Just so we're clear, you're saying that the reason Android music players haven't taken off is that people don't know where to buy apps?
I agree side-loading/rooting/etc. is an Android benefit that isn't broadly appealing, but if people actually wanted Android, the stores would follow (like Amazon's appstore).
Remember, the iPod touch launched before the App Store did.
It's not 'some limits', it restricts access to the Market. Of course nobody wants Android if they have no apps to run on it. How many would want iOS without the App Store?
It's Android, you can just download apps from the developer, or use whatever store you want. Amazon has one. That's what you guys keep harping on about.
Or is this only a benefit of Android when used to put down Apple's security model for iOS which only allows apps signed from the App Store, except on devices connected to developers or enterprises?
Right now the majority of devices is not Honeycomb. So i would not program for Honeycomb.
The vast majority of devices is iOS. I'm specifically talking about tablets here, but this is also true of the aggregate of iOS and Android devices across all form factors as well (and is even true for just phones, although I wouldn't use the word "vast", although iOS's lead in phones is still in the double-digits).
How many of us are holding off getting a tablet until we can easily bypass Android (of any flavour) and just load whatever distribution we want?
Hundreds, maybe even somewhere in the low thousands. And this is exactly the sort of reason there are so few Honeycomb apps: there's just not that much demand for Android tablets.
On the tablet, Android has to compete on a level playing field with the iPad. People don't particularly want Android. They don't particularly *like* Android. Not on the whole. But people *do* want iPads.
On the phone, the situation is pretty much the same, except that there are external factors involved. Specifically, carrier choice, service plans, and subsidies. Also, pretty much everyone is getting a phone, while not everyone is getting a tablet. These combine to give Android an artificial boost in apparent demand. I say "apparent demand", because the sales of Android phones don't really show the demand for Android specifically.
Have you ever wondered why there are no Android music players? Google places some limits on them, but as you are all so quick to point out, *anyone* can just take Android (pre 3.0, which is not suited for small screens anyway) and make their own version. If consumers actually *did* want Android, surely there'd be some demand, right?
But there isn't. And that's all right.
This brings up something the stereotypical slashdot Android nerd should come to understand. It's sage advice from your hated icon of evil, Steve Jobs. Paraphrased, you need to get over this notion that for Android to win, Apple/iOS has to lose. Android, like Linux, isn't terribly well designed for general consumption. Its strengths are very geek-centric. You should be happy that Android has found a viable market from which to offer hardware and software that meets your wishes. Macs don't have the market share MS has in the PC market, but they are more than strong enough to stick around providing me with the sort of computer I want. In the end, that's all that matters, right?
So, maybe if you guys come to accept that, you won't be stuck with this distorted view of Android, and you'll be happy with it how it really is, and not scratch your heads wondering why it's not something it will never be. Just like me (and tens of millions of others) with Macs, or you guys, with hundreds of thousands, perhaps even millions, of Linux PCs, or even the hundred million Android phones and hundreds of thousands (again, *maybe* millions) of Android tablets, you can realize that what you have is pretty damned good for you, right now as it currently is.
Isn't that good enough? Isn't that what you really want? A toy, a geek toy, to play around with? You can call it a tool if you'd prefer, but if you're going to call an iPad a toy, at least be consistent about it.
Selective cherry picking of stats, like the usual Android fan. Even so, that isn't a measurement of whether people think the iPhone outclasses Android.
There are significant factors involved in buying a mobile phone that has nothing to do with the relative quality between Android and iOS or Android phones and iPhones.
Just because you have the opinion that iPhone outclasses Android does not make it fact,
Of course it doesn't. It's an opinion. Opinions aren't facts.
no matter how many Apple slanted blog posts you read. I have both an iPhone 4 and a DroidX and I have to say you don't know what your talking about.
What do you mean? You mean I don't know what my own opinion is? That's a strange claim to make...
I'd take the DroidX anyday of the iPhone, not just because of it's openness, but simply based on pure performance, ease of use and user experience.
