Slashdot Mirror

The bottom part of the display is not actually a screen and makes the circle around the display look like a flat tire at the bottom.

This shows it pretty well:
http://img.talkandroid.com/upl...

(still the best looking of the smartwatches, imo)

The main reason to upgrade is for development, as well as the desire to be able to install my own CA (without having the constant "network may be monitored by third party" warning*)

Anyhow, this prompted me to have another look, and finally typed in the correct set of keywords to bring me to an explanation to sideload the OTA update - obviously my google foo has been weak, as I always seemed to find instructions on flash the firmware rather than updating. Anyhow, once I had 5.0 installed, it immediately gave me an update for 5.0.1, so I can only assume that you can't go from 4.4.4 to 5.0.1 without 5.0, and they've remove 5.0 from being received OTA, so unless you're happy using adb, then you're SOL.

* And if anyone is remotely interested - you still get the retarded "A third party is capable of monitoring your network activity..." warning, because it won't allow me to trust my own CA that I installed on my own device.

You can already buy keyboard cases.

Why would there need to be? It is a matter of controversy whether passwords/phrases are protected from disclosure under the 5th amendment; but physical unlock fobs that can be seized definitely don't enjoy anything more than 4th amendment warrant requirements (and, on a bad day, probably not even that...) A physical fob makes the system markedly more accesssible to authorities, even ones acting within the law.

Right, if they got your phone, chances are that they took it off of you, and have your Skip-Chip as well.
(Its actually not really even a fob, its just something to slide over your pants pocket or belt. (Better Picture Here).
Comes in a set of three, because you WILL soon lose it.)

But with an APP, and a cheap NFC stickers you can make your own with any android phone that has an NFC chip.

Some states are Not allowing mobile device searches without a warrant warrants, but that is a trifling impediment. When they confiscate your phone, they will certainly find your "Skip" or they will simply take your phone into their lab an crack it via other means.

This thing is aimed at the casual user that keeps their phone on their desk, and needs to keep it locked to keep busybodies away from it. Its not meant as protection from the police.

It's pretty widely known now that MS is extorting money almost exclusively for its ancient FAT filesystem patents.

It might be pretty widely known, but it is also pretty widely wrong. Microsoft has a massive portfolio of patents which can be used against Android, a lot of which is just useless user interface minutia. If you look at the bottom of the press release it distinguishes between Android patents and exFAT patent agreements. You can see an example of the kind of the patents Microsoft use from the various times they have had to list them publicly.

Also, it is not the ancient FAT filesystem that is patented (although Microsoft would like that), but the long filename extension to the filesystem (which is still pretty old) as well as exFAT (which was introduced in 2006). Nikon would probably need to use exFAT to work with SDXC memory cards.

It's pretty widely known now that MS is extorting money almost exclusively for its ancient FAT filesystem patents.

It might be pretty widely known, but it is also pretty widely wrong. Microsoft has a massive portfolio of patents which can be used against Android, a lot of which is just useless user interface minutia. If you look at the bottom of the press release it distinguishes between Android patents and exFAT patent agreements. You can see an example of the kind of the patents Microsoft use from the various times they have had to list them publicly.

Also, it is not the ancient FAT filesystem that is patented (although Microsoft would like that), but the long filename extension to the filesystem (which is still pretty old) as well as exFAT (which was introduced in 2006). Nikon would probably need to use exFAT to work with SDXC memory cards.

Come on. Lets address the facts here: http://www.talkandroid.com/126109-samsung-in-hot-water-for-alleged-icon-theft-from-apples-ios/

Did you look on all those "ditto for the etc."? Only similarity between Apple's and Samsung's settings icon, for example, is "they both have gears in it". I mean I can't tell which one's which at all ! Ditto for IM icon, "they both have speech bubble in it".

This one is just "err, what?". And, AFAIK, Apple's icon designer still testified _all_ those alleged icons are copies.

So yeah, "They've got green phone receiver for accept call, clearly we deserve those $2.5e9, your honor"

Did you look on all those "ditto for the etc."? Only similarity between Apple's and Samsung's settings icon, for example, is "they both have gears in it". I mean I can't tell which one's which at all ! Ditto for IM icon, "they both have speech bubble in it".

This one is just "err, what?". And, AFAIK, Apple's icon designer still testified _all_ those alleged icons are copies.

