Apple GmbH can still sell in Germany, but they imported their products from Apple Inc. Now AFAICT Apple Inc is no longer allowed to sell them to Apple GmbH, so whatever stock is in the country, is all they can sell:
The injunction doesn't allow Apple Inc. to "deliver" any goods to Germany. That would include shipments to Apple GmbH.
Streets of Sydney, actually, from a discount store. I've seen that model on ebay for ~$60, but the local Go-Lo had a special going. Even came with $10 pre-paid credit.
They sold out everywhere in a day. Really wish I'd bought three, especially as my daughter fell on it ("so cute!") and won't give it back.
Seriously, I recently bought a new Huawei U8300 for $29, no contract. Not as a phone (though it works fine), but as a dirt-cheap, networked GPS & IP camera that'll run any Android app - for $29. How awesome is that?
This is the advantage of real diversity (that you want to block) - there is something for everyone. Thank Christ Google saved us from Jobsian monoculture.
Everyone wants to think they are 'above average'. Most are not.
I'd say pretty much exactly half of everyone is (or isn't) 'above average':-)
And yeah, not seeing the big problem here. Insurance will take care of accidents and liabilities, as it has for public transport, taxis, aviation etc, and as soon as self-driving cars get demonstrably better (on average) than the average human driver, the insurance will be cheaper than driving manually.
You might note that all those GPL components of all Android releases are fully open, and always have been (which AFAIK is the kernel only).
Perhaps Android isn't open enough to keep RMS happy; that's his problem. I'm just thankful that Google have been donating an entire smartphone OS platform to the community (and not an obscure one either).
Now it'll just get bogged down into semantics. Yes, the Gingerbread release of Android is open source. No, the Honeycomb release isn't, even though binaries are. ICS isn't open source either - but, unlike Honeycomb, Google promises that this release will be. Though, technically, the recently-released SDK includes a binary release of ICS for the emulator, so you could argue that ICS is indeed released, for some values of "released", but the source isn't open.
If some releases aren't open, is the Android project itself open source? Depends on your viewpoint I guess. I'm sure there are versions of Apache (like vendor forks) which are closed; does that mean Apache itself isn't open source? Android uses the same licence, and also has closed vendor forks. Regardless, you'd have to be pretty hard-nosed to accuse a vendor of lying about an entire project being open source just because one unfinished (though released) version wasn't opened, especially when a) the licence allows it, and b) they never claimed that every version would be (they said very early on that Honeycomb would not be opened).
Also, one wonders what you've got against Google that you're accusing them of lying anyway. After all, unlike the other major smartphone OS vendors, they have at least opened all their previous releases - are you saying that's worthless? Or is your perspective really that black and white?
[citation needed]. Links to lies, fraudulent claims etc please.
Or are you just assuming that using the term "Open Source" is some sort of binding contract for the developer to turn over any and all future source code, regardless of the state of completion? Are you confusing the Apache licence with the GPL, maybe?
The insults you're freely tossing around aren't helping you get your point across, I might add; kinda the opposite.
The source to Gingerbread is still Apache-licenced, and is still open. Nobody, not even Google, is preventing anyone from using it in any way. Ask Amazon.
Honeycomb is not open, and never was. Deal with it. We now have a firm commitment that ICS will be opened. It's another free gift to the community - why are you so upset that you weren't given more free gifts? Do you realise how much like a spoiled brat that makes you sound?
Man, which side of who's bed did you get out of this morning?
Last I looked, the source to Gingerbread is just as open as it ever was. I'd think Amazon and B&N would agree with me. It was never open development, nor was that claimed.
ICS is not open source yet. Feel free to doubt their word if you like, but Google has committed to opening ICS a couple of weeks after the Galaxy Nexus is released, and to be quite honest, ranting that some organisation hasn't given you enough of the source they bought, paid for and developed themselves and have freely given in the past, just comes across as childish. Don't like their development approach? Do your own, or fork theirs (and give them some credit for it).
Point being, Google gets the large majority of their advertising revenue from their search results, and they'd probably be willing to forgo ad revenue on Google+ to keep the revenue from search.
I asked Voice Actions, "Who would win - Superman or Batman?". It answered (out loud), "Superman, because he has super strength, and Batman only has fancy gadgets and hand-to-hand combat."
Its thoughts on pirates vs ninjas were also enlightening and extensive. And it'll even read you a poem, if you ask for one.
"Failure" < "Success" < "Successful as Facebook". I do agree that without a solid platform it won't approach Facebook's level, probably not close.
But to borrow one of Steve's analogies, if you dial the product down to zero, you'll have no users either, but you can have zero platform and still have a product as popular as, say, Gmail.
Dunno about G+ (nothing much yet I expect), but Google have said that their Android division is comfortably profitable. They pull in a share of all apps, but they also pull in a share of most of the Android advertising, not to mention the web traffic that gets driven to their properties.
I think Google is a long way off Microsoft territory at this stage.