Good for you. No matter how shitty an interface, there's going to be someone who thinks it's better than the rest. Even Linux, even emacs, even edlin, has its fans.
Now, look around and tell me you honestly think yours is the majority opinion. Some slashdotters really do live in a bubble!
Yes, it was a rebuttal. It was meant to dismiss my entire post by playing a "logical fallacy"-type gambit. You never asked for clarification (like you're doing now), you just acted as though I was making a spurious claim.
And yes, I pointed out it's an opinion. That's what it means when you say it's not objective.
As for elaboration, where would you like me to begin? Design, responsiveness, developer APIs, usability, aesthetics, integration with music and app stores, security, lack of malware, third party software, third party hardware... It would be easier to list the ways in which iOS *doesn't* outclass Android. That list is very small, and *very* geek-centric.
1. Open source (mostly... where's the source for Android 3.0?) 2. Multiple hardware vendors. 3. Side-loading of apps. 4. Untethered, PC-free synching (sort of a mixed bag right now between iOS and Android, which will change significantly with iOS 5).
I'm sure there might be something more, but that's fairly exhaustive. And like I said, these are things that appeal disproportionately to geeks. All of these combined don't amount to even the slightest consideration in the mind of most people.
As I said before, what matters in this context is how the general market sees the two systems, and the general market almost universally sees iOS as outclassing Android. That's why, in the tablet market, where carriers, geography, service plans, and subsidies don't significantly alter the market, iOS trounces Android.
It might help your case if your "rebuttal" wasn't an assertion. Two, in fact.
Besides, I'm not sure what your issue with assertions is. They are at the very heart of any "argument". You'd be hard-pressed, really, to have an argument, or even a discussion of any weight or significance, without involving assertions. This particular assertion you quoted is an opinion. Unsupported factual assertions can sometimes be weak points in an argument, but opinions? Are you honestly trying to invalidate my opinion?
As for my opinion, what really matters in a discussion like this is how widespread it is. It doesn't take much observation to conclude that people tend to see the iPhone and iOS as outclassing Android. Even nerds don't generally try to claim otherwise. They tend to (reluctantly) cede this point and instead harp on about Android being "open" and how Apple is somehow going to find themselves repeating the Mac vs PC scenario (an assertion with extremely tenuous support).
Tell me, what software feature that an iPhone has out of the box, does a modern Google android phone lack?
Tell me where I mentioned anything like that? I said it works right out of the box, not that it has any specific software feature that Android doesn't have. I'm sure such things exist (in both directions), but they are mostly irrelevant (unless you have a specific example in mind that is quite impressive) if the system is unappealing from a user perspective.
As a consumer, the Android system itself isn't terribly appealing. That's why your posts (and the posts of others) harp on about how extensible and "open" Android is. Because *that's* the thing that appeals to you. In that regard, iOS is inferior to Android. But the scope of that difference in terms of market share is extremely small. Very few people care about that.
Usability. And by that, I mean things like consistency, responsiveness, visual feedback, discoverability, natural interaction, visually appealing. iOS has it, Android doesn't.
Now tell me, since you seem to think this is such an important topic, what software feature does Android have, out of the box, than iOS doesn't? And explain why this is important to the average user. Your chosen example, "swype" is just a type of keyboard. It's a nice feature to be sure, and if it was consistently the sort of thing you could say about Android, it would be more like WebOS when compared with iOS, in that it's something that makes for a compelling alternative to iOS in terms of the OS itself.
But that's *not* indicative of Android as a whole. On the whole, Android is universally seen as clunkier, less consistent, and an overall mixed bag, compared to iOS. And it's really only the geeks who really don't mind such things.
And iOS has *much* more software available, including software that people actually *want*, like Netflix, Hulu, and Skype. On Android, those things come out later, and when they do come out, are highly limited.
