Slashdot Mirror

It's not just some random blog, it's the company blog. But if you want to read it from some other source, here is TechCrunch.

Yes it is illegal in the US, and FTC should really look into Google's practices. Thankfully that is in the works, as privacy watchdog EPIC has complained to FTC and asked them to look into all of misbehaviors of Google.

This wasn't just misbehaving. What Google did was outright illegal. Not only did they falsely claim that they have business partnership with Mocality, they also claimed that Mocality is engaging in bait-and-switch practices to try and charge businesses up to $200 for their listing. Mocality said they have never charged businesses and never will.

Such blatant lies aren't just misbehavior, they are pure fraud. Google is trying to destroy their competitor in any way possible and in turn profit from lies. This is not a new practice to Google - they haven't been able to gain market share in social space because Facebook and Twitter got there first (of who did it well), and it's seriously injuring their currently. They are desperately trying to change that with Google+ but they know they're unable to do so because they weren't there at the right time. Google is also facing serious competition in Russia, China, South Korea and a few other countries where local search engines have the largest market share and Google is unable to compete as again, they weren't there at the right time.

Google has a long history of scraping other websites and then dropping them lower in search in favor of their own sites. They have been doing this for ages with hotels, restaurants and similar information. They're also trying to do it with flights information. All of these practices will net Google enemies and most likely antitrust issues. But Google doesn't care - they know how important timing is and they will abuse their position whenever they can to get there. It's a long term goal and Google has managed to get the position where no one can really touch them even if they misbehave. Seriously, they were also found out polluting search engines with paid links. After that they blame someone else and try to seem like a good guy. The most hilarious thing is that most geeks believe them just because they use open source (while ironically their products are all proprietary).

And note that this isn't just Google's Kenyan office misbehaving. They also received calls from Google's Indian call centers engaging in similar practices, so this is a practice accepted from Google's HQ.
On top of that, EPIC has said they will try to get antitrust investigation into Google's introduction of Google+ into search results. People are finally starting to wake up to see how bad Google is and how it abuses other companies.

How is this different

How is this different from when Google uses open source? There's a great article about the supposed openness by Google here

Some good points from it:

Where Google is losing you can count on them pushing the open label in order to build momentum & destroy the asymmetrical information advantages of existing market leaders. But where Google leads non-transparency is the norm.

- At the same time Google is trying to push social sites to offer transparent data, they decided to block some Google search referral data (unless you are paying for the clicks, then you get that data).

- When planning some of the features behind Google+ one of their employees wrote a book about the social circles concept with Google's blessings. Then, after he wrote the book, Google revoked permission to publish it!

- Android is open but internal Google emails revealed that carriers were getting wise to Google using compatibility as a club.

- The Panda update was needed to rid the web of garbage content. And yet Google is pre-paying Demand Media to post videos on YouTube. Since the Panda update downstream Google traffic to YouTube has more than doubled & YouTube is serving over a trillion streams per year!

- In spite of not having permission to do so, Google has been scanning books for nearly a decade now. Yet whenever Google goes to court they try to get the court documents sealed so that their statements couldn't be used against them.

If you only had to manage competing against other market competitors & staying inside Google's editorial guidelines then investment isn't that difficult, but if you have to stay within Google's guidelines in the short term yet try to build a business that is sustainable even after Google enters & destroys the market it is far more difficult.

A Self-serving Bias You Can Count On
When Google enters a market it might buy out a competitor, buy out a supplier, bundle, use predatory pricing, grant themselves superior search placement, adjust the relevancy algorithms and/or editorial guidelines, violate IP, scrape 3rd party content, work with sketchy advertisers & publishers to undermine competing business models, or any combination of the above.

They are rarely transparent with their interests when they enter a market. Almost everything is labeled as "a beta" and "just a test." They promise to "act appropriately" & you may not be aware of the steamroller until you are under it.

Google can bundle themselves into markets, but when others do the same it is a big no no:

A Google spokesman said "applications that are installed without clear disclosure, that are hard to remove and that modify users' experiences in unexpected ways are bad for users and the Web as a whole."

Google's founding research highlighted how bad ad-driven search engines were & then Google's core revenue engine of paid search was built on their violation of Overture's patent. They keep

4. There are virtually NO U.S. corporations that would not benefit from the enactment of SOPA, in some way. Virtually none would suffer any damages from enactment of SOPA. Even Internet-based corporations would benefit from having clear rules to follow. Ambiguity is not always profitable.

This is just ridiculous. First of all, what about the existing law is supposed to be so ambiguous? New laws almost always produce more ambiguity because there has to be a period of years before the courts have a chance to write decisions interpreting them where any number of the new provisions remain uncertain. This is especially true of SOPA because parts of it are so obviously subject to a constitutional challenge, which means companies won't know whether they have to follow them until it goes to court -- which is the worst kind of uncertainty; the kind that leads to expensive protracted litigation.

