Apple adds new features and doesn't necessarily port them to old iPhones.
Apple is pretty good about updating their product line to the current OS. True, you're not going to update your original iPhone to iOS5. But you're not going to buy a brand new last gen iPhone 4 or even iPhone 3GS with iOS 3. Same with Windows Phones, they all currently run the latest release of WP7, even if you buy a last gen samsung focus from. However, in the Android world you can buy a brand new Android phone with an OS 2 versions out of date, and that phone will never be upgraded. THAT is the problem. We're not talking about 4 year old phones not getting the latest release. We're talking about brand new phones that are out of date, out of the box. This isn't a fairy tale.
yeah we should totally blame google and android for that, its not the manufacturer's fault at all./sarcasm
I dunno, once upon a time the iPhone WAS the market (I really dont see blackberry as a competitor to the iphone), so Android has convinced at least 50% of people who may otherwise have bought an iphone (in the absence of any other choice) to buy an android phone. Some of those will switch back to iphone, or will choose iphone next because they disliked some of it...
but the fact is that android hasn't failed, and is still competing quite well in the market despite any fragmentation or whatever people want to call it.
People love to talk in absolutes, like there can be only 1 winner and that everyone should use the same phone. People think something is either the best or it is crap...
but in the real world we just find 2 very successful platforms, with a bunch of vocal users who support each one.
the media loves the OS wars though, and here we are feeding the trolls...
I've owned 2 android phones, and never felt any impact of this fragmentation.
If a device manufacturer screws up, and makes a device that doesn't work well with android, is that really the fault of android?
I accept that developers have to do a bit more work to cater for more devices, but its no different to what we've had with windows for years.
so yeah, fragmentation exists, but for your average android user, its not that big a deal. maybe you might find an app that doesn't work well on your phone. its rare, but if it does happen, just look for another app...
btw, I forgot to congratulate you - 30kg is a very good achievement and one you should be very proud of. If your diet/exercise is working for you then stick to it, but please dont feel you need to starve yourself to stay slim. Never before in history have people been so madly trying to cut down on food in order to stay in shape - it is a problem unique to our day and one I believe we have created by our insistence on eating so many carbs.
you will lose weight by starving yourself, that is evidenced by viewing any people who are literally starving.
However, that is not healthy and really not what you want.
The reason you get hungry is because your body is wanting more fuel. Its food cravings - and if you read zoe harcombe's blog you'll find enough info to work out what those food cravings are. It isn't normal to be hungry all the time.
If you get your energy mainly from carbs, then you may feel energetic but you will need to exercise to use the energy, or it will be converted to fat.
When you say that if you eat fat you will return to your previous weight, I assume you mean "in addition to carbs". Because fat on its own cannot make you fat. It is impossible. The ONLY reason you get fatter is because your body produces insulin, and the job of insulin is to convert your excess energy reserves to stored body fat. Without insulin your body will not store excess energy as fat.
And the only reason your body creates insulin because your blood sugar level is increased, and the easiest way to increase your blood sugar level is to eat carbs. Nothing else affects your blood sugar level enough to make a difference. Only carbs will.
The only downside to not eating carbs is that you will find it difficult to do intense exercise. For sports, or any intense exercise, you need carbs - because your muscles cannot get the energy fast enough from fat for intense exercise. glucose energy is delivered much faster than ketones (energy from fat) so this is why athletes need carbs. The rest of us do not need carbs, and any time you are not exercising, carbs will only give you energy you wont use and it will turn to stored fat.
Eating less will reduce your metabolism, and if you think you can play sport on less energy than your body needs, you're fooling yourself. Sport does increase your metabolism, so your energy will be burned up faster (simple isn't it?) , which means you'll get hungry for more energy sooner. Your body wont let you starve, which is why you get hungry. Its your natural survival mechanism kicking in. You'll get lethargic, and you'll need to eat. Actually, many people turn to energy drinks, which is a big shot of refined carbs, instant energy, and your muscles will go crazy for it, but it will not last and afterwards you'll feel more lethargic.
If you do switch to protein & fat, you will get massive withdrawals from sugars and carbs. Many articles claim that high fat/low carb diets leave you without energy, but the side effects they list are almost all withdrawal symptoms from sugar and refined carbs. Stick with the low carb/high fat diet long enough, and the withdrawal symptoms pass, your body learns to derive energy from fat and protein, and you'll feel more healthy and more vibrant than ever before.
