Yes they do. The only people that want to pretend that doesn't happen are xbox fanboys because their walled garden didn't include a browser until a couple months ago and it requires a gold subscription. If I were getting butt hurt like that I'd want to convince myself surfing on the TV is dumb.
Microsoft makes one component of a computer and bullies the OEM to building it their way. Apple makes hardware and their own OS so it's not really the same thing. It's also why no one moans about the PS3 or Wii or many other devices having only one browser.
iOS is certainly more tied down than OS X but It's certainly not like phones were open before and he should be grateful Apple removed their DRM from their music and open sourced their coded to make sure he could play his media everywhere. But most importantly, I'll take the walled garden over the mess that is the play store which effectively makes me a slave to anti-virus/malware software instead of Apple.
Stallman is a good guy to have around (despite the fact he borders on crazy) but if he think iOS is so bad he's more than welcome to come up with a better alternative. Google hasn't so the opportunity is there.
And you've just shown that you don't understand what it's patenting. It's patenting the exact design of the ipad which yes, does include rounded corners on a rectangular shape, but it sure as hell doesn't stop any other table from being a rectangle with rounded corners.
That's like saying google's design patent for their homepage stops anyone from having a logo and an input box below it and yet that's not the case.
He's bought out the company that's been at the forefront of suining people over patents and clearly he's done nothing to change that. Google only cares about Google (and keeping your personal data). So anything he says is irrelevant until he can prove he means what he says.
Tablets won't go away like netbooks but the fad will probably die down. Tablets suit a lot of people that don't that much about computers and just want the internet.
Out of a 1000 I'm sure like 900 think they will get back. That said I bet if they really want to bring them back they could but the cost would be astronomical.
Mars isn't a good final solution but the sun will burn out eventually and we'll almost certainly die so might as well start as early as possible to find a way off.
I was going to just that but my friend had a phone that's probably 2 years old now and he still had pretty much the same problems I had even if it was improved over all. He's also had to replace the battery sooner than I had to in my G1. Where as everyone I knew with an iphone (even 3GS) didn't have to even be concerned the battery wasn't replaceable so I went with a 4S.
I also didn't like that everyone that has an Android phone that remains relatively up to date and cool also uses cyanogenmod. As someone who would like to develop apps at some point I don't want to have to rely on a niche group of people for years when something new comes out that I really want to use.
You may very well be right but it also may not have made much of a difference. If they still enforced certain requirements (something I think Android should do) then that pleases developers but it may put off hardware companies. The reason I never fully got into doing development on my Android phone is because the OS was moving quickly but my phone was still stuck in the past. That is sort of annoying when you don't get to play with the new toys but I also Google wasn't as open about versions inititally so you had no clue if it made sense to target the latest or stick to 1.5 or 1.6 or target something better.
Android is a relatively good operating system if you can keep up with the latest developments but I think they did a little too much to please hardware companies that wanted something they could put on dirt cheap phones or bleeding edge phones while also sticking it to consumers so they still upgrade.
But maybe phones will become more like desktops and level off so versions won't matter as much. Or better yet, things like html 5 and web gl will take off and we don't have to worry about the operating system.
That is certainly helpful but what sort of processor and memory do they use on those operating systems? Unless I'm being thick, I only see screen/ size, openGL version and OS version. If I were to develop games then I would have to assume an old OS means lower CPU/memory specs and i'd probably ignore it. Maybe that's not the case if companies happen to be putting gingerbread on better hardware.
No, 2.2 will still be shit. My friend is on it and surfing the internet is nothing like on an S3 or even a iphone 4. Yes, 2.2 will function but it won't be great by any means. It won't even if good. People probably just blame their network connection and don't realise its the browser choking on JS that makes it slower.
Apple is not a software company. They will never been Microsoft or Google. They're a hardware company. That is why they don't licence iOS and never will. You can call that having a monopoly but that's like claiming your calculator manufactuer wants a monopoly because they produce a whole prouct and not a component.
Cars all serve the same basic purpose of getting to poit A to point B within the speed limit. All android phones don't do what a smart phone should do and if they do, they don't necessarily do it well. I should know, I just gave up a G1 on 1.5. Surfing the internet on it was fucking hell. The market just broke with no error message and I lost all my apps. A lot of those older verisions still have bugs like when the login cookie corrupts that leaves certain buttons, like the home button, don't work and unless you know how to fix it you'll probably assume it's physically busted (again no error messages) or wipe it and start from scratch. BTW, why should my login cookie even stop the home button from working? I'm not surprised Android owners buy fewer apps, it always felt less well made to me and I sure as hell wasn't going to tie my card to it.
You're probably right that Google wins in the sense that they're raking in cash but they do risk alienating people by making their product seem like a heap of cheap shit (like MS has done with Windows) or they'll alienate developers who will quickly move on to more friendly systems and without the developers they can't win. Mobiles are pretty competitive. If you think about how quickly we've seen big players become irrelevant then you can't assume Google wins purely by dumping a load of cheap crap on the market.
Slashdot doesn't represent most people and most Android phones are budget phones. Android owners need to realise most people don't own things like a S3 which I'm sure is a lovely phone but it's out of the price range of most people (even on a contract).