In addition to that, if SOPA will have no negative effects on them, why have they all come out against it? Why are they running full page ads in the New York Times?

I think you'll find that the US Trade Representative's positions are set not based on what US companies want, but rather based on what US companies that do the most lobbying want. The RIAA and MPAA have long been prolific in their employment of lobbyists; tech companies less so until very recently and even there they lack the sort of experience necessary to be as effective as would be expected from their size and economic importance. One can hope that they get it right before it's too late, but I prefer to hope that Americans come to their senses and make it a defense to murder that the victim was an entertainment/fossil fuel/defense/telecommunications industry lobbyist.

ASUS is also facing a lawsuit from Hasbro, who feels that the name "Transformer Prime" might just be infringing on one of its trademarks... http://techcrunch.com/2011/12/21/it-had-to-happen-eventually-hasbro-sues-asus-over-transformer-name/ Hasbro's asking for an injunction to halt sales until the case is resolved...

It seems strange that Android usage is so far below iOS usage though. Market shares are close (depending on who's numbers you believe), and I can't imagine that iOS owners use the Internet three times as much as Android owners.

All the evidence shows that Android users statistically don't use their phones as "smart phones" as often as iOS users.

66% of Google mobile searches come from iOS (according to Google).
http://www.gadgetvenue.com/google-mobile-searches-made-up-of-66-ios-09223009/

iOS users buy 4x as many apps.
http://techcrunch.com/2011/12/13/android-24-percent-ios/

SLASHDOT ARTICLE TODAY 1/1/2012 -> http://tech.slashdot.org/story/12/01/01/2137238/fake-antivirus-scams-spread-to-android

"Intel-owned McAfee has released its third quarter security report, which shows that malware targeted towards phones running on the Android operating system continues to be on the rise. According to the report, Android OS solidified its lead as the primary target for new mobile malware. The amount of malware targeted at Android devices jumped nearly 37 percent since last quarter, and puts 2011 on track to be the busiest in mobile and general malware history. Nearly all new mobile malware in Q3 was targeted at Android. This follows a 76 percent rise in Android malware in Q2 of 2011.

At the end of 2010, McAfee predicted that malware would reach the 70 million unique samples by the end of 2011 but has increased this prediction to 75 million unique malware samples reached by yearâ(TM)s end, which is the busiest in malware history , says McAfee.

As mentioned above, McAfee says that malware authors are capitalizing on the popularity of Android devices (and perhaps the security flaws as well) this quarter. The Android platform was the only mobile operating system for all new mobile malware in Q3. "

FROM -> http://techcrunch.com/2011/11/20/mcafee-nearly-all-new-mobile-malware-in-q3-targeted-at-android-phones-up-37-percent/

APK

P.S.=> That answer your question further? It's yet FURTHER PROOF that once a Linux were to gain popularity & the "bulk" of users on any platform, it too, will be victimized + exploited, bigtime... & just because it's Linux based doesn't make it ANY MORE "PROOF" TO THAT HAPPENING @ ALL... apk

The only reference to McAfee in TFS is this: "According to McAfee, almost all new mobile malware now targets Android." It also contains the only link o a FA that mentions McAfee.

Thus I deduce that in you opinion, the fact that McAfee made such an assertion is a classless act. That means that you think that McAfee is either lying or bending the truth to suit them best. Or, in other words, you have data than contradicts the last graph of TFA (i.e., the bar plot showing the distribution of malware among mobile platforms).

I will give you the benefit of the doubt, so please feel free to link to that data. Because it's not classy at all to claim that other people are lying unless you have reason to believe that's the case.

Quoting from TC article...

The statement is from our newly appointed CEO, who makes it clear, we don’t just ‘not support SOPA,’ Go Daddy OPPOSES SOPA.

“We have observed a spike in domain name transfers, which are running above normal rates and which we attribute to GoDaddy’s prior support for SOPA, which was reversed,” said Go Daddy CEO Warren Adelman. “Go Daddy opposes SOPA because the legislation has not fulfilled its basic requirement to build a consensus among stake-holders in the technology and Internet communities. Our company regrets the loss of any of our customers, who remain our highest priority, and we hope to repair those relationships and win back their business over time.”

source

Too late as far as I'm concerned... it's like cheating on your wife and then saying sorry... it does not wash it away...

rampant lying about others is one of the main things used as ammunition for any pro-censorship cause.

you're an ignorant hypocrite.

a blatant lie = the highest level of "informative"

slashdot = stagnated

What makes you think they reversed their stance?

