Its a way for you to keep direct contact with your kid wherever he may be. It's extremely easy to monitor its usage and to add most phones provide gps tracking to always know we're they may be.
I keep seeing people shocked about this trend and I just don't get it. Don't THEY feel paranoid if their kids happen to be in an unreachable situation?
They also realize they will have to compete with Android's own maker, who will very likely get even bigger exclusivity windows now than before.
They also realize defending Android in court is costing them too much money just to be forced into licensing agreements while the android creators sit comfortably in the sideline free of lawsuits.
They also realize that Google is becoming too controlling.
They also realize it is them, the phone makers, that made Android successful, not Google.
If there is one company that invests money in advertisement it's HTC. I think every time I go to the movies every phone ad I see is for a new HTC phone, usually an Evo. Yea, they always say "powered by android", but its that marketing that made android a name, not the other way around. They can do the same to whatever they decide to use next.
Keep in mind the average joe, not the geek, not the technically inclined or the researcher, has barely any clue what Android is.
Either way, just like they did by offering Windows Phone 7 devices, just because they buy their own OS and offer it does not mean they will stop selling Android that same day. They will call it "diversification of the product line" at first, and should they manage to make it stick, after a year perhaps, THEN they stop making Android phones. If it does not work, just write it off as a failed project and move on.
Flash video is way more prevalent than that. In fact it seems ads have already adopted html5 standards to do their annoyance, but that's anecdote based off my iPad web browsing.
Also, transitioning to web standards my re-encoding everything is not that easy of a task.
It is indeed smarter to go pure web standards, but it's easier to just upgrade flash streaming servers.
Adobes only goal here is to stop the slow but steady adoption of html5 video formats. By offering this upgrade they tell their clients they no longer have to work in a transition to target the huge and growing iOS user base.
This is good for Apple as most video services are just a server patch away from providing video content to iOs users, drastically diminishing the "it cant play flash video" bashing competitors like to use.
Flash gaming may not be available still, but most iOS users are far from game starved. It's video content most iOS users actually complain about.
So, good for Apple and good for Adobe. Who is it bad for? Web standards, and perhaps Android users. Adobe still wants flash to be required anywhere that it can run so it's likely they won't offer the same HTML5 video streams to Android devices. Many of the handsets out there still can't handle flash properly and the ones that do do so with heavy battery penalties.
With this available, it's very unlikely content providers will bother pursuing web standards for the sake of low end Android handsets or users that refuse to install flash in their computers.
It's likely that sooner or later Adobe will provide the capabilities for all clients, but I doubt they have any intentions to do it soon. I do hope im wrong though.
PS: unsure if it's related but have been streaming blip.tv episodes of the Nostalgia Critic on my iPad all night so I guess at least they (blip.tv) already updated.
Senate Republicans are pro-corporate world. They only look out for each-other's interests and the interests of those companies that will give them large campaign contributions.
Everyone is tossing the "job creation" thing about because they know the masses are concerned about jobs. They don't actually care about the jobs.
Is Safari for windows subject to those OS wide certificate stores?
I suffered my first ever virus infection today in my windows machine and I think this may be part of how it got in. Windows Security Essentials caught it fast though.
At the time i was browsing with Safari but not sure if the issue was due to an unpatched windows Safari or just my personal procrastination on installing windows updates:P
(BTW add that to the list of "how hard it can be", I know im not the only person I know that rarely shuts down his windows machine and hates restarting it for any reason, resulting in security patch procrastination)
Chrome, you wont ever know. It will patch itself regardless of you wanting it to or not (hate that, reason it's the only browser I dont have on my windows machine.)
With Firefox, many users run old versions still due to old add-ons and refuse to update.
Internet Explorer... 6.... do I have to explain that?:P
With Safari, in the mac, at least with my default configuration, it does not check for updates very often. I am not sure for the PC... i think they offer an updater for PC as a separate app but hate it so much I disabled it, forcing me to look up updates manually.
So the "best" browser if you want things up to date may be Chrome, but sorry, me no likely my computer doing things without my explicit authorization.
As much as I love Apple products I got to admit, this tiny week delay may be more significant than apple fans would like to think.