If google doesn't do it already they need to release hardware stats too so people know if they target a certain level and OS version then how many people will they could potentially have. This is why developers still prefer iOS because I suspect the actual numbers of potential customers is similar despite there being many more Android phones.
Android appears on some pretty low-end phones. Everyone talks about phones like the S3 but those sort of phones aren't what most Android owners have. I read something awhile ago saying that Android is replacing the feature/dumb phone. So when you have people picking up dirt cheap phones on PAYG sims they probably don't get internet (or very little) and they certainly won't be buying apps.
That's the other issue with Android. Google can tout their numbers but 68.3% on its own doesn't mean anything unless you're making really basic apps for free. If you want to make something like Vice City, then you're looking at comprable numbers to iOS, maybe even less.
I suspect they could go further than you think. Especially if they turned off certain functionalities like iOS does. For example maps on iOS 6 won't have 3D rendering on an old ipod touch. I guess it sucks if you know others have it but it's fully functional in every other way and it ensures as many people can move forward with the more essential bits.
I can't think of anyone that has said they don't want to upgrade Android. It is purely because they can't. Google ballsed up by not enforcing upgrades on phones.
You aren't allowed to say "assembled in the US" and assemble it in Brazil. Secondly refering to both continents is usually done in the plural, The Americas.
Even if you want to assume at some point a continent was called America centuries ago, we no longer call russia the USSR nor do we divide Germany into west and east Germany. There is no continent America and people (mainly Canadians) getting uppity about it only make themselves look ignorant. They should complain that there is no Britain. It's the United Kingdom of Britain and Northern Ireland or, if you refer to the collection of islands, then it's Great Britain. Yet we can get by without someone pooping their pants and talking about Britain.
Refering to the North and South of America as one entity is generally called "The Americas" and not America and if you look in the dictionary you'll see it says America is also a name for the United States therefore it's perfectly valid to reference the US as America or its citizens as Americans. Some dictionaries also put the US as its first definition so in their mind it's the most common meaning. Some don't and all that means is most people don't give a shit.
I believe they have done this with past iMacs as well. There is obviously some part in the US where it makes sense to make them in the US. Apple basically screwing together all the parts except one part made in the US probably counts as assembled in the US.
Because it was trying to be a newspaper on your phone. Most people aren't horders and so they only have one issue at a time. Murdoch is old and trying to keep things like the old way.
Slashdot Mirror
Yes they do. The only people that want to pretend that doesn't happen are xbox fanboys because their walled garden didn't include a browser until a couple months ago and it requires a gold subscription. If I were getting butt hurt like that I'd want to convince myself surfing on the TV is dumb.
Microsoft makes one component of a computer and bullies the OEM to building it their way. Apple makes hardware and their own OS so it's not really the same thing. It's also why no one moans about the PS3 or Wii or many other devices having only one browser.
Nothing stops you from jailbreaking your iphone and doing whatever you want with it.
iOS is certainly more tied down than OS X but It's certainly not like phones were open before and he should be grateful Apple removed their DRM from their music and open sourced their coded to make sure he could play his media everywhere. But most importantly, I'll take the walled garden over the mess that is the play store which effectively makes me a slave to anti-virus/malware software instead of Apple.
Stallman is a good guy to have around (despite the fact he borders on crazy) but if he think iOS is so bad he's more than welcome to come up with a better alternative. Google hasn't so the opportunity is there.
And you've just shown that you don't understand what it's patenting. It's patenting the exact design of the ipad which yes, does include rounded corners on a rectangular shape, but it sure as hell doesn't stop any other table from being a rectangle with rounded corners.
That's like saying google's design patent for their homepage stops anyone from having a logo and an input box below it and yet that's not the case.
He's bought out the company that's been at the forefront of suining people over patents and clearly he's done nothing to change that. Google only cares about Google (and keeping your personal data). So anything he says is irrelevant until he can prove he means what he says.
No one has a patent for rounded corners. You shouldn't really comment on things you don't have the mental capacity to understand.
Tablets won't go away like netbooks but the fad will probably die down. Tablets suit a lot of people that don't that much about computers and just want the internet.
Out of a 1000 I'm sure like 900 think they will get back. That said I bet if they really want to bring them back they could but the cost would be astronomical.
Mars isn't a good final solution but the sun will burn out eventually and we'll almost certainly die so might as well start as early as possible to find a way off.
I was going to just that but my friend had a phone that's probably 2 years old now and he still had pretty much the same problems I had even if it was improved over all. He's also had to replace the battery sooner than I had to in my G1. Where as everyone I knew with an iphone (even 3GS) didn't have to even be concerned the battery wasn't replaceable so I went with a 4S.
I also didn't like that everyone that has an Android phone that remains relatively up to date and cool also uses cyanogenmod. As someone who would like to develop apps at some point I don't want to have to rely on a niche group of people for years when something new comes out that I really want to use.