The alternate characterization also applies, namely, that Apple failed to reap Microsoft-level profits because it insisted on being an integrator and marketing to end consumers
That's correct, but you got the reason for this wrong. It's because businesses were the primary computer customers of the era, and DOS PCs were better than Macs for business, even though Macs were more advanced systems. And in the less important (at the time) consumer realm, Macs were *far* more expensive than the Commodore 64, Apple ][, and Amiga (among others).
In the creative market (especially printing), Macs far outclassed any other system, and that was their biggest success during the 20th century.
Windows 95 onward maintained the PC's superiority in the business world, and extended it into the consumer world. It wasn't until the 21st century that Apple's products became superior choices for the consumer. This is also around the time the consumer market became the most important market.
And that's why Apple is now worth more than Microsoft and Intel combined.
Out of the box, a Samsung Captivate running Samsung's Touchwiz Android can do everything an iPhone can do, as well as many things iPhone's can't (eg. Swype).
Out of the box, an iPhone outclasses Android.
If, however, you are inclined to explore, Android allows for that in a way that iOS does not. That is the point I'm making, so comparing modern android to Window's BSOD's and forced tweaking, etc, is not fair or accurate.
Then why was your long post almost entirely about how flexible Android is with regards to modification? Why are you now acting as though that's just a side feature?
The reason I compared it to the x86 PC architecture (which by the way is much more than just Windows) is to highlight that the path Google took with this was based on a highly successful historical model.
This is complete nonsense based on *one* example and lots of false assumptions. And it's especially ironic given that Apple's supposedly inferior model has them being the most successful player in at least three different markets, using the exact opposite model to what you think is the best one.
The entire point of Android is openness and flexibility. If you do not like the stock manufacture-themed flavor of Android on your phone, you can use an app like Rom Manager to change to a different one. Can you do that on an iPhone? In Soviet Russia, rhetorical questions ask you.
I know nerds have a difficult time understanding this, but *MOST* people like something that works well right out of the box.
And, your first sentence is false. The entire point of Android is a venue for Google to serve more ads. The only reason it's "open and flexible" is that were it more closed like iOS (hmm... where's the "open and flexible" Android 3.0?), Google would have a hard time developing and selling it.
On the other hand, make it open and the nerds will love it. Make it flexible and the carriers and handset makers will crapify it up. Make it low cost or even "less than free" (i.e., sharing ad revenue), and they can undercut Microsoft's offering.
This isn't a patent lawsuit. At least, it's not reported as such (patents may be involved, but I haven't seen that reported anywhere. However, given how news reporting works these days, it's hard to be certain). The lawsuit claims that Samsung's phones and tablets look too much like iPhones and iPads.
An unfunny joke isn't a proper rebuttal. Somehow I think there are plenty of people who manage to go to an Apple Store without their wives breaking the bank on shoes.
Wow, you managed to fail to make sense on many levels again! This isn't reddit, you don't have to live up to your novelty username.
They all used to be in the applications and utilities folder.
Apps that aren't on your computer used to be in those folders?
What could possibly be simpler than that?
Not much, really. But since that's not how it's ever been, the Mac App Store is quite a bit easier than the way things actually were before. Before, you had to go to the store and browse the shelves, or order discs online, or buy online from various different digital storefronts.
And now it forces users to open an online account with Apple. That's not very nice..
Better to have just one sign-in, than to have to manage many. And it's quite nice to have it be one that hundreds of millions of people already have. I suppose there is a minority of customers for whom this isn't "very nice", but they'll manage.
There's no mention in the article, does it come down as a burnable iso? And how screwed are the people who just don't happen to have fast internet?
Yes, it comes as a burnable, well, not ISO, but DMG. And most people in the target audience have at least reasonably decent internet connections (or access to such a connection) such that a couple gigs isn't some horrible torment. This is at least a reasonable point, there will be a very small percentage of people who want Lion, but don't have sufficient internet access to readily purchase it. Lion doesn't run on 64-bit systems either. Apple apparently isn't too afraid of leaving people behind if it moves the current state of the art forward.