So yeah, "They've got green phone receiver for accept call, clearly we deserve those $2.5e9, your honor"

Actually, Adobe has discontinued flash on Android.

http://www.talkandroid.com/119689-adobe-flash-for-android-to-be-discontinued-and-no-longer-available-with-jelly-bean/

Only according to Apple apologists, fanbois, and spin doctors.

Well given that i am none of those that disproves your theory...

Wrong, your words "suing over use of patents isn't 'patent trolling', so Apple isn't a patent troll" qualify you nicely under both "apologist" and "spin doctor". Never mind the blatant logical fallacy.

Here are some links.

Message to Apple astrofurfers: the world will stop calling your company a dispicable troll when it stops being one. Trolling Slashdot just makes you appear more dispicable.

People only use the term "patent troll" in this context because they don't know what it means.

And you think you do? Here is a well reasoned discussion of the term. Apple would certainly qualify, even without stooping to this.

Not so. Unlike the iPad design patent (and unlike the Galaxy Tab 10.1), both the Prime and Xoom have manufacturer logos on the front.

Galaxy Tab 10.1 does have a Samsung logo on the front, right beneath the screen.

Looks like that's a later, post-injunction model (the date on the picture is Sept 11, 2011). Here is the official release announcement from Feb 13, 2011, with no logo.

Here's a handy overview of how various smartphone owners see the other brands' users.

Microsoft doesn't have a monopoly there. That's the big difference. They're competing mainly with Apple/Google, and I think they can take them on.

You might be right, but Apple has proved to be as unscrupulous as Microsoft. Expect all the ridiculous patents (e.g looks like a tablet) that they have used against Android to be used against Ubuntu.

Do you think we can let this meme just drop off into the sludge pit of dumb rants? Apple is going after Samsung using design patents this is a slightly different concept that the 'standard' patent for an 'invention'. The Apple / Samsung case is about quite a bit more than a rounded rectangle. It IS a dumb thing, rather like Pepsi making a glass bottle that looked like the canonical (and patented) Coke Bottle but with sharper flutes or whatever but Apple DIDN'T patent rounded rectangles. Apple didn't patent tablets.

Channel your AppleHate(TM) somewhere else. /end rant

Oops, that should be the LG LU6200.

Also, the rack in the background looks messy, and not well thought-through.

Even worse, there's an entire PC World shop in the background, with all the aesthetics you'd expect from a shed full of overpriced printer cartridges and copies of Norton Antivirus at the grimmer end of Tottenham Ct Rd - there's a reason why most fashion boutiques do not open 'pop-up shops' in branches of Lidl or Walmart:

http://www.talkandroid.com/48645-pc-world-will-have-the-samsung-galaxy-tab-10-1-starting-august-3/

http://www.t3.com/news/worlds-first-google-chrome-zone-opens-in-london

Presumably the main job of the Google employees will be desperately trying to steer the customers away from the cheaper fully-functional netbooks 50 feet away in the main shop.

Incidentally, this is not the first 'Chrome Zone':

http://www.virginamerica.com/vx/chromezone

The average person has jumped enthusiastically into the world of "closeness" as you can see by iPhone and iPad sales.

Half of smart phone sales are Android phones. Sounds like the average person has jumped enthusiastically into a more open world than iOS, at least for their smart phones.

Apparently, all Gmail users are now able to use Google+. They'll need to activate that service, though.

Unless Taiwan is a huge market for apps, this is largely irrelevant. The OP thinks that 15 minutes is too short, yet Apple has generated over $2 billion in app store sales.

http://www.talkandroid.com/39922-mobile-app-store-sales-will-grow-77-7-this-year/

And Apple's official policy seems to be no returns in markets where consumer laws don't require it. Some people have said that Apple will accept returns--I can't verify this.

I'll bite. This is a trademark infringemnet case that leverages a "famous" mark that has been attained by teaching the consumer about Apple phone and tablet products look and feel against a junior mark that may not be famous. Even though the trademark isn't registered, that doesn't make it invalid (although it should technically limit it to the state in which Apple primarily engages in commerce, but there are ways of getting around that, legally) and may be enough to take a trademark dilution by blurring claim (where two different marks are so similar as to likely cause customer confusion but not similar enough to be infringement or a counterfeit).