The only UI he didn't grok was that he was signed into multiple Google accounts, and forgot to check which one the current G+ page was using before he posted. He said that in his next post.
He actually said his mother can't use Amazon, or anyone's mother. That's a valid criticism, since people's mothers are a significant target demographic.
What he's saying is the Google + platform is an afterthought. The word is right there; it's the third one in your quote, after 'Google+'. Nowhere does he criticise Google+ itself or its features, or say that it failed, only that it's not API-centric like a platform service should be.
He makes it very clear that the whole rant is about Google's (lack of) approach to platforms. His comments about Google+ (and Facebook too) need to be viewed in that context. You, Forbes and a fair number of other people are totally (deliberately?) reading the wrong message from it.
What the linkbait summary failed to mention is that the drop was down from a spike of 1200%. I follow a few friends and a lot of tech pundits, and I'm never short of interesting conversations.
These "missing features" are mostly due to not having Google services, which the Fire will also lack.
Not only is Google Maps missing, but any app that pops up a map itself will also break. Cloud-to-device messaging requires Google's servers. In-app billing, ditto. The text-to-speech and SIP VoIP components are also (AFAIK) specific to Google devices.
None of these features work on any non-Google-experience devices, including the Fire, the Playbook, the Nook Color, and all the cheapo crappy tablets too.
You can say the same about hydro, wind, or wave energy, or even fossil fuels if you like. Basically every energy source we have apart from nuclear & geothermal, ultimately derives from the sun.
The important part is, can we harness it efficiently enough? Evaporation is already happening, over a vast surface area, and that's something we may be able to tap into more cheaply than via manufactured PV cells.
And if they did, would this affect the quality of their research, or their expertise, or their credibility in their field?
Your point is of course that nobody cares what scientists waffle on about, until those conclusions might affect them personally, and possibly in a negative way (positive conclusions are readily accepted, of course). At which point, these people will vigorously shoot the messenger in their efforts to cling to their precious status quo.
We know that nobody likes change or uncertainty, but when a few thousand highly experienced & credible climate scientists get back from doing their jobs and almost unanimously conclude that change is upon us, and that the costs of ignoring the coming change dramatically outweigh the costs of preparing for it - it's time to pull our heads out of the sand and start listening to these particular scientists, just like we listened to all the others over the last 500 years.
Reality does not care about our beliefs or wishes. Adapt, or suffer the consequences.
Slashdot Mirror
Not unlike how Windows moved GUI drivers into the kernel and ran them at elevated privileges, back for NT4. And we know how well that worked out...
The injunction doesn't allow Apple Inc. to "deliver" any goods to Germany. That would include shipments to Apple GmbH.
Streets of Sydney, actually, from a discount store. I've seen that model on ebay for ~$60, but the local Go-Lo had a special going. Even came with $10 pre-paid credit.
They sold out everywhere in a day. Really wish I'd bought three, especially as my daughter fell on it ("so cute!") and won't give it back.
Seriously, I recently bought a new Huawei U8300 for $29, no contract. Not as a phone (though it works fine), but as a dirt-cheap, networked GPS & IP camera that'll run any Android app - for $29. How awesome is that?
This is the advantage of real diversity (that you want to block) - there is something for everyone. Thank Christ Google saved us from Jobsian monoculture.
Everyone wants to think they are 'above average'. Most are not.
I'd say pretty much exactly half of everyone is (or isn't) 'above average' :-)
And yeah, not seeing the big problem here. Insurance will take care of accidents and liabilities, as it has for public transport, taxis, aviation etc, and as soon as self-driving cars get demonstrably better (on average) than the average human driver, the insurance will be cheaper than driving manually.
It might warm you up a little, but anything below ultra-violet frequencies won't give you cancer.
You might note that all those GPL components of all Android releases are fully open, and always have been (which AFAIK is the kernel only).
Perhaps Android isn't open enough to keep RMS happy; that's his problem. I'm just thankful that Google have been donating an entire smartphone OS platform to the community (and not an obscure one either).
Now it'll just get bogged down into semantics. Yes, the Gingerbread release of Android is open source. No, the Honeycomb release isn't, even though binaries are. ICS isn't open source either - but, unlike Honeycomb, Google promises that this release will be. Though, technically, the recently-released SDK includes a binary release of ICS for the emulator, so you could argue that ICS is indeed released, for some values of "released", but the source isn't open.
If some releases aren't open, is the Android project itself open source? Depends on your viewpoint I guess. I'm sure there are versions of Apache (like vendor forks) which are closed; does that mean Apache itself isn't open source? Android uses the same licence, and also has closed vendor forks. Regardless, you'd have to be pretty hard-nosed to accuse a vendor of lying about an entire project being open source just because one unfinished (though released) version wasn't opened, especially when a) the licence allows it, and b) they never claimed that every version would be (they said very early on that Honeycomb would not be opened).
Also, one wonders what you've got against Google that you're accusing them of lying anyway. After all, unlike the other major smartphone OS vendors, they have at least opened all their previous releases - are you saying that's worthless? Or is your perspective really that black and white?