Presumably, the news reports of their explicit statement that they now oppose SOPA (as well as the SOPA-alternative, PIPA, being advanced in the Senate.)

Don't worry - after what I posted, folks KNOW Linux's security's weak!

You do realise you are posting on slashdot right?

There's only 1 Linux system running for every 95 or so that run Windows...

But every windows machine connects to at least 20 Linux machines a day, which is where your argument falls flat on its face.

I posted 64++ already

It's true you've posted lots of links to security firms fixing Android bugs before they were seen exploited in the wild. I'm still waiting for one that was found in the wild before it was fixed. I showed you one for windows;
http://techcrunch.com/2011/12/13/security-flaw-in-windows-phone-7-5-kills-the-messaging-hub/
Surely you can manage at least one?

Which you tried to "fudge a quote"/misquote, here http://news.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=2586024&cid=38515938 by adding in YOUR comments to it, & the source you quoted never stated that

Nope, that was still you failing to RTFA

I did post a kernel level error security issue problem that's ANDROID has here -> http://linux.slashdot.org/story/10/11/02/2238205/Serious-Security-Bugs-Found-In-Android-Kernel [slashdot.org]

summary of
http://www.eweekeurope.co.uk/news/serious-security-bugs-found-in-android-kernel-11040
says:

Coverity said it will hold off releasing the details of the flaws until January to allow Google and handset vendors to issue fixes. The flaws could be patched via an over-the-air update, Coverity said.

->fixed before they were exploited.

Must try harder

Current information on that note I posted from this year (year end 2011) shows it's as vulnerable as any OS out there..

which "note"?
vulnerable to what?

Linux has never had anything like Blaster, Zeusbot or any of the other myriad of worms that infest Windows machines on a daily basis, despite Linux machines being much higher value targets and connected to the web 24/7.

Heck, I don't see how the internet could of happened if your average server was vulnerable to the infamous ping of death and the like, which is why IIS has never stayed on webservers longer than a year or two.

You find a few examples of specifically targeted machines, which required hundreds of hours of computation time to breach, and use them as examples of how windows is just as secure, despite nearly every windows machine requiring milliseconds of computation time to pwn, while its doing nothing more than presenting a few badly drawn documents.

Comparable my arse, the security of Linux may not be perfect, never said it was, but in terms of network safety Linux is a Challenger tank with Trophy system and Windows is a bus full of Palestinian suicide bombers.

And all this is beside the point, that firstly, you haven't found a single exploited Android vulnerability; the best you can do is audit reports and fixes of unexploited vulnerabilities, or trojans bundled with other software which are easy enough to find and uninstall as to not pose a serious risk. And secondly, you have offered up no alternative to Android. iOS doesn't count because its useless to anyone who wants/needs to install anything homebrew, and the dire lack of security on windows phone
http://techcrunch.com/2011/12/13/security-flaw-in-windows-phone-7-5-kills-the-messaging-hub/
  is the least of its woes.

Apart from making the whole web more interconnected between different websites, web browsers starting to look and behave more like iPad, complete with push notifications and geolocation, and HTML5 ads replacing majority of flash based ads, the article also predicts that browser makers will start to introduce App Stores within their browsers. In fact, Chrome already has one.Facebook will also get a lot more seamlessly integrated with your desktop, including file system access, photo syncing and widgets on your screen. There will also be an increasing amount of HTML5 based social games and online cloud based apps that replace every functionality you needed desktop apps for. All of these changes and features will start to blur the line between desktop and browser and will also bring your social graph more closely into contact with your traditional desktop experience.

Boycott will likely have very little affect, of course product recommendations and mocking victims of marketing will have a very significant affect. Just having a quick squizz around the mobile market and some interesting newer players are cropping up http://www.huaweidevice.com/worldwide/productHomeAction.do?method=index&directoryId=5000, http://www.lg.com/us/mobile-phones/view-all-phones/view-all-phones.jsp and now http://techcrunch.com/2011/12/09/panasonic-mobile-oled-europe/ back in the market.

What is really hotting up the mobile phone market is their ability to be very good remote controls for pretty much every thing in the house, which makes them entry level for the digital home, from unlocking doors, open the garage door, adjusting air conditioning, controlling the TV etc. etc.. Companies with a full range of electronic and electrical products are going to start pushing real hard.

Backblaze, an online storage company has posted the specs for their rack mounted box. http://techcrunch.com/2011/07/20/backblaze-presents-their-bare-bones-7348-135tb-storage-pod-for-backup-on-the-cheap/

Okay, I'll admit that the article is very high in troll content but, as someone who has spent plenty of money on Apple products over the last 6 years, let me add that I'm getting more and more disgusted with their behaviour and I won't buy anything else from them for the foreseeable future.