I'll sum it up by saying the only people who need carbs are athletes and people who do intense physical exercise. I'm not talking about a walk down the road or a jog around the block either...
For the rest of us, our bodies actually work better on fats and protein, which is what people have been eating most for many thousands of years. We have done a diet u-turn in the last 30 years and then are scratching our heads wondering why the world is getting fat.
a small distinction on the surface, but a huge one in practice.
Your body may well use more or less energy regardless of what you do and regardless of what you eat. You can eat more food, and your metabolism may increase to match it, even without exercise. If you eat less food, your metabolism may slow down...the fact is we just dont know enough about metabolism to simply say "eat less energy than you use" in order to lose weight - because we just dont know how much energy we actually derive from what we eat (vs how much is discarded) and we dont know how much energy our body is using at any given moment.
instead of trying to use more energy than you consume, thinking that will create a net deficit and force your body to burn fat for energy, one should instead think of food as fuel, and allow the body to do its job effectively without trying to overthink it.
The fact is, if you do try to create an energy deficit, rather than start burning fat, your body will instead get very tired once you run out of glycogen (energy from carbs, stored in your muscles) and you will have very little desire or ability to keep on exercising. The body is a bit lazy, in that if its used to getting energy from carbs, then it will refuse to get energy from fat, and instead it will just try to slow you down and make you hungry for more carbs.
Once you realise that the cravings are just your body's survival mechanism telling you to eat more food (which is why you crave sweet things, or foods high in fast energy, ie. refined carbs/sugar), you will be able to resist them with that knowledge, and turn to more wholesome food instead.
I'll cut it short: Want energy? Eat protein/fat. Meats, fish, eggs, yoghurt, etc will give you far better energy and will keep the hunger away longer than any carbohydrates will, and the best part is they will not make you fat.
No sir, its impossible to get fat from eating meat, fish or eggs. Eat as many as you like. No carbs, no insulin, no stored fat. It really is that simple. It just takes your body a few days/weeks to get used to getting its energy from fat/protein rather than carbs. Its easier to get energy from refined carbs, but we know the energy doesn't last long and makes you feel worse afterwards. Get used to fat/protein as an energy source, and you'll never have weight problems again.
Still think you can eat that burger and then exercise it off? You might like to try and calculate just how many hours on the treadmill it takes, or how far you'd have to run - hint: you'll be gone a while. long enough that you'd need to think about packing your next meal...oh wait - that's what we're trying to burn off...
Its far easier to just not eat the bad stuff to begin with. And by bad stuff I mean refined carbohydrates (sugars, white bread, flour, white rice etc).
I hope I have got you thinking (anyone who cares to read it). The health officials have it wrong. If they didn't then the obesity rate wouldn't be skyrocketing. Do you really think people suddenly stopped being active in the 1980's. Rather, I'd say that they started eating unhealthy on a large scale, but without realising it. How? because they were following the diet advice given to them by the health officials, telling them to base their meals on carbs, and "eat less". As a result they get hungry, and eat more carbs, putting them on the path to rapid weight gain, and no idea how to reverse it.
Its time to spread the word. Fat = good. Cholesterol = vital for life (look it up). Protein = good. Carbs = ok. Refined carbs = bad.
stop eating carbs - they are causing the cravings. no need to exercise excessively - it just makes you hungrier and uses up your precious energy quicker.
want energy? eat protein and fat. fat is more energy dense than carbs and both protein and fat will leave you feeling fuller for longer.
oh, and no carbs = no insulin, so problem solved.
sure, its more complex than that, but look up the harcombe diet and I hope you find it useful.
That's not pedantic - it's a simple fact that seems to be lost on people. Sure, there are factors like diabetes and glandular issues that can make it easier to put weight on... but you still have to eat more than you use!
I disagree. It may be more correct to say "you still have to eat more than your body uses", but its misleading to think you can eat whatever and just work off the extra calories. It doesn't work that way, despite science ignoring the rapid increase in the number of overweight people since the 1980's when they changed their advice from "fats are good" to "fats are bad, eat carbs". Humans have been eating meat and fatty foods since the dawn of time, yet in the 21st century we declare fat as the enemy and then wonder why so many people are putting on weight...??
the eat less/do more thing doesn't seem to be working very well does it? With so many people on diets, how come none of them have any willpower?