They'll probably still charge you $4.99 for Xcode.
Heh, sounds like it will soon suffer the same fate as Hypercard
That actually, quite impressively, fails to make sense on so many levels. But the most direct is that Apple can never stop shipping Xcode while there isn't something to replace it, and there's nothing out, coming out, or even whispered about, to replace it.
They'll probably still charge you $4.99 for Xcode. Not terrible, but not great. Finding out gcc4 was not included in the paid version of Xcode... now that was terrible.
Apple is moving away from GCC and to Clang and LLVM. This is due partially to the GPLv3 (and the patent issues involved, and this is why Apple will never use the current version of GCC), and partly due to LLVM+Clang being quite an improvement over GCC (although it's presently a mixed bag, looking forward this is a good way to go).
As for the pricing of Xcode 4, it will be kind of disappointing if a license isn't included with Lion. $4.99 is a steal though, so it's difficult to complain too much, but one of the nice aspects of Mac OS X has always been the bundled developer tools.
Dropbox is not going to sell your files. How can you possibly think they are going to sell/redistribute your files on their own? You even quote the relevant part and then paraphrase it. "The extent they think it necessary for the service". Do you think "selling your files" is "necessary for the service"? Do you think that Dropbox will try this? They will lose their customer base overnight if they did. And if they did, do you think it would hold up in court? How do you justify "selling customers' files" (in contravention of other parts of the TOS), as "necessary to the service"?
This is clearly about being able to operate their service as it current functions under US copyright laws.
"You'd think if there was some actual, concrete reason to fear this TOS, there'd be examples readily available."
Only if you're really dumb. It was updated, what, a few hours ago as I write this on a Saturday? How fast do you think they move?
Right. So, no examples come to mind then. Yet there are people foolish enough to think Dropbox is trying to gain copyright on customers' files so they can sell them.
This is downright absurd. It's a bold claim and needs justification. If you can provide none, then your case is weak.
There is no breach of trust, no corporate abuse, no amount of legalese overkill that someone somewhere won't excuse and apologize for.
Um, what? What "breach of trust", "corporate abuse", or "legalese overkill" (wow, you start out with two insane assertions, then try to sneak the *almost* pertinent one as though it's part of the bunch!) is happening here?
Dropbox isn't stealing people's files. They aren't selling people's files. The TOS are required for them to be able to function legally.
They wouldn't have bothered to consult a lawyer to put it there if they had no intention of ever using it.
Yes (well, they don't need to ever intend to use a clause to include it, they can merely think it might be useful). And it's there so they can allow you to give access to your files to other people. That's how they intend to use it. In fact, they even make this explicitly clear.
God damn, you have to explain the most basic things to some people...
Ain't that the truth!
Just ask yourself why Slashdot has no such agreement.
You've already been well-schooled on this point. I don't have anything to add.
What makes DropBox so fundamentally different? Oh yeah, they want the ability to profit from works they did not produce without compensating the creator of said work.
That can't happen (specifically, grabbing private files and reselling them). The day that is discovered to have happened is the day everyone leaves Dropbox forever.
That's the only purpose of such a clause.
Um, no, it's not. I've already told you the purpose. As did Dropbox, and as have many others here as well.
Put your head in the sand if you need to.
I'd rather keep my head where it is, planted firmly on my shoulders. This allows me to see the world as it is, not as I fear it to be. I do question which dark place you have been keeping your head however. Based on your paranoia, "the sand" isn't what comes to mind.
Slashdot Mirror
Just so we're clear, you're saying that the reason Android music players haven't taken off is that people don't know where to buy apps?
I agree side-loading/rooting/etc. is an Android benefit that isn't broadly appealing, but if people actually wanted Android, the stores would follow (like Amazon's appstore).
Remember, the iPod touch launched before the App Store did.
It's not 'some limits', it restricts access to the Market. Of course nobody wants Android if they have no apps to run on it. How many would want iOS without the App Store?