That said, let me add more reasons to strongly dislike (if not boycott, let alone hate) Apple :

All apps on the Mac App Store will be required to run in the so-called App Sandbox

Apple sues but loses design lawsuit against Spanish tablet maker (producing a tablet nothing like the iPad)

Apple is using patents to undermine the development of Web standards and block their finalization

Apple has given valuable patents to a patent troll (which is using them to sue top technology companies)

And, last but not least, I don't know whether to laugh or cringe about this one:

Apple threatens 20-seat restaurant that sells only drinks, sandwiches and desserts because it's called AppleADay

RT.

What I said is exactly the same as others have said:

CEO Ben Huh has announced that they will be moving their array of over 1,000 domains away from GoDaddy unless the registrar recants their support of the act.

http://techcrunch.com/2011/12/22/cheezburgers-ben-huh-if-godaddy-supports-sopa-were-taking-our-1000-domains-elsewhere/

If they stop supporting SOPA, then I (and Ben Huh and others) will leave our domains there. If they don't, then I will move my domains. Simple as that.

I make money from all of my domains.. what do you think I spend 100 hours/week on?

What I said is exactly the same as others have said:

CEO Ben Huh has announced that they will be moving their array of over 1,000 domains away from GoDaddy unless the registrar recants their support of the act.

http://techcrunch.com/2011/12/22/cheezburgers-ben-huh-if-godaddy-supports-sopa-were-taking-our-1000-domains-elsewhere/

If they stop supporting SOPA, then I (and Ben Huh and others) will leave our domains there. If they don't, then I will move my domains. Simple as that.

http://techcrunch.com/2011/12/23/godaddy-ceo-there-has-to-be-consensus-about-the-leadership-of-the-internet-community/

Especially this piece:

Adelman couldn’t commit to changing its position on the record in Congress when asked about that, but said “I’ll take that back to our legislative guys, but I agree that’s an important step.” But when pressed, he said “We’re going to step back and let others take leadership roles.” He felt that the public statement removing their support would be sufficient for now, though further steps would be considered.

It's clear that they just want to hide in the shadow instead of taking "leadership" role in supporting SOPA now. Surprise!

Cheezburger has 1000 domains. http://techcrunch.com/2011/12/22/cheezburgers-ben-huh-if-godaddy-supports-sopa-were-taking-our-1000-domains-elsewhere/

I just went straight to Apple. http://images.apple.com/pr/pdf/q411datasum.pdf

For App Store revenue I would expect that revenue would be their intake rather than including the portion that goes to developers. If this is an incorrect understanding of their data, then my analysis would be off, but such information does not appear to be easily available. The problem I've seen with looking for numbers outside of apple, is that in many cases people will group multiple lines of business related to hardware sales (sometimes included iPhone software for example in iPhone revenue). Also, again, what you are linking are pure revenue numbers, not profit numbers.

After digging some more however, it may appear that they are listing revenue of total sales on the store rather than just the portion that is due them, though it is hard to tell for sure. From http://gigaom.com/2010/01/12/the-apple-app-store-economy/ the 2010 numbers were about 3 billion a year or 750 million in revenue per quarter from just iPhone apps. From http://techcrunch.com/2009/01/06/itunes-sells-6-billion-songs-and-other-fun-stats-from-the-philnote/ it appears that they sell about two billion songs a year or 500 million a quarter. Throw in some videos and it does start looking like perhaps you are correct that the revenue reporting is done as a store rather than a service provider. (Apple takes the money and then pays the vendor instead of taking payment on behalf of the vendor and taking their cut out of it as revenue, which is what I was expecting for a setup like that.) As a comparison, Visa doesn't list revenue equal to all the transactions that occur on their network, but rather the fee they collect for processing the transactions, which was the reason I believed this to be the case without digging further in to it.

That all said, while it significantly weakens one argument towards my initial claim that they would never give up the lock in, they still do not have a corporate history of breaking from lock in. Also, 10% revenue which would still map fairly close to 10% profit (looking just at the iPod and iPad and associated media side of things since Desktop sales wouldn't really be impacted as they aren't currently locked to iTunes) is still not something to scoff at giving up. It makes it more possible that a business motivator would come up to unlock, but still seems like it would be a significant cost. Honestly, their better bet at that point might be to open up iTunes music and video to Android which I think would be a more likely move for Apple if it started going that way.

...The thing is, the Roadster cost $109k, so this is already a huge price drop compared to that. That's been Tesla's strategy all along.

