.

Cheers,
Dave

I beg to differ. FOSS is now leading in innovation, see the articles.
Also FOSS is already leading in many I.T. sectors, like in Servers, Smartphones, Tables, etc.

From my non-professional usage of GIMP and Inkscape I would say those application can do at least 90% what Photoshop et.al. can do. For example, Linux did crushed the "heavyweight" at the server market quite fine: UNIX and Microsoft.
The bigger problem is IMHO unfamiliarity between Photoshop and GIMP. If I start now using Photoshop, I wouldn't know where to start either.

http://sandhill.com/article/open-source-drives-software-innovation/
http://www.pcworld.com/article/2035651/open-source-is-taking-over-the-software-world-survey-says.html

If they don't make things worse...

Windows was a pretty direct copy of Mac OS.

After several years in court, Apple's claims against Microsoft were dismissed, primarily due to a license John Sculley had negotiated with Bill Gates for Windows 1.0.

Brief history of smartphones. Some give the Ericsson GS 88 "Penelope" in 1997 as the first smart phone as that is when the term was coined.

But the insanity of someone protecting their job by never updating technology is just amazing.

I don't think it is that kind of insanity -- more the kind where the owner doesn't upgrade because the old system works. As a business owner myself, I can understand that sentiment, though Sparkler Filters has taken that to quite an extreme.

Carl Kracklauer, whose father founded Sparkler Filters in 1927, usually types the data onto the punch cards. The company sticks with the 402 because it's a known entity: Staffers know how to use it, and they have over 60 years of company accounting records formatted for the device.

http://www.pcworld.com/article/249951/if_it_aint_broke_dont_fix_it_ancient_computers_in_use_today.html

If It Ain't Broke, Don't Fix It: Ancient Computers in Use Today

Some businesses still use punch cards or button-operated mainframes for doing core work such as accounting

no joke

Do it yourself: http://www.pcworld.com/article/2027945/how-to-banish-metro-from-your-windows-8-pc-forever.html

That article is interesting, but merely proposes replacing all the native productivity applications with third-party versions and suitably reconfiguring the system and desktop. If one is going to go through that much trouble, why not simply switch to another platform like Linux, *BSD or OS X? (I know I will.)

Do it yourself: http://www.pcworld.com/article/2027945/how-to-banish-metro-from-your-windows-8-pc-forever.html

http://www.pcworld.com/article/113897/article.html

Link to a 2003 article about MS & watches
http://www.pcworld.com/article/111035/article.html

Want proof that Google, Verizon, etc. are in on the privacy nightmares of Android?

They keep releasing new versions that prevent people (who own their phones) from rooting them to

1) block ads ( from their Google Play store)

2) prevent you from using apps to control permissions (like LBE Privacy Guard that now reboots your phone in an endless loop)

With all the time and effort put into their OS, why have they not allowed users to control permissions on apps in any way, shape, or form? Why? Because they are marketing companies that also sell your data to other companies (including all the top mobile carriers). They make deals with these companies and propagate the problem - turning smart phones into a privacy nightmare. And it's not like the iPhone is any better.

Until people take a stand (and stop being a bunch of apathetic consumers), it's not going to change. People allow themselves to be taken advantage of. It's sad. Most don't even care. They'll happily give Facebook and Google all their information because "they don't have anything to hide" - which we all know is the lamest excuse for apathy possible and is easily dismissed as moronic. And it just keeps getting worse - and now our governments collect this data too.

And what is the effect? People are not getting jobs or losing their jobs due to their Facebook posts. Insurance companies are increasing rates on people who type certain terms into their search engines. And that's just barely getting started!

Wake up, folks!

How to enable hibernation on Windows 8

Just ask Siri http://www.pcworld.com/article/255508/siri_says_nokia_lumia_900_not_apple_iphone_is_the_best_smartphone_ever.html

seriously though as funny as iphone saying windows phone is better just because it had no dislikes and 5 5star ranks. so are you one of the five windows phone users?

The activation servers will still be there after 2014.

See:
http://www.pcworld.com/article/250774/will_i_be_able_to_activate_xp_after_2014_.html

The summary says: "It was the malware which affected as many Apple computers as the Conficker worm affected Windows PCs..." This is obviously inaccurately rewritten from what Krebs said, which is "...Flashback [was] roughly as common for Macs as the Conficker Worm was for Windows PCs."

Those are not equivalent statements. The summary is equating raw numbers, while TFA is equating percentages.

Sorry, I just read that sentence and thought "no way in hell is that true." As confirmation, Wikipedia says Flashback hit 600,000 Macs, while Conficker infected between 9 and 15 million PCs.

You are right the summary can be interpreted as meaning actual numbers and not percentages. I didn't read it that way but maybe because I knew from before that Mac Flashback is the biggest malware epidemic in modern times in terms of percentage of user base affected (most accounts actually have it "beating" Conficker on Windows).