Early today I got my first ever virus infection (in my Windows machine) while running Safari. Not sure if its related, but I'm guessing it is. For the first time I got to give a tip of the hat to Microsoft, Security Essentials caught the virus infection immediately and got rid of it. Good thing it was a well known trojan and not a new unknown virus... then again if that was the case I may already have been infected...
There are only two types of people that can simplify the lawsuit so plainly: Apple haters and google Fanbois.
The lawsuit was not just because of the rounded rect proportion around the device. It was about the entire device design, and once you shrink the thing 10% vertically both units are nearly identical. Samsung even goes away from the Android design standards of back/home/menu buttons intentionally to make the device look more like Apple's devices.
Again: I don't really care if Apple was right because I still think the lawsuit is stupid, but I also feel that plagiarism, although not illegal (and hopefully never so), should be publicly called out when its that intentional. And I say this as some one who got his wife a Samsung Gravity phone.
1) That made worldwide rounds. You can bet it was considered and investigated. 2) Imagine Nikey made a lawsuit because some one is using their logo, only the other company stretched it vertically by 10%. The logo is still the same, and a squashed photoshop edit could just be used to display how its exactly the same design, only stretched vertically 10%
Mind you: I don't agree at all with these cases because: A) For one, these tablets are barely selling as they stand. B) For the other, I hate patents. I really do. C) Additionally, this is really just Apple pursuing a proxy fight against Google. It is Google and Android Apple is really angry against (after all, they were a partner involved in the original iPhone providing services between other things.) Apple was really betrayed by Google just like they were betrayed by Microsoft back in the day. D) And that last point leads to: Sorry Steve, but "fool me once, shame on you, fool me twice, shame on me." You knew they were working on an "old style phone" and yet allow their involvement, same way MS was working on "old style command line OS". Your bad. Live with that and let them live or fail on their own merit. E) Finally, and again following up: let them live or die on their own merit. Competition is good for everyone. Let android live (unless they stamp a white glowing bitten Orange with a leaf in the back of their devices.)
As far as this particular case goes, the patent was applied for in 2005 but was not granted until about a year ago. Until the patent is granted, you cant take any legal action against anyone.
It is very likely as soon as they got the patent they approached Nintendo for negotiations, after all Nintendo already patents the gyroscopic features from another company so they are not opposed to pay for patent licensing when the law says so. Its likely negotiations during the year fell through due to agreements in fees and they decided now to approach the court.
I hate patents, big time. But got to say, as far as patent lawsuits go, this one seems as legit as they can ever be. I'm sure the guys were biting their fingernails in anger during that time, worrying about Nintendo accumulating enough wealth to make it impossible to challenge them in court without huge risks of loosing and wasting millions. After all, he who has the deepest pockets tends to win patent lawsuits.
So you want companies to google up the full definition of their patents on a daily basis and sue into homelessness every startup that appears to violate instead? Sounds like a plan the largest patent trolls may be interested to hear more about! Did you patent that idea?
As bad? You behind the times dude, the fashion in the press is to state that Fukushhima is the worst disasta evah! If you Fox News it's also 10 times worse than Chernobyl AND since it happened during Obama's administration it's Obama's fault for his poor administration of the "Japanese territory".
There is no contradiction in not wanting companies or the government to trample on your privacy, and being willing to trade your privacy in exchange for services.
I'm quite happy to let Gmail snuffle through my personal email like a truffle pig, in exchange for getting a great webmail service. I knew what I was getting into, and what the price was, and made a reasoned judgement as to the value of the service and the cost to my privacy.
I would be hopping mad if my (paid for) business webmail provider suddenly decided to do some rifling through my email for their own purposes, as that is not what I agreed to.
If privacy has a value, then it is a tradable commodity; someone trying to steal it != someone trying to buy it.
How about scanning the wireless networks of non-customers? A lot of slashdoters have defended that "accident" while at the exact same time bashing the government for asking access to that data so they are able to investigate how far the "accident" go.
Heck complaining about government violating privacy is to be expected! The true hypocrisy (or sheephood) comes when they call out Facebook for privacy violations while defending Google at every corner.
You know, I own an iPad, and although the size is good for many things, I got to admit... I want a 15" tablet. Certain kind of PDFs are hard to read even at 10".