The questions a jury will have to answer are:

1.) What is the degree of similarity between the mark or trade name and the famous mark?
2.) What is the degree of inherent or acquired distinctiveness of the famous mark?
3.) To what extent is the owner of the famous mark engaging in substantially exclusive use of the mark?
4.) What is the degree of recognition of the famous mark?
5.) Is the user of the mark or trade name intended to create an association with the famous mark?
6.) Is there any actual association between the mark or trade name and the famous mark?

The first question is a given. The Galaxy lines of phones were targeted directly at iPhone users. Samsung went as far as to give the phone to frustrated iPhone users. I own the Vibrant version, which looks identical to the UK version, and the OS was designed to be like a mixture of iOS and Android. You can even uninstall apps using a "minus" button very similarly to iOS's "X" to delete apps.

Number two is harder to prove since the design Apple is employing has been around for a while. Not that's it's not impossible to prove, just harder. This has already been mentioned by other /. post above and below this reply.

Number three is easy as Apple has been consistent with this design since its inception.

Number four is a tough one too. I'll give an example. Today, while registering my child for kindergarten school for the fall, I took my iPad to let the child play with to keep quite while filling out paperwork. About half of the 4th grade school population went passed us on their way to lunch, almost all talking about this device. Some children knew what the device was, some thought they knew what the device was, and some had no idea what it was (a few said it was a TV). While not directly calling 4th graders the equivalent of the adult American public that will sit in a jurors seat, their will likely be similarities in terms of identifying Apple's products. We tech enthusiast know the difference, but does your grandmother? What about your automobile mechanic? This is where jury selection becomes important. Samsung would want tech enthusiast who can clearly see the difference between the products, while Apple is going to want everyday people who will simply call the mark that came to market first as the "famous" mark and anything else is a knockoff.

Number five is a tough call too. At one angle, Samsung is engaging iOS users that their Android smartphone has a similar experience to iOS to warrant a switch, while the other end you could just as easily argue that Blackberry and Android users are Samsung's ultimate target, especially since Android options are so vast. Samsung could easily argue that in order to differentiate themselves from other Android devices, they used a design unique to the Android smartphone market.

Number six is where we will see Apple claim that Samsung used the association of being the manufacture of the iPhone 4's chips to their Galaxy lines having equivalent chips. This claim is a long shot, but still possible if Apple can get a layman's head around what the hell a chip is in the first place.

Since Apple is the one bringing suit, Samsung could easily attack the rounded corn

Have you had a look at The Android Scripting environment?

Really, the fragmentation argument? The phones have been insanely profitable to OEM, have you looked at samsung and other companies profits reported? HTC is laughing all the way to the bank..

OEM's are already competing, and have been competing. Openness has only upsides in the long term, and the only threat is a supposed patent threat which has not been proven in a single court case including the android vs oracle case.

Wow, this is what passes for insightful around here? You actually think its the diversity in Linux distributions that is impeding the growth of Linux? Here's a fucking clue from a long-time Linux user. The problem is the lack of money put into the user experience and consequently lack of polish. Want to see what happens when you polish Linux? Here you go. Now go console yourself that Android's not a "real" distro.

No, that's not the important point at all...at least not the most important point.

1. Android is "free" (unlike XP or Vista or Windows 7 or even Ubuntu on ARM)
2. ARM is considerably cheaper than Intel processors
3. Longer battery life from power consumption benefits (obviously a nice bonus but the big guns are going for a cheaper way to make netbooks)

I work for one of the companies that is making software for these new devices and Asus is going to bring out netbook based devices as well. Oh there is Android for x86 as well (again cost cutting measures) but whether that comes out for the public remains to be seen. I've installed and used Android on several netbooks and this is old news.

It will only be able to read Microsoft Office files, not edit them.

Unless you get third-party software, which is the whole selling point of this phone. How about this?

Android QuickOffice

And while its music player will be able to use MP3, Windows Media and AAC files, you'll need to wait for a third-party to provide some sort of add-on to sync your iTunes library to the phone.

Or you can write your own app to do that, which is the whole selling point of this phone.

If this phone/OS lives up to the hype, all these kinds of comments that we normally make about phones will become irrelevant. You don't complain that your new computer can't open a certain doctype; you just get the right software to do that. Hopefully this is the beginning of the end for the walled-garden era on cell phones.

Actually, at least from what I understand, we have...or at least I have, on my N810