Of course the Windows user base is much bigger. But percentage of user base affected is the right metric to use if you want to look at risk of infection and infectability on a platform. This is still not a comparison Windows vs Mac in general, just the worst case from each platform. Windows currently has a longer tail of other cases of course. But it should be a much bigger wake-up call to the "Mac can't be infected" people than it was. Later versions of Mac Flashback did completely silent drive-by infection just by visiting a web page, not needing user interaction or admin password, something many Mac people still today seem to think only happens on Windows.

I broke the first link, here you go.

Can't wait until Symantec, Kaspersky, etc. sell competing anti-spammer packages for phones.

My google voice number discards spam calls all the time. Including political calls.

http://www.pcworld.com/article/235637/google_voice_spam_filter_blocks_unwanted_calls.html

Best thing ever.

I believe he is referring to the efforts to divest the MySQL trademark and copyright from Oracle as a condition of the acquisition of Sun by Oracle by EU courts. Not very nefarious as it was under the assumption that Oracle would destroy MySQLs viability in the future.

The more interesting part of that whole issue was when you look at how the US pressured the EU court to approve the merger unconditionally.

RIAA tried to sue Limewire for $75 trillion in damages. It's almost the same as $100 trillion. I don't see how it's more reasonable. http://www.pcworld.com/article/223431/riaa_thinks_limewire_owes_75_trillion_in_damages.html

The UEF Interface seems to work just fine with Win OS and iOS. How is that a bios problem?

http://www.pcworld.com/article/2027819/not-just-linux-windows-can-brick-samsung-laptops-too.html No bad on Windows too.

Please don't quote other peoples comments as fact, I suggest you check out the reply to it.

As for the Mass Migration to Linux, that happened with Android, which is set to become the most installed OS this year.

patent infringement is an almost certainty.

I'm not a lawyer, but I think I am "anyone who follows codecs" and I'm not as sure of this as you are.

A lot of patents are very narrow. Many of the famous software patents, like One-Click, are disturbingly broad, but many of the patents related to video compression are narrow. The VP8 strategy, as I understand it, was to study the patents and make sure that everything in VP8 was just different enough that it doesn't infringe.

This means that VP8 is an inferior codec compared to H.264; some of the patented techniques really are better. However, it should be a "good enough" codec for most purposes.

Their "work around" was to give identical technologies different names and put their fingers into their ears screaming "LA LA LA LA LA" denying any patent infringement.

-1, flamebait.

When they realized this wasn't going to work, Google finally licensed the patents from MPEG LA.

I don't purport to have a secret pipeline into Google management and be able to tell what they were thinking. Do you have such a secret pipeline?

An equally workable summary is: Google had an opportunity to throw a few dollars at MPEG-LA and end the FUD forever, and they did so. Even if Google was convinced they could win on the merits in court, it was worth something to just make the problems vanish.

Note that Google specifically has not agreed that there was any patent infringement:

"This agreement is not an acknowledgment that the licensed techniques read on VP8. The purpose of this agreement is meant to provide further and stronger reassurance to implementors of VP8," said Google executive Serge Lachapelle in a post on a forum.

Source: http://www.pcworld.com/article/2030241/google-licenses-video-codec-from-mpeg-la-to-bolster-vp8.html

P.S. I am somewhat bemused by your tone. It seems you are eager to see VP8 get shackled by patents... why is that? Are you so certain that Google is a bad actor here that you just want to see Google get punished? Or do you hate freedom, or what exactly?

Please for one moment stipulate that VP8 contains technologies that are just enough different from the patents that they don't infringe... would you still have a problem with VP8 in that case?

MPEG-LA has claimed that it is impossible to make a video codec without infringing patents, because all the fundamental technologies are patented... is this, in your opinion, a good situation?

I'm personally cheering for Google in all this. They spent over $100 million to buy On2, just so they could set VP8 free. As far as I can tell, they did this for two reasons:

• So they could ensure that their costs would not skyrocket on YouTube. They weren't looking forward to choosing between paying possibly-ruinous patent royalties, or using lame video codecs and burning far too much bandwidth.
• To help keep us all a bit more free. Lots of the people who work at Google are geeks like us and value freedom as we do.

It has been possible to see 3D directly without glasses on special LCD screens since at least as early as 2004. It's called "Autosteroscopic 3D".

Sharp released a monitor back in 2004 that did this. Philips has also been huge in this field and have also released monitors commercially that allow this. In fact, Philips worked for a long time with Sony on how to update the Blu-Ray standard to allow for 3D data. Initially No-Glasses 3D Screens were sold to other companies to use for window advertising to catch peoples attention since they didn't require special glasses. It's actually fascinating how they accomplished this form of 3D, I didn't even believe it at first until I read the details on how it works.