My dream tablet that would be able to compete with the iPad (and I'd buy one before upgrading to an iPad 2 or 3):
15" A stylus mode for art (something I can switch on so it ignores touch while using stylus) Hmm... thats it really, but those are two things I know Apple will NEVER do.
This platform, if as good as described, will take over the entire non-Apple tablet market very very fast. I know I would get one even if just to play with it and development.
This thing, again if as described, will be successful and developers will focus their support for it, not Honeycomb or subsequent APIs. Some developers may keep their support on 2.2 API, others may venture deep into whatever exclusive APIs the Kindle Tablet offers. This means at best, the Android platform will start slowing down, adoption rate for new APIs will be extremely slow. At worst, developers will start making software that will only run in the Kindle tablet.
More than Apple lawsuits, I would worry about Oracle, though. If Google looses their case, Amazon may inherit the legacy and suffer similar fate.
The pricing you note is not exclusive to Brazil. For the most part, globally, in averages, price ranges are: Desktops Netbooks Tablets = Laptops = High End Desktops
Despite this, the iPad 2 still seems to be overselling netbooks. So its not just an issue with price. Price MAY make non-apple tablets more appealing, though.
If rumors are true, we will be seeing a $250 Kindle Tablet soon with an Android fork that will run Android 2.2 apps but no Google services at all, and likely fork compatibility going forward. I bet nothing in the world must scare Google more than that tablet. If true, it will kill the market for any non-Apple tablet and steal any control Google has over that market.
Source of this information? Also keep in mind that he was specifically talking about the original 7" Galaxy Tab, the one Samsung said was selling through "quite smooth" but refused to reveal numbers for.
I do find it interesting he made his callout specific to this model and didn't say anything about the 10.5" model. If he has his hand on that information, it would had been nice to know the sell numbers for that model too.
Slashdot Mirror
This is bad why?
Its a way for you to keep direct contact with your kid wherever he may be. It's extremely easy to monitor its usage and to add most phones provide gps tracking to always know we're they may be.
I keep seeing people shocked about this trend and I just don't get it. Don't THEY feel paranoid if their kids happen to be in an unreachable situation?
Bah never mind, this is about computer recyclilng... not actual final FINAL steps of recycling.
They also realize they will have to compete with Android's own maker, who will very likely get even bigger exclusivity windows now than before.
They also realize defending Android in court is costing them too much money just to be forced into licensing agreements while the android creators sit comfortably in the sideline free of lawsuits.
They also realize that Google is becoming too controlling.
They also realize it is them, the phone makers, that made Android successful, not Google.
If there is one company that invests money in advertisement it's HTC. I think every time I go to the movies every phone ad I see is for a new HTC phone, usually an Evo. Yea, they always say "powered by android", but its that marketing that made android a name, not the other way around. They can do the same to whatever they decide to use next.
Keep in mind the average joe, not the geek, not the technically inclined or the researcher, has barely any clue what Android is.
Either way, just like they did by offering Windows Phone 7 devices, just because they buy their own OS and offer it does not mean they will stop selling Android that same day. They will call it "diversification of the product line" at first, and should they manage to make it stick, after a year perhaps, THEN they stop making Android phones. If it does not work, just write it off as a failed project and move on.
Same way all those things are available, you can also get the kits to extract the data out of an old NES cart.
The legal way is to get the original game, the kit, and rip it yourself.
Other than that: piracy.
Flash video is way more prevalent than that. In fact it seems ads have already adopted html5 standards to do their annoyance, but that's anecdote based off my iPad web browsing.
Also, transitioning to web standards my re-encoding everything is not that easy of a task.
It is indeed smarter to go pure web standards, but it's easier to just upgrade flash streaming servers.
That is why I say it's bad for web standards.
Adobes only goal here is to stop the slow but steady adoption of html5 video formats. By offering this upgrade they tell their clients they no longer have to work in a transition to target the huge and growing iOS user base.
This is good for Apple as most video services are just a server patch away from providing video content to iOs users, drastically diminishing the "it cant play flash video" bashing competitors like to use.
Flash gaming may not be available still, but most iOS users are far from game starved. It's video content most iOS users actually complain about.