It's Android, you can just download apps from the developer, or use whatever store you want. Amazon has one. That's what you guys keep harping on about.
Or is this only a benefit of Android when used to put down Apple's security model for iOS which only allows apps signed from the App Store, except on devices connected to developers or enterprises?
Right now the majority of devices is not Honeycomb. So i would not program for Honeycomb.
The vast majority of devices is iOS. I'm specifically talking about tablets here, but this is also true of the aggregate of iOS and Android devices across all form factors as well (and is even true for just phones, although I wouldn't use the word "vast", although iOS's lead in phones is still in the double-digits).
How many of us are holding off getting a tablet until we can easily bypass Android (of any flavour) and just load whatever distribution we want?
Hundreds, maybe even somewhere in the low thousands. And this is exactly the sort of reason there are so few Honeycomb apps: there's just not that much demand for Android tablets.
On the tablet, Android has to compete on a level playing field with the iPad. People don't particularly want Android. They don't particularly *like* Android. Not on the whole. But people *do* want iPads.
On the phone, the situation is pretty much the same, except that there are external factors involved. Specifically, carrier choice, service plans, and subsidies. Also, pretty much everyone is getting a phone, while not everyone is getting a tablet. These combine to give Android an artificial boost in apparent demand. I say "apparent demand", because the sales of Android phones don't really show the demand for Android specifically.
Have you ever wondered why there are no Android music players? Google places some limits on them, but as you are all so quick to point out, *anyone* can just take Android (pre 3.0, which is not suited for small screens anyway) and make their own version. If consumers actually *did* want Android, surely there'd be some demand, right?
But there isn't. And that's all right.
This brings up something the stereotypical slashdot Android nerd should come to understand. It's sage advice from your hated icon of evil, Steve Jobs. Paraphrased, you need to get over this notion that for Android to win, Apple/iOS has to lose. Android, like Linux, isn't terribly well designed for general consumption. Its strengths are very geek-centric. You should be happy that Android has found a viable market from which to offer hardware and software that meets your wishes. Macs don't have the market share MS has in the PC market, but they are more than strong enough to stick around providing me with the sort of computer I want. In the end, that's all that matters, right?
So, maybe if you guys come to accept that, you won't be stuck with this distorted view of Android, and you'll be happy with it how it really is, and not scratch your heads wondering why it's not something it will never be. Just like me (and tens of millions of others) with Macs, or you guys, with hundreds of thousands, perhaps even millions, of Linux PCs, or even the hundred million Android phones and hundreds of thousands (again, *maybe* millions) of Android tablets, you can realize that what you have is pretty damned good for you, right now as it currently is.
Isn't that good enough? Isn't that what you really want? A toy, a geek toy, to play around with? You can call it a tool if you'd prefer, but if you're going to call an iPad a toy, at least be consistent about it.
Q1 2011
Android sales 37.3 million handsets
iPhone 18.65 million handsets and steady
In US, 49% handsets sold were Android, 31% iPhone
Selective cherry picking of stats, like the usual Android fan. Even so, that isn't a measurement of whether people think the iPhone outclasses Android.
There are significant factors involved in buying a mobile phone that has nothing to do with the relative quality between Android and iOS or Android phones and iPhones.
Just because you have the opinion that iPhone outclasses Android does not make it fact,
Of course it doesn't. It's an opinion. Opinions aren't facts.
no matter how many Apple slanted blog posts you read. I have both an iPhone 4 and a DroidX and I have to say you don't know what your talking about.
What do you mean? You mean I don't know what my own opinion is? That's a strange claim to make...
I'd take the DroidX anyday of the iPhone, not just because of it's openness, but simply based on pure performance, ease of use and user experience.
Good for you. No matter how shitty an interface, there's going to be someone who thinks it's better than the rest. Even Linux, even emacs, even edlin, has its fans.