What!!?? Strategy?? Surely you jest. The price drop is because we (taxpayers) gave them a $465 million "loan":
    http://techcrunch.com/2009/06/23/the-government-comes-through-for-tesla-with-a-465-million-loan-for-its-electric-sedan/
We will be damn lucky if they stay afloat long enough to pay some of it back. As much as we all want a "green revolution", this one is gonna be Solyndra all over again:
    http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052970204422404576596601891250510.html

Mozilla really screwed up both their long-time users and new users. There really haven't been good improvements in a long time. Most of their time has went to making it more Chrome like, and playing with version numbers.

I've seen many old Firefox users change their engine, on top of those that have been using IE. They aren't using Firefox, they're using Chrome or RockMelt now. Especially RockMelt is an interesting browser - it completely abandons geeky stuff like NoScript or Adblock but instead caters to casual, normal people and how they use the internet. RockMelt has online Facebook friends directly on the site, along with recent news and updates from all social networks. It lets you easily add social bookmarks to sites like Reddit and Digg, along with sharing to Facebook and Twitter. Most people have been saying how wonderful it is compared to Firefox. It's an browser that actual people want.

ARM won't work because people demand to use their existing proprietary applications, whose publishers decline to recompile them for Linux on ARM. As for Atom, there are rumors on the Internets that Intel prices Atom CPUs based on the size of the device's screen.

Here's one article that shows most expensive categories http://techcrunch.com/2011/07/18/most-expensive-google-adwords-keywords/

I also remember that some years ago there was lawyers paying really high clicks for some really specific cases. I think it was targeting some people who got major health problems as result of some company. They paid for those clicks really much because the amount of money they got from settlements etc was so good.

For the Highest Fliers, New Scrutiny: Messrs. Page and Brin, the Google co-founders, operate at least four aircraft registered under various companies that aren't connected to Google, FAA and other aviation records show: a Boeing 767, a Boeing 757, plus two Gulfstream G-V's. During the four-year period, the jets' most frequent destinations outside of their northern California base were Los Angeles, New York and Washington. For last year's eclipse-viewing journey, the 767 and a Gulfstream V each made two round-trips from the U.S. mainland to Tahiti. Those flights used an estimated 52,000 gallons of aviation fuel and in total cost upwards of $430,000, according to calculations by Conklin & de Decker Aviation Information. The research firm is hired by some public companies to provide aircraft-cost estimates for regulatory filings. A Google spokeswoman confirmed that the Tahiti journey was for the eclipse, saying the pair brought a group with them on the planes. Messrs. Page and Brin have mitigated the greenhouse gas emissions from their aircraft usage by purchasing an even greater amount of carbon offsets, she said. They also frequently lend their planes for philanthropic and scientific missions.

This is some PR marksmanship, if you can convince people that the impact of maintaining and using a fleet of 7 (8 with the fighter) private jets for 3 company execs (including a 767 jumbojet for crying! this is oil baron style gluttony) is 'mitigated' by paying a little extra carbon offset.

This should be illegal. Not just the transfer of patents solely for the purpose of litigating with them, but patents in this field - and maybe patents in general.

This post rambles a bit, but please bare with me as I explain that Intellectual Property is a large component of the destruction of modern society and civilization.

Originally, copyright was a big deal. I understand that. A couple hundred years ago, there weren't a large number of printing presses "in the field". Since then, technology has progressed to the point that not only can we print documents immediately upon desiring a hard copy of them, but there are entire publishing houses based on the idea of "print on demand" for books, periodicals, and other similar products. Humans have even developed a three-dimensional printer, allowing the production of any single plastic object that we can make a CAD document of. "Copying things" was not a personal concern when these laws were instituted, it was to prevent CompanyA from stealing CompanyB's work and printing a couple hundred copies, so that CompanyA would make money by stealing CompanyB's market. At that point in the technology curve, big companies were the only means of production for these products.

Let's think about the here and now, where nearly every home has a printing device. Where paper and ink are available to anyone who has access to a vehicle, and even to those who do not, if they live close enough to a Walmart, a Kmart, a drug store, a grocery store, or in some places even a convenience store. At this point in the technology curve, it becomes obvious that "protecting intellectual property" really means "creating an alternate revenue stream in the guise of monopoly".

It has been said over and over, but I'm going to repeat it one more time to be sure my point is clear:
Patenting software is like patenting a recipe, or an algebraic equation. You cannot patent the number 7, you shouldn't be able to patent "a method for obtaining the number 7 as output from a specific sequence of calculations". Recipes are protected under copyright law, because there is an artistic expression in listing ingredients and instructions for mixing them together... Wait, what?