So, good for Apple and good for Adobe. Who is it bad for? Web standards, and perhaps Android users. Adobe still wants flash to be required anywhere that it can run so it's likely they won't offer the same HTML5 video streams to Android devices. Many of the handsets out there still can't handle flash properly and the ones that do do so with heavy battery penalties.
With this available, it's very unlikely content providers will bother pursuing web standards for the sake of low end Android handsets or users that refuse to install flash in their computers.
It's likely that sooner or later Adobe will provide the capabilities for all clients, but I doubt they have any intentions to do it soon. I do hope im wrong though.
PS: unsure if it's related but have been streaming blip.tv episodes of the Nostalgia Critic on my iPad all night so I guess at least they (blip.tv) already updated.
Senate Republicans are pro-corporate world. They only look out for each-other's interests and the interests of those companies that will give them large campaign contributions.
Everyone is tossing the "job creation" thing about because they know the masses are concerned about jobs. They don't actually care about the jobs.
Is Safari for windows subject to those OS wide certificate stores?
I suffered my first ever virus infection today in my windows machine and I think this may be part of how it got in. Windows Security Essentials caught it fast though.
At the time i was browsing with Safari but not sure if the issue was due to an unpatched windows Safari or just my personal procrastination on installing windows updates :P
(BTW add that to the list of "how hard it can be", I know im not the only person I know that rarely shuts down his windows machine and hates restarting it for any reason, resulting in security patch procrastination)
Depends on the browser.
Chrome, you wont ever know. It will patch itself regardless of you wanting it to or not (hate that, reason it's the only browser I dont have on my windows machine.)
With Firefox, many users run old versions still due to old add-ons and refuse to update.
Internet Explorer... 6.... do I have to explain that? :P
With Safari, in the mac, at least with my default configuration, it does not check for updates very often. I am not sure for the PC... i think they offer an updater for PC as a separate app but hate it so much I disabled it, forcing me to look up updates manually.
So the "best" browser if you want things up to date may be Chrome, but sorry, me no likely my computer doing things without my explicit authorization.
Not sure about any issues with Opera.
As much as I love Apple products I got to admit, this tiny week delay may be more significant than apple fans would like to think.
Early today I got my first ever virus infection (in my Windows machine) while running Safari. Not sure if its related, but I'm guessing it is. For the first time I got to give a tip of the hat to Microsoft, Security Essentials caught the virus infection immediately and got rid of it. Good thing it was a well known trojan and not a new unknown virus... then again if that was the case I may already have been infected...
There are only two types of people that can simplify the lawsuit so plainly: Apple haters and google Fanbois.
The lawsuit was not just because of the rounded rect proportion around the device. It was about the entire device design, and once you shrink the thing 10% vertically both units are nearly identical. Samsung even goes away from the Android design standards of back/home/menu buttons intentionally to make the device look more like Apple's devices.
Again: I don't really care if Apple was right because I still think the lawsuit is stupid, but I also feel that plagiarism, although not illegal (and hopefully never so), should be publicly called out when its that intentional. And I say this as some one who got his wife a Samsung Gravity phone.
1) That made worldwide rounds. You can bet it was considered and investigated.
2) Imagine Nikey made a lawsuit because some one is using their logo, only the other company stretched it vertically by 10%. The logo is still the same, and a squashed photoshop edit could just be used to display how its exactly the same design, only stretched vertically 10%
Mind you: I don't agree at all with these cases because:
A) For one, these tablets are barely selling as they stand.
B) For the other, I hate patents. I really do.
C) Additionally, this is really just Apple pursuing a proxy fight against Google. It is Google and Android Apple is really angry against (after all, they were a partner involved in the original iPhone providing services between other things.) Apple was really betrayed by Google just like they were betrayed by Microsoft back in the day.
D) And that last point leads to: Sorry Steve, but "fool me once, shame on you, fool me twice, shame on me." You knew they were working on an "old style phone" and yet allow their involvement, same way MS was working on "old style command line OS". Your bad. Live with that and let them live or fail on their own merit.
E) Finally, and again following up: let them live or die on their own merit. Competition is good for everyone. Let android live (unless they stamp a white glowing bitten Orange with a leaf in the back of their devices.)