Now, look around and tell me you honestly think yours is the majority opinion. Some slashdotters really do live in a bubble!
Yes, it was a rebuttal. It was meant to dismiss my entire post by playing a "logical fallacy"-type gambit. You never asked for clarification (like you're doing now), you just acted as though I was making a spurious claim.
And yes, I pointed out it's an opinion. That's what it means when you say it's not objective.
As for elaboration, where would you like me to begin? Design, responsiveness, developer APIs, usability, aesthetics, integration with music and app stores, security, lack of malware, third party software, third party hardware... It would be easier to list the ways in which iOS *doesn't* outclass Android. That list is very small, and *very* geek-centric.
1. Open source (mostly... where's the source for Android 3.0?)
2. Multiple hardware vendors.
3. Side-loading of apps.
4. Untethered, PC-free synching (sort of a mixed bag right now between iOS and Android, which will change significantly with iOS 5).
I'm sure there might be something more, but that's fairly exhaustive. And like I said, these are things that appeal disproportionately to geeks. All of these combined don't amount to even the slightest consideration in the mind of most people.
As I said before, what matters in this context is how the general market sees the two systems, and the general market almost universally sees iOS as outclassing Android. That's why, in the tablet market, where carriers, geography, service plans, and subsidies don't significantly alter the market, iOS trounces Android.
Out of the box, an iPhone outclasses Android.
Argument by assertion. So compelling!
It might help your case if your "rebuttal" wasn't an assertion. Two, in fact.
Besides, I'm not sure what your issue with assertions is. They are at the very heart of any "argument". You'd be hard-pressed, really, to have an argument, or even a discussion of any weight or significance, without involving assertions. This particular assertion you quoted is an opinion. Unsupported factual assertions can sometimes be weak points in an argument, but opinions? Are you honestly trying to invalidate my opinion?
As for my opinion, what really matters in a discussion like this is how widespread it is. It doesn't take much observation to conclude that people tend to see the iPhone and iOS as outclassing Android. Even nerds don't generally try to claim otherwise. They tend to (reluctantly) cede this point and instead harp on about Android being "open" and how Apple is somehow going to find themselves repeating the Mac vs PC scenario (an assertion with extremely tenuous support).
That they exist isn't being questioned.
Tell me, what software feature that an iPhone has out of the box, does a modern Google android phone lack?
Tell me where I mentioned anything like that? I said it works right out of the box, not that it has any specific software feature that Android doesn't have. I'm sure such things exist (in both directions), but they are mostly irrelevant (unless you have a specific example in mind that is quite impressive) if the system is unappealing from a user perspective.
As a consumer, the Android system itself isn't terribly appealing. That's why your posts (and the posts of others) harp on about how extensible and "open" Android is. Because *that's* the thing that appeals to you. In that regard, iOS is inferior to Android. But the scope of that difference in terms of market share is extremely small. Very few people care about that.
Usability. And by that, I mean things like consistency, responsiveness, visual feedback, discoverability, natural interaction, visually appealing. iOS has it, Android doesn't.
Now tell me, since you seem to think this is such an important topic, what software feature does Android have, out of the box, than iOS doesn't? And explain why this is important to the average user. Your chosen example, "swype" is just a type of keyboard. It's a nice feature to be sure, and if it was consistently the sort of thing you could say about Android, it would be more like WebOS when compared with iOS, in that it's something that makes for a compelling alternative to iOS in terms of the OS itself.
But that's *not* indicative of Android as a whole. On the whole, Android is universally seen as clunkier, less consistent, and an overall mixed bag, compared to iOS. And it's really only the geeks who really don't mind such things.
And iOS has *much* more software available, including software that people actually *want*, like Netflix, Hulu, and Skype. On Android, those things come out later, and when they do come out, are highly limited.