[citation needed]. Links to lies, fraudulent claims etc please.
Or are you just assuming that using the term "Open Source" is some sort of binding contract for the developer to turn over any and all future source code, regardless of the state of completion? Are you confusing the Apache licence with the GPL, maybe?
The insults you're freely tossing around aren't helping you get your point across, I might add; kinda the opposite.
Way to prove the GP's point.
The source to Gingerbread is still Apache-licenced, and is still open. Nobody, not even Google, is preventing anyone from using it in any way. Ask Amazon.
Honeycomb is not open, and never was. Deal with it. We now have a firm commitment that ICS will be opened. It's another free gift to the community - why are you so upset that you weren't given more free gifts? Do you realise how much like a spoiled brat that makes you sound?
Man, which side of who's bed did you get out of this morning?
Last I looked, the source to Gingerbread is just as open as it ever was. I'd think Amazon and B&N would agree with me. It was never open development, nor was that claimed.
ICS is not open source yet. Feel free to doubt their word if you like, but Google has committed to opening ICS a couple of weeks after the Galaxy Nexus is released, and to be quite honest, ranting that some organisation hasn't given you enough of the source they bought, paid for and developed themselves and have freely given in the past, just comes across as childish. Don't like their development approach? Do your own, or fork theirs (and give them some credit for it).
Point being, Google gets the large majority of their advertising revenue from their search results, and they'd probably be willing to forgo ad revenue on Google+ to keep the revenue from search.
Clearly a line must be drawn somewhere. Chrome is Google's, so Google gets to choose where to draw that line.
Chromium, OTOH, is open-source, so it's yours to do with as you please.
I asked Voice Actions, "Who would win - Superman or Batman?". It answered (out loud), "Superman, because he has super strength, and Batman only has fancy gadgets and hand-to-hand combat."
Its thoughts on pirates vs ninjas were also enlightening and extensive. And it'll even read you a poem, if you ask for one.
"Failure" < "Success" < "Successful as Facebook". I do agree that without a solid platform it won't approach Facebook's level, probably not close.
But to borrow one of Steve's analogies, if you dial the product down to zero, you'll have no users either, but you can have zero platform and still have a product as popular as, say, Gmail.
Dunno about G+ (nothing much yet I expect), but Google have said that their Android division is comfortably profitable. They pull in a share of all apps, but they also pull in a share of most of the Android advertising, not to mention the web traffic that gets driven to their properties.
I think Google is a long way off Microsoft territory at this stage.
The only UI he didn't grok was that he was signed into multiple Google accounts, and forgot to check which one the current G+ page was using before he posted. He said that in his next post.
He actually said his mother can't use Amazon, or anyone's mother. That's a valid criticism, since people's mothers are a significant target demographic.
What he's saying is the Google + platform is an afterthought. The word is right there; it's the third one in your quote, after 'Google+'. Nowhere does he criticise Google+ itself or its features, or say that it failed, only that it's not API-centric like a platform service should be.
He makes it very clear that the whole rant is about Google's (lack of) approach to platforms. His comments about Google+ (and Facebook too) need to be viewed in that context. You, Forbes and a fair number of other people are totally (deliberately?) reading the wrong message from it.
What the linkbait summary failed to mention is that the drop was down from a spike of 1200%. I follow a few friends and a lot of tech pundits, and I'm never short of interesting conversations.
More than once - they called it CompuServe, GEnie, and AOL. Remember them?
These "missing features" are mostly due to not having Google services, which the Fire will also lack.
Not only is Google Maps missing, but any app that pops up a map itself will also break. Cloud-to-device messaging requires Google's servers. In-app billing, ditto. The text-to-speech and SIP VoIP components are also (AFAIK) specific to Google devices.
None of these features work on any non-Google-experience devices, including the Fire, the Playbook, the Nook Color, and all the cheapo crappy tablets too.
Excellent point, and look what an indiscriminate job they do of it.
You can say the same about hydro, wind, or wave energy, or even fossil fuels if you like. Basically every energy source we have apart from nuclear & geothermal, ultimately derives from the sun.
The important part is, can we harness it efficiently enough? Evaporation is already happening, over a vast surface area, and that's something we may be able to tap into more cheaply than via manufactured PV cells.
And if they did, would this affect the quality of their research, or their expertise, or their credibility in their field?
Your point is of course that nobody cares what scientists waffle on about, until those conclusions might affect them personally, and possibly in a negative way (positive conclusions are readily accepted, of course). At which point, these people will vigorously shoot the messenger in their efforts to cling to their precious status quo.
We know that nobody likes change or uncertainty, but when a few thousand highly experienced & credible climate scientists get back from doing their jobs and almost unanimously conclude that change is upon us, and that the costs of ignoring the coming change dramatically outweigh the costs of preparing for it - it's time to pull our heads out of the sand and start listening to these particular scientists, just like we listened to all the others over the last 500 years.
Reality does not care about our beliefs or wishes. Adapt, or suffer the consequences.