As far as this particular case goes, the patent was applied for in 2005 but was not granted until about a year ago. Until the patent is granted, you cant take any legal action against anyone.
It is very likely as soon as they got the patent they approached Nintendo for negotiations, after all Nintendo already patents the gyroscopic features from another company so they are not opposed to pay for patent licensing when the law says so. Its likely negotiations during the year fell through due to agreements in fees and they decided now to approach the court.
I hate patents, big time. But got to say, as far as patent lawsuits go, this one seems as legit as they can ever be. I'm sure the guys were biting their fingernails in anger during that time, worrying about Nintendo accumulating enough wealth to make it impossible to challenge them in court without huge risks of loosing and wasting millions. After all, he who has the deepest pockets tends to win patent lawsuits.
So you want companies to google up the full definition of their patents on a daily basis and sue into homelessness every startup that appears to violate instead? Sounds like a plan the largest patent trolls may be interested to hear more about! Did you patent that idea?
As bad? You behind the times dude, the fashion in the press is to state that Fukushhima is the worst disasta evah! If you Fox News it's also 10 times worse than Chernobyl AND since it happened during Obama's administration it's Obama's fault for his poor administration of the "Japanese territory".
Does the 7 billionth baby gets a free car?
There is no contradiction in not wanting companies or the government to trample on your privacy, and being willing to trade your privacy in exchange for services.
I'm quite happy to let Gmail snuffle through my personal email like a truffle pig, in exchange for getting a great webmail service. I knew what I was getting into, and what the price was, and made a reasoned judgement as to the value of the service and the cost to my privacy.
I would be hopping mad if my (paid for) business webmail provider suddenly decided to do some rifling through my email for their own purposes, as that is not what I agreed to.
If privacy has a value, then it is a tradable commodity; someone trying to steal it != someone trying to buy it.
How about scanning the wireless networks of non-customers? A lot of slashdoters have defended that "accident" while at the exact same time bashing the government for asking access to that data so they are able to investigate how far the "accident" go.
Heck complaining about government violating privacy is to be expected! The true hypocrisy (or sheephood) comes when they call out Facebook for privacy violations while defending Google at every corner.
You know, I own an iPad, and although the size is good for many things, I got to admit... I want a 15" tablet. Certain kind of PDFs are hard to read even at 10".
My dream tablet that would be able to compete with the iPad (and I'd buy one before upgrading to an iPad 2 or 3):
15"
A stylus mode for art (something I can switch on so it ignores touch while using stylus)
Hmm... thats it really, but those are two things I know Apple will NEVER do.
Family of 3 where everyone loves reading?
This must be scaring the hell out of Google.
This platform, if as good as described, will take over the entire non-Apple tablet market very very fast. I know I would get one even if just to play with it and development.
This thing, again if as described, will be successful and developers will focus their support for it, not Honeycomb or subsequent APIs. Some developers may keep their support on 2.2 API, others may venture deep into whatever exclusive APIs the Kindle Tablet offers. This means at best, the Android platform will start slowing down, adoption rate for new APIs will be extremely slow. At worst, developers will start making software that will only run in the Kindle tablet.
More than Apple lawsuits, I would worry about Oracle, though. If Google looses their case, Amazon may inherit the legacy and suffer similar fate.
woops, slashdot deleted my "lesser than" signs in between the device categories...
The pricing you note is not exclusive to Brazil. For the most part, globally, in averages, price ranges are:
Desktops Netbooks Tablets = Laptops = High End Desktops
Despite this, the iPad 2 still seems to be overselling netbooks. So its not just an issue with price. Price MAY make non-apple tablets more appealing, though.
If rumors are true, we will be seeing a $250 Kindle Tablet soon with an Android fork that will run Android 2.2 apps but no Google services at all, and likely fork compatibility going forward. I bet nothing in the world must scare Google more than that tablet. If true, it will kill the market for any non-Apple tablet and steal any control Google has over that market.
Source of this information? Also keep in mind that he was specifically talking about the original 7" Galaxy Tab, the one Samsung said was selling through "quite smooth" but refused to reveal numbers for.
I do find it interesting he made his callout specific to this model and didn't say anything about the 10.5" model. If he has his hand on that information, it would had been nice to know the sell numbers for that model too.