The alternate characterization also applies, namely, that Apple failed to reap Microsoft-level profits because it insisted on being an integrator and marketing to end consumers
That's correct, but you got the reason for this wrong. It's because businesses were the primary computer customers of the era, and DOS PCs were better than Macs for business, even though Macs were more advanced systems. And in the less important (at the time) consumer realm, Macs were *far* more expensive than the Commodore 64, Apple ][, and Amiga (among others).
In the creative market (especially printing), Macs far outclassed any other system, and that was their biggest success during the 20th century.
Windows 95 onward maintained the PC's superiority in the business world, and extended it into the consumer world. It wasn't until the 21st century that Apple's products became superior choices for the consumer. This is also around the time the consumer market became the most important market.
And that's why Apple is now worth more than Microsoft and Intel combined.
Choice is good, for the industry, for the consumer, for the developers and for your mom.
Choice is good. Quality is better.
Out of the box, a Samsung Captivate running Samsung's Touchwiz Android can do everything an iPhone can do, as well as many things iPhone's can't (eg. Swype).
Out of the box, an iPhone outclasses Android.
If, however, you are inclined to explore, Android allows for that in a way that iOS does not. That is the point I'm making, so comparing modern android to Window's BSOD's and forced tweaking, etc, is not fair or accurate.
Then why was your long post almost entirely about how flexible Android is with regards to modification? Why are you now acting as though that's just a side feature?
The reason I compared it to the x86 PC architecture (which by the way is much more than just Windows) is to highlight that the path Google took with this was based on a highly successful historical model.
This is complete nonsense based on *one* example and lots of false assumptions. And it's especially ironic given that Apple's supposedly inferior model has them being the most successful player in at least three different markets, using the exact opposite model to what you think is the best one.
The entire point of Android is openness and flexibility. If you do not like the stock manufacture-themed flavor of Android on your phone, you can use an app like Rom Manager to change to a different one. Can you do that on an iPhone? In Soviet Russia, rhetorical questions ask you.
I know nerds have a difficult time understanding this, but *MOST* people like something that works well right out of the box.
And, your first sentence is false. The entire point of Android is a venue for Google to serve more ads. The only reason it's "open and flexible" is that were it more closed like iOS (hmm... where's the "open and flexible" Android 3.0?), Google would have a hard time developing and selling it.
On the other hand, make it open and the nerds will love it. Make it flexible and the carriers and handset makers will crapify it up. Make it low cost or even "less than free" (i.e., sharing ad revenue), and they can undercut Microsoft's offering.
And why on earth would you want to keep the default ROM on *any* Android phone?
Why on earth would you buy a device where first order of business is to replace the default ROM and default software?
I know this meets the needs of a small niche of people, but not for the phone buying populace in general.
This isn't a patent lawsuit. At least, it's not reported as such (patents may be involved, but I haven't seen that reported anywhere. However, given how news reporting works these days, it's hard to be certain). The lawsuit claims that Samsung's phones and tablets look too much like iPhones and iPads.
Yeah, I left out a "non" (obviously).
An unfunny joke isn't a proper rebuttal. Somehow I think there are plenty of people who manage to go to an Apple Store without their wives breaking the bank on shoes.
Wow, you managed to fail to make sense on many levels again! This isn't reddit, you don't have to live up to your novelty username.
They all used to be in the applications and utilities folder.
Apps that aren't on your computer used to be in those folders?
What could possibly be simpler than that?
Not much, really. But since that's not how it's ever been, the Mac App Store is quite a bit easier than the way things actually were before. Before, you had to go to the store and browse the shelves, or order discs online, or buy online from various different digital storefronts.
And now it forces users to open an online account with Apple. That's not very nice..
Better to have just one sign-in, than to have to manage many. And it's quite nice to have it be one that hundreds of millions of people already have. I suppose there is a minority of customers for whom this isn't "very nice", but they'll manage.
There's no mention in the article, does it come down as a burnable iso? And how screwed are the people who just don't happen to have fast internet?