I'll give you a clue, people get food cravings because their bodies tell them they are hungry. Is there body trying to hurt them? no, its trying to stay alive. Why would people feel hungry when they are actually not starving? from eating carbs. our bodies are not designed to eat the amount of carbs we do - it just cannot cope, so the mechanisms that tell us when we are full/hungry are not working properly. Start eating real food, not processed stuff, and you can bring your body back to life - and find out what it is really capable of. It can burn its own fat, it doesn't need your help. You just need to give it a chance, by stopping the carb intake which is what's making you fat in the first place...
There are much better articles on that website too, spend some time reading that and you'll know more than most dietitians/nutritionists in the world.
If it really was just about how much you eat vs how much you do, then how do we have people who are thin who can eat loads of food without weight gain, and others who are fat who will put on weight eating half that amount?
Starvation diets will plateau, as your body always adjusts its energy needs to match energy available. If you eat less, your metabolism slows down so you use less. There is nothing you can do about this - your body will keep itself alive at any cost. If you continue to eat less, your body thinks you're on a desert island, and attacks your muscles since these are more "expensive" than fat, and this can reduce your energy needs further, thus keeping you alive longer.
Do the opposite - eat the right amount, but eat well. Eating well means limit carbohydrates to only the amount your body will actually use, which unless you're an athlete, will be under 100g per day, probably under 50g per day.
Its easy - carbs increase your blood sugar, which in turn causes your body to produce insulin, which then causes your body to store fat.
No carbs, no blood sugar increase, no insulin, no stored fat. Actually there may still be some blood sugar increase from proteins but not enough to be worried about.
Your body can live without carbs. It cannot live without fats, and it cannot live without protein. it can turn protein into glucose when needed (so you get exactly the right amount, not a flood of it), and it can get energy from fat. in fact fat is more energy-dense than carbs, so this is why your body stores its own excess energy as fat - hint: its not trying to kill you. it just stores energy in case you might need it later.
also, no carbs = no bloating. fat/protein helps you feel fuller for longer, so you wont crave sweets (after a week or two). keep off the sugar, it is killing you.
read some more from zoe harcombe - i hope you find this useful:)
I had this pointed out to me just the other day...reading that makes DDG sound pretty good if you ask me, but the reality is that I still haven't used it. Google does what I need and in actual fact I rarely even use search for anything essential...so getting the _best_ result usually isn't as important as getting the _fastest_good_enough_ result.
Which advertisers were restricted from using other platforms? I'm pretty sure I can advertise where I want without penalty.
Which manufacturers has Google worked with to keep competitors away? Pretty much all android phone manufacturers also have windows phone offerings and some even have symbian or other OS offerings too.
Just because you can say it, doesn't make it true.
The first blank needs to be an industry, not a product. "search" is an industry. android is not. you could say "android phones" is an industry (except the correct industry is "smart phones") but then that wouldn't work because right now google doesn't make any phones, and if you say "smart phones" then google does not have a monopoly.
The only potentially valid case I've heard against google relates to search advertising, but it gets pretty complicated which is why not much has been pinned on them in the courts yet.
I used to come here when I thought I was so damned smart, so I'd be with folks so smart I felt like an idiot and wasn't so full of myself. Not any more. The intelligence level of this site as drastically fallen with its age.
um, so when you were younger and felt that way, how do you think the "folks so smart" viewed you on slashdot?
While we're at it, we should ground the entire Boeing fleet as well...one of their roofs ripped off a couple of days ago during a flight and cracks have been found all over the 737 fleet.
what if google also gives itself the same punishment as it gave others...? not saying that makes it right...nor is it a positive in itself...but it is interesting to see.
gah, facebook is just another means of communication, how can IT be the cause of YOUR (or others') behavior??!
People love to blame facebook for their own failings but seriously:
* if you're trying to create a secret life away from your spouse then your marriage obviously aint all rosy anyway, and you're an idiot if you think you can hide the problem forever. Openness and honesty is the only way to have a successful marriage, so dont blame facebook for your failing here.