So-called "design patents" are even worse - they attempt to make it illegal to do what any layman could do with no more tools than their eyes. "Rounded rectangle" should not be patentable, any more than "cube" should be patentable. Apple suing Samsung for making a smartphone that happens to be white was one of the most retarded, idiotic, moronic things that I have ever read, until I came across this article, describing how Apple sued a teenager for making "conversion kits" to turn iPhones white before Apple was ready to release the white iPhones... The appropriate thing to do in that case would have been to tell Apple they should have gotten their product to market sooner, and stopped using an artificial shortage to inflate sales figures. That is to say, Apple built the hype for a specific product, but hadn't made it to market with that product yet. Someone else made a product that allowed a cosmetic change to Apple's existing product in response to the apparent demand, and they sued the crap out of him.

I am sick and tired of seeing people arguing about implementations of ideas. I am sick and tired of seeing people trying to claim a monopolistic chokehold on the technology industry, simply because they were able to get to the patent office first. I am sick and tired of being afraid to publish my own software, due to the fact that someone out there will claim I'm infringing on some obscure, obvious "to one skilled in the arts" method of doing something that they have a patent on... like clicking a button, or scrolling a text field.

These intellectual property laws are stifling innovation, doing the exact opposite of the original purpose of the system; patents were desig

http://techcrunch.com/2011/01/05/google-android-sms-bug/

This is just one bug where Google patched it for the Nexus but had to wait on the various manufacturers/carriers to send out a patch? How long do you think it took carriers to send out an update? How many manufacturers didn't bother about updating their phones?

The 3GS was introduced in June 2009 and is still getting updates. How many Android phones from even last year are still being kept up to date by the manufacturer?

Here's a JooJoo (then TechCrunch Tablet) prototype released April 9th, 2009. Take a look, and keep in mind the design patents Apple claims exclusive right to

Things like a flat surface? Where is it? Do you guys still not understand how design patents work?

Here's a JooJoo (then TechCrunch Tablet) prototype released April 9th, 2009. Take a look, and keep in mind the design patents Apple claims exclusive right to -- I would assert in public that Apple most likely copied the JooJoo, not the other way around.

Do a search on Google for "Phone Icons", the majority of phone icons are either blue or green. That means there's a close to 50% chance that Samsung's icon would be the same color as Apples. Samsung's device isn't even the same dimensions as a iPhone, you may have seen images that seem to indicate otherwise, but they were doctored to look that way by Apple. In my book if you think it's a good idea to use Photoshop to manufacture your primary evidence, you've already lost the case.

You hit the nail on the head. Failbook is in bed with M$. So much so that Failbook was nearly aquired. M$ even addmitted that Failbook is similar to M$ back in the day. Even though it didn't go through M$ still invested $240 billin to Failbook. Is it any wonder M$ addicts trust Failbook so much they will not only use it but also stand by Failbook's side similar to a battered wife does with her abusive husband.

Samsung is very welcome to innovate by creating a design that is not a copy of Apple's.

Apple is very welcome to innovate by creating a design that is not a copy of TechCrunch's

If you think 350k/day is high imagine what you will think of the current number... 550k/day!

http://techcrunch.com/2011/07/14/android-now-seeing-550000-activations-per-day/

Everyone is using their huge market share to promote their products left and right. It takes a long time for laws and legal authorities to catch up to developments in technology, and by that time these monopolies are so big that they can painlessly absorb any fines and have bottomless cash reserves for a legal fight.

Google is doing that, but it is important to note that Google is no different in this respect from any other major company. It offers the only way anyone will ever compete with Facebook, and the fact it, Google is one of barely a handful of firms that have any hope of ever challenging facebook. Smaller social networks are never going to challenge Facebook, with or without Google, the best they can do is find a niche like LinkedIn did.

Facebook's privacy issues are well documented. Facebook have also been happily abusing their monopoly in the social space. They are trying to take over the world of instant messaging and email - I already have people who send me facebook messages as a substitute for email - it's not just Google. If I install the facebook app in my phone it will automatically copy all the phone numbers to my facebook account. This is a classic example: http://techcrunch.com/2011/02/22/google-android-facebook-contacts/

Facebook want to control all your social contact over the internet, and they are using their monopoly to try and extend the control to IM, email and other things. Another example is how if I share a link to a news story on facebook, the link automatically gets converted to one that forces you to add the facebook app of that media outlet before being able to open a link. And the default option for the app is that every news story you read is posted to your profile - more lovely data for facebook to build a comprehensive profile about you. In effect, facebook is redirecting links I post, if that's not worrying I don't know what is.

Apple have a lovely history of monopoly abuse too, again I don't know if this puts them on troubled legal grounds but it definitely should. A classic example is their refusal to provide an iTunes app for Android, when they quite willingly make one for Windows. Since iTunes is the sole way of acquiring a vast majority of digital content, Apple are using that monopoly to distinguish their mobile devices and operating system.

