Okay: The app and the patent application have nothing in common. The app is for finding local points of interest. As I read it, the patent is for a method of a phone knowing when you get on an airplane (and then offering services specific to the flight) and get off the airplane (so it can tell your contacts you've landed). The image on the patent is definitely a gaffe, but it's not an example of Apple stealing someone's idea.
And to be fair, I've seen plenty of weird stuff in patent diagrams.
I'm far far more protective of the contents of/home than I am/usr. Do whatever you want to/usr, it takes less than 10 minutes to reinstall but the contents of/home can represent significantly more work.
Or you could perform automated incremental backups and not worry so much about/home either. I'm a big fan of Time Machine on my Macs but you can do much the same thing with RSync.
I think he means that the pages he visits most should appear larger than other thumbnails, like in a tag cloud. Safari (and other browsers) currently just show a grid of equally sized, equally spaced thumbnails.
I had no idea Android phones' ratings were so low; I'd like to see some other studies to make sure this isn't a fluke. That said, anyone who is spinning these numbers as good for Google is self-delusional. If you're claiming a 20% "Would buy again" rating as proof that Android is superior to iPhone, you've crossed into Baghdad Bob territory.
I think Google has done a great job with Android as an operating system, but they really need to start thinking about the Android "experience". As much as people obsess over Apple's banning of apps, it's much easier to write for the iPhone as it has a standard screen size and aspect ratio and the feature set is always a superset of the previous phones. Writing for Android means you have no clue what the screen size, aspect ratio, or resolution will be. You don't know how fast a CPU or how much memory you'll have, or what hardware buttons you'll have, or if you'll have a keyboard and what its layout will be. Android developers either have to only target a subset of phones or try a clunky generalist approach.
Since Android is open-source and has rather permissive licensing, Google doesn't have a huge amount of control over who uses their code. But they could still do like Mozilla and limit use of the Android trademark and logo. Google could insist that "Android"-branded phones meet specific requirements, like, say, their suggested hardware for Android 3: 3.5" screen, 1GHz CPU, 512MB RAM. Giving developers a specific target for would do wonders for the Android app market and for the user experience.
What, pray tell, makes glossy screens "less accurate"? A matte panel is a LCD with a piece of pitted glass in front. A glossy panel is a LCD with a piece of unpitted glass in front. The pitted glass reduces contrast since it tends to scatter light. Other than that, it's all in the calibration.
I suspect this myth came about because glossy screens are often used on consumer PCs which are coincidentally tuned for vivid, unrealistic color. Heck, I just ran across a HP whose graphics drivers came preset for "digital vibrance" that made the screen look like a Leroy Neiman painting.
But claiming that "glossy is less accurate than matte" is about like saying that a frosted glass filter on your camera gives you more accurate pictures.
Well, the FAA is notoriously biased against missiles. And you don't want to know how much flak you get just for building a small AA battery in your backyard.
They didn't hold up the phones in the conference center; they showed a video of it on screen. The video was almost certainly taken somewhere where signal strength was at the very low end of maximum bars; the same sort of location people are reporting problems with the iPhone 4. The conference center is at Apple's HQ and probably has fantastic coverage, so it's not surprising somebody in the room couldn't get their phone to drop below full bars.
Why? Covering most phones causes them to lose a certain amount of signal strength. In many phones the five- or four-bar zone covers a huge range. If you're at the strong end of the range, you could lose 20 decibels and not see the bars drop at all. If you're at the weak end of the range, it could drop down to one bar.
Slashdot Mirror
Yeah, I had to use this.
Dammit, make me feel old again and I'll... I'll... Wave my cane at you!
Menacingly!
Twenty in a city of twenty million, and half as many as five years ago. How is this "still popular"?
So, kind of like Netscape/IE or practically every other app or feature that's ever been added to an OS.
Okay: The app and the patent application have nothing in common. The app is for finding local points of interest. As I read it, the patent is for a method of a phone knowing when you get on an airplane (and then offering services specific to the flight) and get off the airplane (so it can tell your contacts you've landed). The image on the patent is definitely a gaffe, but it's not an example of Apple stealing someone's idea.