* if you post things on facebook, its not facebook's fault.
* if you dont like what others post on facebook, its not facebook's fault.
yes facebook does have its faults - regarding security and privacy, but I think in this instance its more correct to say that "people's (mis)USE of facebook is a factor" rather than simply "facebook is a factor" in divorces.
what ever happened to trust in a relationship anyway? if you cant trust your spouse you're going to have trouble even without facebook.
Charlie Miller's app was removed from the app store as soon as it was discovered to be other than what it claimed, and Miller's developer rights were forfeited.
Which is another circle of security Android doesn't have. Once malware becomes known of, Apple can stop it in it's tracks, such that no-one else suffers.
Google could do the same with it's own Android store, but not all the other Android stores out there.
But in the second case, the problem is not the fault of android nor Google. Unless you see freedom of choice as a disadvantage...
You either have freedom with all the pros and cons, or you have no freedom (with all the pros and cons).
In the case of Android and iOS, neither is best or worst, just different. They will each appeal to different people.
To revisit your example: If I install a dodgy app from a store outside of Google, then its likely my own fault. I cannot blame Google any more than fat people can legitimately blame mcdonalds. But then I guess this is why people will blame Google for it...because apparently not banning something is the same as supporting and encouraging it.
Slashdot Mirror
Apple adds new features and doesn't necessarily port them to old iPhones.
Apple is pretty good about updating their product line to the current OS. True, you're not going to update your original iPhone to iOS5. But you're not going to buy a brand new last gen iPhone 4 or even iPhone 3GS with iOS 3. Same with Windows Phones, they all currently run the latest release of WP7, even if you buy a last gen samsung focus from. However, in the Android world you can buy a brand new Android phone with an OS 2 versions out of date, and that phone will never be upgraded. THAT is the problem. We're not talking about 4 year old phones not getting the latest release. We're talking about brand new phones that are out of date, out of the box. This isn't a fairy tale.
yeah we should totally blame google and android for that, its not the manufacturer's fault at all. /sarcasm
I dunno, once upon a time the iPhone WAS the market (I really dont see blackberry as a competitor to the iphone), so Android has convinced at least 50% of people who may otherwise have bought an iphone (in the absence of any other choice) to buy an android phone.
Some of those will switch back to iphone, or will choose iphone next because they disliked some of it...
but the fact is that android hasn't failed, and is still competing quite well in the market despite any fragmentation or whatever people want to call it.
People love to talk in absolutes, like there can be only 1 winner and that everyone should use the same phone. People think something is either the best or it is crap...
but in the real world we just find 2 very successful platforms, with a bunch of vocal users who support each one.
the media loves the OS wars though, and here we are feeding the trolls...
I've owned 2 android phones, and never felt any impact of this fragmentation.
If a device manufacturer screws up, and makes a device that doesn't work well with android, is that really the fault of android?
I accept that developers have to do a bit more work to cater for more devices, but its no different to what we've had with windows for years.
so yeah, fragmentation exists, but for your average android user, its not that big a deal. maybe you might find an app that doesn't work well on your phone. its rare, but if it does happen, just look for another app...
btw, I forgot to congratulate you - 30kg is a very good achievement and one you should be very proud of. If your diet/exercise is working for you then stick to it, but please dont feel you need to starve yourself to stay slim. Never before in history have people been so madly trying to cut down on food in order to stay in shape - it is a problem unique to our day and one I believe we have created by our insistence on eating so many carbs.
you need to change your thinking.
you will lose weight by starving yourself, that is evidenced by viewing any people who are literally starving.
However, that is not healthy and really not what you want.
The reason you get hungry is because your body is wanting more fuel. Its food cravings - and if you read zoe harcombe's blog you'll find enough info to work out what those food cravings are. It isn't normal to be hungry all the time.
If you get your energy mainly from carbs, then you may feel energetic but you will need to exercise to use the energy, or it will be converted to fat.
When you say that if you eat fat you will return to your previous weight, I assume you mean "in addition to carbs". Because fat on its own cannot make you fat. It is impossible. The ONLY reason you get fatter is because your body produces insulin, and the job of insulin is to convert your excess energy reserves to stored body fat. Without insulin your body will not store excess energy as fat.