Apple are also trying to use design patents, not utility patents to force other tablet makers to make tablets that are functionally or ergonomically inferior: http://www.slashgear.com/apple-made-to-specify-design-alternatives-for-samsung-02199756/

"Apple suggests Samsung to design devices that do not have a front surface that is black, do not have a shape that is rectangular or do not have rounded corners, and that the front surface should have substantial adornment as opposed to a sleek clean surface" -- None of these are brilliant distinguishing design innovations, they are obvious design decisions any tablet maker would make. These aren't technology patents, Apple is in effect asking Samsung and others to make funcitonally compromised designs just to make them look different.

In an ideal world, compatibility would be enforced. If Apple are running a digital downloads store that has market dominance they would be obliged to make it available on different platforms. Google+ and Facebook would be obliged to let people add Facebook contacts on google and google contacts on facebook, so the social networks are forced to distinguish themselves based on features, not on which one is already too entrenched to compete with.

Microsoft's continuing monopoly abuse is incredible, after the anti trust rulings. I am still amazed that it is impossible to buy a laptop without windows being loaded on it and without paying a few dollars to Microsoft. Also, retail versions of Windows cost far more, so in effect if you think

Groupon is dumping VC money directly to the founder's pockets and screwing the businesses that participate. That combination will result in failure.

This "multiplatform device management" BS is just another one of your mistakes. You are using publicly available API's for managing iOS and Android devices.

There are other companies which do this as well.

How are you differentiating yourself? You are not.

What are you doing instead? You are confusing the market by branding it along with Blackberry Enterprise Server and you're also diluting your brand value.

I am not the ( or one of the ) CEO's of RIM but I can summarize what you should do:

- Focus on getting BBX based phones out ( and change the name to something else )

- Focus on getting the Playbook OS 2.0 update out with native email and calendaring

- Don't focus on other side things that dilute your brand value further. You already tried with Blackberry connect for Nokia before and how did that help? It did not. It just helped Nokia's E series get noticed as a serious business phone

- With this MDM, you wont be able to make even the ( bungled-up) difference that you made with Blackberry Connect for Nokia.

Last and not the least for God's sake don't think that Blackberry Mobile Fusion will help sell more PlayBooks just because it works with iOS and Android.

Make sure you get PlayBooks to talk to BES/BIS.

Keep It Simple, Stupid.

Just your average 27 year old geek without an MBA degree.

Meanwhile at Valve...

http://techcrunch.com/2010/07/05/how-steam-stopped-me-from-pirating-games-and-enjoy-the-sweet-drm-kool-aid/

It also doesn't leak data to Google like Android does, it doesn't have the malware problem that Android has

The only reason Windows phone 7 doesn't have the malware issues is that there are only like 2 people in north america that use them. If Windows phone 7 ever gets even 50% of the north american users of either iOS or android,it will have such a malware problem that I'd bet you'd be better off putting your social security number on TV than carrying one.

And I'm serious. While not as versatile towards own-hosted solutions as the old Windows Mobiles, it's still light years beyond Android and iOS. You can easily use your own Exchange server to sync and share your contacts, calendar and other stuff, which gives you true privacy. It also doesn't leak data to Google like Android does, it doesn't have the malware problem that Android has and the phone itself is a full smart phone with an great UI (Windows Mobile somewhat started lacking in this in recent years).

The reason for this is simple too. Microsoft may be many things, but they have always respected privacy. In fact, they have never really cared about personal data the way Google does. All they want to do is sell you the software and be done with it. Google, on the other hand, gives you the software for free but then keeps tracking your every move. I rather choose the first one, but i guess it's everyone's own choice. I do value my privacy though.

The only time when you need contact with other servers is to download and install apps, which imo is a stupid decision fueled by iOS and Android doing it that way. Old Windows Mobiles always allowed you to install apps the way you wanted, the desktop Windows way. However, I guess that provides some extra security.

Nokia has also just unveiled Nokia Lumia 800, which looks really slick and has been praised by the people who have tested it. Personally I'm going to wait until it's released and read a few more user reviews, but I think that's going to be my next smart phone.

There is also Nokia's MeeGo-based linux phone, N9 which is really slick and has all the features you need, too. But support for that might be worse in the future, as Nokia is mostly going to do WP7 phones now.

The "plastic white egg" is a good first-order approximation of Apple's design for their new campus, which they'll be building at the old HP facility off Tantau Ave. in Cupertino. Well, fried egg, anyway, since there's a hole in the center...

It's taken a while for BBM, Whatsapp, iMessage, et al to present a threat to SMS. While it's not going away anytime soon, we will begin to see a decline in SMS volumes in developed markets as the majority of people switch from feature phones to smart phones, in which they will have the option to actually use SMS alternatives as part of their data plan.