You may very well be right but it also may not have made much of a difference. If they still enforced certain requirements (something I think Android should do) then that pleases developers but it may put off hardware companies. The reason I never fully got into doing development on my Android phone is because the OS was moving quickly but my phone was still stuck in the past. That is sort of annoying when you don't get to play with the new toys but I also Google wasn't as open about versions inititally so you had no clue if it made sense to target the latest or stick to 1.5 or 1.6 or target something better.
Android is a relatively good operating system if you can keep up with the latest developments but I think they did a little too much to please hardware companies that wanted something they could put on dirt cheap phones or bleeding edge phones while also sticking it to consumers so they still upgrade.
But maybe phones will become more like desktops and level off so versions won't matter as much. Or better yet, things like html 5 and web gl will take off and we don't have to worry about the operating system.
That is certainly helpful but what sort of processor and memory do they use on those operating systems? Unless I'm being thick, I only see screen/ size, openGL version and OS version. If I were to develop games then I would have to assume an old OS means lower CPU/memory specs and i'd probably ignore it. Maybe that's not the case if companies happen to be putting gingerbread on better hardware.
No, 2.2 will still be shit. My friend is on it and surfing the internet is nothing like on an S3 or even a iphone 4. Yes, 2.2 will function but it won't be great by any means. It won't even if good. People probably just blame their network connection and don't realise its the browser choking on JS that makes it slower.
Apple is not a software company. They will never been Microsoft or Google. They're a hardware company. That is why they don't licence iOS and never will. You can call that having a monopoly but that's like claiming your calculator manufactuer wants a monopoly because they produce a whole prouct and not a component.
Cars all serve the same basic purpose of getting to poit A to point B within the speed limit. All android phones don't do what a smart phone should do and if they do, they don't necessarily do it well. I should know, I just gave up a G1 on 1.5. Surfing the internet on it was fucking hell. The market just broke with no error message and I lost all my apps. A lot of those older verisions still have bugs like when the login cookie corrupts that leaves certain buttons, like the home button, don't work and unless you know how to fix it you'll probably assume it's physically busted (again no error messages) or wipe it and start from scratch. BTW, why should my login cookie even stop the home button from working? I'm not surprised Android owners buy fewer apps, it always felt less well made to me and I sure as hell wasn't going to tie my card to it.
You're probably right that Google wins in the sense that they're raking in cash but they do risk alienating people by making their product seem like a heap of cheap shit (like MS has done with Windows) or they'll alienate developers who will quickly move on to more friendly systems and without the developers they can't win. Mobiles are pretty competitive. If you think about how quickly we've seen big players become irrelevant then you can't assume Google wins purely by dumping a load of cheap crap on the market.
Slashdot doesn't represent most people and most Android phones are budget phones. Android owners need to realise most people don't own things like a S3 which I'm sure is a lovely phone but it's out of the price range of most people (even on a contract).
If google doesn't do it already they need to release hardware stats too so people know if they target a certain level and OS version then how many people will they could potentially have. This is why developers still prefer iOS because I suspect the actual numbers of potential customers is similar despite there being many more Android phones.
Android appears on some pretty low-end phones. Everyone talks about phones like the S3 but those sort of phones aren't what most Android owners have. I read something awhile ago saying that Android is replacing the feature/dumb phone. So when you have people picking up dirt cheap phones on PAYG sims they probably don't get internet (or very little) and they certainly won't be buying apps.
That's the other issue with Android. Google can tout their numbers but 68.3% on its own doesn't mean anything unless you're making really basic apps for free. If you want to make something like Vice City, then you're looking at comprable numbers to iOS, maybe even less.
I suspect they could go further than you think. Especially if they turned off certain functionalities like iOS does. For example maps on iOS 6 won't have 3D rendering on an old ipod touch. I guess it sucks if you know others have it but it's fully functional in every other way and it ensures as many people can move forward with the more essential bits.
I can't think of anyone that has said they don't want to upgrade Android. It is purely because they can't. Google ballsed up by not enforcing upgrades on phones.
You aren't allowed to say "assembled in the US" and assemble it in Brazil. Secondly refering to both continents is usually done in the plural, The Americas.
Even if you want to assume at some point a continent was called America centuries ago, we no longer call russia the USSR nor do we divide Germany into west and east Germany. There is no continent America and people (mainly Canadians) getting uppity about it only make themselves look ignorant. They should complain that there is no Britain. It's the United Kingdom of Britain and Northern Ireland or, if you refer to the collection of islands, then it's Great Britain. Yet we can get by without someone pooping their pants and talking about Britain.
Refering to the North and South of America as one entity is generally called "The Americas" and not America and if you look in the dictionary you'll see it says America is also a name for the United States therefore it's perfectly valid to reference the US as America or its citizens as Americans. Some dictionaries also put the US as its first definition so in their mind it's the most common meaning. Some don't and all that means is most people don't give a shit.
I believe they have done this with past iMacs as well. There is obviously some part in the US where it makes sense to make them in the US. Apple basically screwing together all the parts except one part made in the US probably counts as assembled in the US.
Because it was trying to be a newspaper on your phone. Most people aren't horders and so they only have one issue at a time. Murdoch is old and trying to keep things like the old way.
You are kind of forced into buying their stuff once you're locked into their way of doing things.