And the only reason your body creates insulin because your blood sugar level is increased, and the easiest way to increase your blood sugar level is to eat carbs. Nothing else affects your blood sugar level enough to make a difference. Only carbs will.
The only downside to not eating carbs is that you will find it difficult to do intense exercise. For sports, or any intense exercise, you need carbs - because your muscles cannot get the energy fast enough from fat for intense exercise. glucose energy is delivered much faster than ketones (energy from fat) so this is why athletes need carbs. The rest of us do not need carbs, and any time you are not exercising, carbs will only give you energy you wont use and it will turn to stored fat.
Eating less will reduce your metabolism, and if you think you can play sport on less energy than your body needs, you're fooling yourself. Sport does increase your metabolism, so your energy will be burned up faster (simple isn't it?) , which means you'll get hungry for more energy sooner. Your body wont let you starve, which is why you get hungry. Its your natural survival mechanism kicking in. You'll get lethargic, and you'll need to eat. Actually, many people turn to energy drinks, which is a big shot of refined carbs, instant energy, and your muscles will go crazy for it, but it will not last and afterwards you'll feel more lethargic.
If you do switch to protein & fat, you will get massive withdrawals from sugars and carbs. Many articles claim that high fat/low carb diets leave you without energy, but the side effects they list are almost all withdrawal symptoms from sugar and refined carbs. Stick with the low carb/high fat diet long enough, and the withdrawal symptoms pass, your body learns to derive energy from fat and protein, and you'll feel more healthy and more vibrant than ever before.
I'll sum it up by saying the only people who need carbs are athletes and people who do intense physical exercise. I'm not talking about a walk down the road or a jog around the block either...
For the rest of us, our bodies actually work better on fats and protein, which is what people have been eating most for many thousands of years. We have done a diet u-turn in the last 30 years and then are scratching our heads wondering why the world is getting fat.
a small distinction on the surface, but a huge one in practice.
Your body may well use more or less energy regardless of what you do and regardless of what you eat. You can eat more food, and your metabolism may increase to match it, even without exercise. If you eat less food, your metabolism may slow down...the fact is we just dont know enough about metabolism to simply say "eat less energy than you use" in order to lose weight - because we just dont know how much energy we actually derive from what we eat (vs how much is discarded) and we dont know how much energy our body is using at any given moment.
instead of trying to use more energy than you consume, thinking that will create a net deficit and force your body to burn fat for energy, one should instead think of food as fuel, and allow the body to do its job effectively without trying to overthink it.
The fact is, if you do try to create an energy deficit, rather than start burning fat, your body will instead get very tired once you run out of glycogen (energy from carbs, stored in your muscles) and you will have very little desire or ability to keep on exercising. The body is a bit lazy, in that if its used to getting energy from carbs, then it will refuse to get energy from fat, and instead it will just try to slow you down and make you hungry for more carbs.
Once you realise that the cravings are just your body's survival mechanism telling you to eat more food (which is why you crave sweet things, or foods high in fast energy, ie. refined carbs/sugar), you will be able to resist them with that knowledge, and turn to more wholesome food instead.
I'll cut it short: Want energy? Eat protein/fat. Meats, fish, eggs, yoghurt, etc will give you far better energy and will keep the hunger away longer than any carbohydrates will, and the best part is they will not make you fat.
No sir, its impossible to get fat from eating meat, fish or eggs. Eat as many as you like. No carbs, no insulin, no stored fat. It really is that simple. It just takes your body a few days/weeks to get used to getting its energy from fat/protein rather than carbs. Its easier to get energy from refined carbs, but we know the energy doesn't last long and makes you feel worse afterwards. Get used to fat/protein as an energy source, and you'll never have weight problems again.
Still think you can eat that burger and then exercise it off? You might like to try and calculate just how many hours on the treadmill it takes, or how far you'd have to run - hint: you'll be gone a while. long enough that you'd need to think about packing your next meal...oh wait - that's what we're trying to burn off...
Its far easier to just not eat the bad stuff to begin with. And by bad stuff I mean refined carbohydrates (sugars, white bread, flour, white rice etc).