And to be fair, I've seen plenty of weird stuff in patent diagrams.
BlackBerry? Symbian?
I'd heard that Visual C# killed Rakudo Star.
Uh, whoosh?
I'm far far more protective of the contents of /home than I am /usr. Do whatever you want to /usr, it takes less than 10 minutes to reinstall but the contents of /home can represent significantly more work.
Or you could perform automated incremental backups and not worry so much about /home either. I'm a big fan of Time Machine on my Macs but you can do much the same thing with RSync.
I think he means that the pages he visits most should appear larger than other thumbnails, like in a tag cloud. Safari (and other browsers) currently just show a grid of equally sized, equally spaced thumbnails.
The moral, of course, is if you ever set out to create a temporal paradox—bring a camera.
I had no idea Android phones' ratings were so low; I'd like to see some other studies to make sure this isn't a fluke. That said, anyone who is spinning these numbers as good for Google is self-delusional. If you're claiming a 20% "Would buy again" rating as proof that Android is superior to iPhone, you've crossed into Baghdad Bob territory.
I think Google has done a great job with Android as an operating system, but they really need to start thinking about the Android "experience". As much as people obsess over Apple's banning of apps, it's much easier to write for the iPhone as it has a standard screen size and aspect ratio and the feature set is always a superset of the previous phones. Writing for Android means you have no clue what the screen size, aspect ratio, or resolution will be. You don't know how fast a CPU or how much memory you'll have, or what hardware buttons you'll have, or if you'll have a keyboard and what its layout will be. Android developers either have to only target a subset of phones or try a clunky generalist approach.
Since Android is open-source and has rather permissive licensing, Google doesn't have a huge amount of control over who uses their code. But they could still do like Mozilla and limit use of the Android trademark and logo. Google could insist that "Android"-branded phones meet specific requirements, like, say, their suggested hardware for Android 3: 3.5" screen, 1GHz CPU, 512MB RAM. Giving developers a specific target for would do wonders for the Android app market and for the user experience.
In fact, researchers have dubbed it the Man's Blu-Ray.
Ring ring ring ring ring ring ring.
Perhaps he was viewing our historical documentaries.
What, pray tell, makes glossy screens "less accurate"? A matte panel is a LCD with a piece of pitted glass in front. A glossy panel is a LCD with a piece of unpitted glass in front. The pitted glass reduces contrast since it tends to scatter light. Other than that, it's all in the calibration.
I suspect this myth came about because glossy screens are often used on consumer PCs which are coincidentally tuned for vivid, unrealistic color. Heck, I just ran across a HP whose graphics drivers came preset for "digital vibrance" that made the screen look like a Leroy Neiman painting.
But claiming that "glossy is less accurate than matte" is about like saying that a frosted glass filter on your camera gives you more accurate pictures.
There's nothing a double hit, if you know what I mean.
You mean you accidentally the decaf?
It reminds me more of the fast-acting transdermal patches that Babylon 5 was fond of.
Oh, and: SPOILER ALERT. Sorta.
He wanted to get in on the lucrative go-juice market, obviously.
Well, the FAA is notoriously biased against missiles. And you don't want to know how much flak you get just for building a small AA battery in your backyard.
No, they fixed that.
Everyone was thinking Google would take over the Web, and here they skip right past it and acquire the Metaweb.
Well played, Google, well played.
No, it's odd that the x-ray burst wasn't accompanied by other frequencies. But not that odd.
They didn't hold up the phones in the conference center; they showed a video of it on screen. The video was almost certainly taken somewhere where signal strength was at the very low end of maximum bars; the same sort of location people are reporting problems with the iPhone 4. The conference center is at Apple's HQ and probably has fantastic coverage, so it's not surprising somebody in the room couldn't get their phone to drop below full bars.
Why? Covering most phones causes them to lose a certain amount of signal strength. In many phones the five- or four-bar zone covers a huge range. If you're at the strong end of the range, you could lose 20 decibels and not see the bars drop at all. If you're at the weak end of the range, it could drop down to one bar.
The moral: Don't trust bars.