It's true that unlimited texting is prolonging the survival of SMS, but even then the overall volume of SMS sent in many developed countries is still decreasing because of these alternatives. It's also true that in the US for example, they have begun to place data caps, but don't forget that sending 1 MB worth of characters is still much more than sending only 1 SMS, at not even a fraction of the cost. I remember there was a study about how sending 1 mb of data to the Hubble Space Telescope cost less than sending it via SMS.

The complete death of SMS will happen when the majority of people get their hands on smart phones, and with developing markets still playing catch up, it's going to be a good many more years. SMS will decline into irrelevance like our land lines for many of us - it'll still be around but barely used.

I'd like to share a couple of articles related to this. This one has statistics showing the decline of SMS: http://www.bulsuk.com/2011/07/obituary-coming-death-of-sms.html

I think Tech Crunch feels the same way: http://techcrunch.com/2011/10/12/ding-dong-the-witch-is-dead/

1-Imagine if people could get unlimited data plan not for their Smartphone but at home.
2-Imagine if many (not most or all) people offered limited but free WIFI to Cell phones. (Don't ask how, just follow me on this)
3-Few people would need a data plan at all on their SmartPhones
4-Cell phone providers would have to lower their rates or die.

However, with great corruption comes draconian laws.
Therefore, cell phone providers have little to fear.

Part of what you're asking for is already taking shape - a cell service provider (well ok, reseller - I think they use Sprint's network) leveraging Wifi to sell an unlimited everything cell plan for $19/month:

http://techcrunch.com/2011/11/07/republic-wireless-officially-unveils-19month-service-unlimited-everything-no-contracts/

The catch is, you have to do most of your calls/text/data while on Wifi and (for now) it only works on their specific phones. They'll drop you if you start using significant cellular network resources.

But it sounds like a great plan for me, where most of the time I use my phone I'm either at home or work where I've got good Wifi coverage, but when I'm on the road and need to pull up a Google map or make a call, I still have the cellular network to fall back on.

"Every thing they do is so closed and exclusive. They never extended a hand to the open source community."

I'm sorry, you're terribly confused. Or a troll:

http://www.opensource.apple.com/

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Darwin_(operating_system)

http://www.webkit.org/

http://techcrunch.com/2010/11/12/apple-joins-openjdk-to-open-source-mac-os-x-java-technology/

http://alac.macosforge.org/

Etc.

A.

It is widely rumored that siri's speech-to-text is performed by Nuance's Dragon Dictation, which has been available (for free) on iOS for a few years now. That, plus Dragon's presence on the market for over a decade, would have provided a substantial database of colloquial english (and other languages) to get started. Plus, Siri was available as its own standalone app for a while on iOS before Apple bought the company. The technology behind Siri has been in development for quite a few years and had ,DARPA backing. Siri didn't just spring out of nothing in Cupertino. I think they've got enough of a database of colloquial english to get going with.

No, I think limiting it to the iPhone 4S is mostly to drive sales to the new device. Limiting the rollout to avoid crushing their servers, as you suggest, is another very plausible reason. I don't buy the argument that Siri requires the extra processing power of the 4S.

... InB4 : no, not all iPhone user are that stupid. (anticipating cunning remarks from self-declared "superior" android users)

It's true, though: No android user would call the cops while drunk and belligerent. We all leave such mundane tasks to unique hardware and software that we are free to develop in the open android ecosystem, unlike the pitiful iSerfs.

When I want to get my ass kicked by the cops, my BeagleBoard-based(runs linux, of course) automated kegerator sends me a text message when it hits a threshold deltaBeer/deltaT value. The IOIO attached to my phone uses its breathalyser sensor and firmware to verify my state of inebriation and then sends a GET to the local server that my custom libpigs interface provides. Libpigs dials 911 and uses the Google text-to-speech mechanism to read Markov-chain generated pseudorandom rants based on mashups of obscure punk that you wouldn't have heard of and the lesser known speeches of 19th century radicals until they show up.

Once the accelerometers verify that I'm getting beaten down, my phone automatically uploads to youtube and starts Googling for personal injury lawyers!

Sharp Aquos 007SH is a 16MP android with a rotating 3D flip screen... and it's waterproof. It's been out since June.

http://techcrunch.com/2011/02/21/861-5-percent-growth-android-puny/

But Android users don't buy apps....
http://techcrunch.com/2011/02/21/861-5-percent-growth-android-puny/

They don't surf the web
http://news.cnet.com/8301-30685_3-20128243-264/android-browser-bumps-opera-for-no-2-spot/?tag=mncol;txt

And even 2/3rd's of Google's mobile traffic comes from iOS devices....

http://www.mobilemarketingwatch.com/two-thirds-of-googles-mobile-search-traffic-comes-from-ios-devices-18718/