I hope I have got you thinking (anyone who cares to read it). The health officials have it wrong. If they didn't then the obesity rate wouldn't be skyrocketing. Do you really think people suddenly stopped being active in the 1980's. Rather, I'd say that they started eating unhealthy on a large scale, but without realising it. How? because they were following the diet advice given to them by the health officials, telling them to base their meals on carbs, and "eat less". As a result they get hungry, and eat more carbs, putting them on the path to rapid weight gain, and no idea how to reverse it.
Its time to spread the word. Fat = good. Cholesterol = vital for life (look it up). Protein = good. Carbs = ok. Refined carbs = bad.
um, saturated fat is not a problem at all, and has never been proven to cause heart disease.
worried about cholesterol?
read this: http://www.zoeharcombe.com/2009/09/forget-cholesterol-and-statins/
its not the baddie we've been made to think it is. its actually vital for life.
have a look at statistics sometime...the higher the cholesterol, the longer you live. google it - zoe harcombe has already done the research.
stop eating carbs - they are causing the cravings.
no need to exercise excessively - it just makes you hungrier and uses up your precious energy quicker.
want energy? eat protein and fat. fat is more energy dense than carbs and both protein and fat will leave you feeling fuller for longer.
oh, and no carbs = no insulin, so problem solved.
sure, its more complex than that, but look up the harcombe diet and I hope you find it useful.
I thought I read somewhere that 90% of gut bacteria is unique to the individual?
That's not pedantic - it's a simple fact that seems to be lost on people. Sure, there are factors like diabetes and glandular issues that can make it easier to put weight on... but you still have to eat more than you use!
I disagree. It may be more correct to say "you still have to eat more than your body uses", but its misleading to think you can eat whatever and just work off the extra calories. It doesn't work that way, despite science ignoring the rapid increase in the number of overweight people since the 1980's when they changed their advice from "fats are good" to "fats are bad, eat carbs". Humans have been eating meat and fatty foods since the dawn of time, yet in the 21st century we declare fat as the enemy and then wonder why so many people are putting on weight...??
the eat less/do more thing doesn't seem to be working very well does it? With so many people on diets, how come none of them have any willpower?
I'll give you a clue, people get food cravings because their bodies tell them they are hungry. Is there body trying to hurt them? no, its trying to stay alive.
Why would people feel hungry when they are actually not starving? from eating carbs. our bodies are not designed to eat the amount of carbs we do - it just cannot cope, so the mechanisms that tell us when we are full/hungry are not working properly. Start eating real food, not processed stuff, and you can bring your body back to life - and find out what it is really capable of. It can burn its own fat, it doesn't need your help. You just need to give it a chance, by stopping the carb intake which is what's making you fat in the first place...
Read this: http://www.zoeharcombe.com/the-knowledge/weight-gain-is-about-fat-stored/
There are much better articles on that website too, spend some time reading that and you'll know more than most dietitians/nutritionists in the world.
If it really was just about how much you eat vs how much you do, then how do we have people who are thin who can eat loads of food without weight gain, and others who are fat who will put on weight eating half that amount?
Starvation diets will plateau, as your body always adjusts its energy needs to match energy available. If you eat less, your metabolism slows down so you use less. There is nothing you can do about this - your body will keep itself alive at any cost. If you continue to eat less, your body thinks you're on a desert island, and attacks your muscles since these are more "expensive" than fat, and this can reduce your energy needs further, thus keeping you alive longer.
Do the opposite - eat the right amount, but eat well. Eating well means limit carbohydrates to only the amount your body will actually use, which unless you're an athlete, will be under 100g per day, probably under 50g per day.
Its easy - carbs increase your blood sugar, which in turn causes your body to produce insulin, which then causes your body to store fat.
No carbs, no blood sugar increase, no insulin, no stored fat. Actually there may still be some blood sugar increase from proteins but not enough to be worried about.