Here are a couple of old links that prove this. Unfortunately some of the other links I had no longer resolve..

http://www.pcworld.com/article/117303/article.html

http://www.wired.com/gadgetlab/2008/10/philips-3d-hdtv/

Other than that, it's all good news. I think we'll all be glad to be free of the glasses.
\.

>> Former Apple CEO Steve Jobs was very public in his condemnation of Flash
>> as a tool for rich-content playback, denigrating it in an April 2010 letter posted
>> on Apple's Website as flawed with regard to battery life, security, reliability
>> and performance.

> That was just PR to keep the masses thinking Apple was on their side. The
> real reason they ddin't support Flash was because it was a code interpreter.
> i.e. It let you run external code. That meant if iOS supported Flash, you
> could use it to run apps on your iOS device without having gotten them
> via the App Store.

Why can't they both be true? Flash had mostly crappy performance on pretty much every mobile device out there. OK, so it doesn't drain battery or crash when it's not turned turned on -- so you're saying Flash is great... until you need to run it? I think even Adobe would concede that point, since they gave up on Flash on mobile over a year ago. They were on pretty much every mobile platform but iOS, and Apple haters love pointing out that Apple does not have dominant market share, so why give up? Oh, right: because it sucked.

Also remember that Flash was off the iPhone from day 1, and the app store came quite a bit later. Steve Jobs challenged Adobe for years: "Show me a mobile version of Flash that doesn't suck and I'll use it." Adobe never delivered.

... no one can be bothered to click 2c or 3c every time they stumble on a useful page. It's extra mental processing that distracts from what they're really doing, and the fact a page is useful might not be apparent until much later, long after they have left it. What happens if you make a payment and the advice on the page later turns out to be crap? Then there is the question of who the micropayments are going too: Some struggling blogger or hobbyist (worth supporting), a tenured academic (who is already taken care of financially) or a big company who needs my 2c much less than I do. You will also have issues like hosted content: are the payments going to the author, or the webhost.

Some sort of payment scheme is a good idea, but not like this. Often you'll find someone throw themselves into a freeware project and get disillusioned and abandon it when issues like paying the rent take precedence. I think the old 'Donate $5 with Paypal' is a good idea, if you can get rid of the Paypal, Visa, Mastercard or any other intermediary who might block payments. http://www.pcworld.com/article/242470/wikileaks_suspends_publication_because_of_financial_boycott.html

Humm, well let's see.

1) RIAA and the MPAA spend lots of money lobbying congress. The MPAA for example has a former US Senator as it's current leader, Chris Dodd. Because of lobbying and influence in terms of campaign contributions we have such wonderful legislation like the DMCA.
2) Patent Trolling in the US is a legitimate business, there are examples of this going back nearly 200 years. My favorite example of patent thickets and trolling involves the Sewing Machine wars which started in the 1850s. It's an interesting read.
3) Businesses in this country derive special protection, some business practices while questionable aren't illegal. To make something illegal there has to be some law prohibiting it. If RIAA and the MPAA can go after people with John Doe cases which amount largely to fishing expeditions then that's allowed under our right of due process. Some judges have disagreed with these tactics while some still are proceeding on appeal. reference: https://www.eff.org/wp/riaa-v-people-five-years-later
4) The tool that all of these folks use is the DMCA, which is a flawed piece of legislation. Not only is it flawed, it's also being pushed worldwide under the guises of free trade agreements like the "secret" ACTA treaty.
5) Congress really doesn't write anything, they take pieces of put together bullshit from lobbyists, change a couple of things and present it as their own bill. Others attach their bullshit, called a rider onto the Bill that may or may not have anything to do with it but makes it more "passable" because they included a mom + apple pie subsidy along with the big bad legislation. It gets out of dozens of committees and then is voted upon. It's the worst form of legislative process possible run by career politicians and staff people who have no fear of ever losing their jobs. It's no wonder that the approval rating for congress is in the low teens.

So, in simple terms. lobbying + campaign contributions + pre written legislation = DMCA
DMCA + Legal System that allow John Doe suits = (RIAA + MPAA + Big Money Law Firms) + Courts flooded with meaningless cases + defense lawyers + big fees = screwed John Doe who can't defend himself with a fine that exceeds the value of the pilfering many fold.

this is the worst possible outcome and if you download a CD from a file sharing site you could get slapped very heavily. In a word don't do it but in another word, defending yourself in a wrongful prosecution could become extremely costly. That's why John Doe cases need to be abolished, the DMCA needs to be appealed and where pirating has been found, only the value of the property illegally copied * number of copies should be the penalty. If you have kids at home, I suggest you let them know about downloading and its dangers, not just from malware and viruses but because of that knock on the door from a process server saying you're being sued.

I see your story and raise you a survey. And another, from closer to the same time period as your story.

And then some a little bit more up to date.