Yes, it comes as a burnable, well, not ISO, but DMG. And most people in the target audience have at least reasonably decent internet connections (or access to such a connection) such that a couple gigs isn't some horrible torment. This is at least a reasonable point, there will be a very small percentage of people who want Lion, but don't have sufficient internet access to readily purchase it. Lion doesn't run on 64-bit systems either. Apple apparently isn't too afraid of leaving people behind if it moves the current state of the art forward.
They'll probably still charge you $4.99 for Xcode.
Heh, sounds like it will soon suffer the same fate as Hypercard
That actually, quite impressively, fails to make sense on so many levels. But the most direct is that Apple can never stop shipping Xcode while there isn't something to replace it, and there's nothing out, coming out, or even whispered about, to replace it.
Hopefully it is.
They'll probably still charge you $4.99 for Xcode. Not terrible, but not great. Finding out gcc4 was not included in the paid version of Xcode... now that was terrible.
Apple is moving away from GCC and to Clang and LLVM. This is due partially to the GPLv3 (and the patent issues involved, and this is why Apple will never use the current version of GCC), and partly due to LLVM+Clang being quite an improvement over GCC (although it's presently a mixed bag, looking forward this is a good way to go).
As for the pricing of Xcode 4, it will be kind of disappointing if a license isn't included with Lion. $4.99 is a steal though, so it's difficult to complain too much, but one of the nice aspects of Mac OS X has always been the bundled developer tools.
Yes, it's completely paranoid.
Dropbox is not going to sell your files. How can you possibly think they are going to sell/redistribute your files on their own? You even quote the relevant part and then paraphrase it. "The extent they think it necessary for the service". Do you think "selling your files" is "necessary for the service"? Do you think that Dropbox will try this? They will lose their customer base overnight if they did. And if they did, do you think it would hold up in court? How do you justify "selling customers' files" (in contravention of other parts of the TOS), as "necessary to the service"?
This is clearly about being able to operate their service as it current functions under US copyright laws.
"You'd think if there was some actual, concrete reason to fear this TOS, there'd be examples readily available."
Only if you're really dumb. It was updated, what, a few hours ago as I write this on a Saturday? How fast do you think they move?
Right. So, no examples come to mind then. Yet there are people foolish enough to think Dropbox is trying to gain copyright on customers' files so they can sell them.
This is downright absurd. It's a bold claim and needs justification. If you can provide none, then your case is weak.
On what grounds? Not liking what you like? Hardly.
There is no breach of trust, no corporate abuse, no amount of legalese overkill that someone somewhere won't excuse and apologize for.
Um, what? What "breach of trust", "corporate abuse", or "legalese overkill" (wow, you start out with two insane assertions, then try to sneak the *almost* pertinent one as though it's part of the bunch!) is happening here?
Dropbox isn't stealing people's files. They aren't selling people's files. The TOS are required for them to be able to function legally.
They wouldn't have bothered to consult a lawyer to put it there if they had no intention of ever using it.
Yes (well, they don't need to ever intend to use a clause to include it, they can merely think it might be useful). And it's there so they can allow you to give access to your files to other people. That's how they intend to use it. In fact, they even make this explicitly clear.
God damn, you have to explain the most basic things to some people...
Ain't that the truth!
Just ask yourself why Slashdot has no such agreement.
You've already been well-schooled on this point. I don't have anything to add.
What makes DropBox so fundamentally different? Oh yeah, they want the ability to profit from works they did not produce without compensating the creator of said work.
That can't happen (specifically, grabbing private files and reselling them). The day that is discovered to have happened is the day everyone leaves Dropbox forever.
That's the only purpose of such a clause.
Um, no, it's not. I've already told you the purpose. As did Dropbox, and as have many others here as well.
Put your head in the sand if you need to.
I'd rather keep my head where it is, planted firmly on my shoulders. This allows me to see the world as it is, not as I fear it to be. I do question which dark place you have been keeping your head however. Based on your paranoia, "the sand" isn't what comes to mind.
That's not what it says in the contract. That's what it says in the minds of paranoid nerds.