Your body can live without carbs. It cannot live without fats, and it cannot live without protein. it can turn protein into glucose when needed (so you get exactly the right amount, not a flood of it), and it can get energy from fat. in fact fat is more energy-dense than carbs, so this is why your body stores its own excess energy as fat - hint: its not trying to kill you. it just stores energy in case you might need it later.
also, no carbs = no bloating. fat/protein helps you feel fuller for longer, so you wont crave sweets (after a week or two). keep off the sugar, it is killing you.
read some more from zoe harcombe - i hope you find this useful :)
i stand corrected - i skimread it as being after 2000...
just tried it - yeah that's kinda cool :)
yes, DDG does use bing as "a" backend but it is not the only backend.
http://help.duckduckgo.com/customer/portal/articles/216399-sources
I had this pointed out to me just the other day...reading that makes DDG sound pretty good if you ask me, but the reality is that I still haven't used it. Google does what I need and in actual fact I rarely even use search for anything essential...so getting the _best_ result usually isn't as important as getting the _fastest_good_enough_ result.
you're referring to "mind share" not "market share"
Which advertisers were restricted from using other platforms? I'm pretty sure I can advertise where I want without penalty.
Which manufacturers has Google worked with to keep competitors away? Pretty much all android phone manufacturers also have windows phone offerings and some even have symbian or other OS offerings too.
Just because you can say it, doesn't make it true.
Google OWNS android.
The first blank needs to be an industry, not a product. "search" is an industry. android is not. you could say "android phones" is an industry (except the correct industry is "smart phones") but then that wouldn't work because right now google doesn't make any phones, and if you say "smart phones" then google does not have a monopoly.
The only potentially valid case I've heard against google relates to search advertising, but it gets pretty complicated which is why not much has been pinned on them in the courts yet.
I used to come here when I thought I was so damned smart, so I'd be with folks so smart I felt like an idiot and wasn't so full of myself. Not any more. The intelligence level of this site as drastically fallen with its age.
um, so when you were younger and felt that way, how do you think the "folks so smart" viewed you on slashdot?
maybe you're just getting older...
If you're trying to fly a boeing under water, you're doing it wrong. :P
While we're at it, we should ground the entire Boeing fleet as well...one of their roofs ripped off a couple of days ago during a flight and cracks have been found all over the 737 fleet.
http://abcnews.go.com/US/southwest-airlines-boeing-knew-737-flaw-expect-problem/story?id=13300089#.TwomuU8gifg
Best part: They knew it could happen but they kept it a secret.
according to that article that was a 15 year old plane that was built after the 737's were redesigned in 2000...
Maybe they are reporting from the future?
what if google also gives itself the same punishment as it gave others...? not saying that makes it right...nor is it a positive in itself...but it is interesting to see.
ah, good work. That article is making me think I should give it a go. Sounds interesting.
If nothing else, it sounds like they're attempting to bring competition back to search - may they succeed!
You are correct. I should've mentioned I was referring to "new" phones. You can always save money by going for last year's stuff...
exactly - this is the same as the "mcdonalds made me fat" arguments.
gah, facebook is just another means of communication, how can IT be the cause of YOUR (or others') behavior??!
People love to blame facebook for their own failings but seriously:
* if you're trying to create a secret life away from your spouse then your marriage obviously aint all rosy anyway, and you're an idiot if you think you can hide the problem forever. Openness and honesty is the only way to have a successful marriage, so dont blame facebook for your failing here.
* if you post things on facebook, its not facebook's fault.
* if you dont like what others post on facebook, its not facebook's fault.
yes facebook does have its faults - regarding security and privacy, but I think in this instance its more correct to say that "people's (mis)USE of facebook is a factor" rather than simply "facebook is a factor" in divorces.
what ever happened to trust in a relationship anyway? if you cant trust your spouse you're going to have trouble even without facebook.
oops, I misread the overall view of the above post - you're talking about the platform, not apple and google.
my apologies...and you are correct...and my reply was offtopic for this particular thread.
Charlie Miller's app was removed from the app store as soon as it was discovered to be other than what it claimed, and Miller's developer rights were forfeited.
Which is another circle of security Android doesn't have. Once malware becomes known of, Apple can stop it in it's tracks, such that no-one else suffers.
Google could do the same with it's own Android store, but not all the other Android stores out there.
But in the second case, the problem is not the fault of android nor Google. Unless you see freedom of choice as a disadvantage...
You either have freedom with all the pros and cons, or you have no freedom (with all the pros and cons).
In the case of Android and iOS, neither is best or worst, just different. They will each appeal to different people.
To revisit your example: If I install a dodgy app from a store outside of Google, then its likely my own fault. I cannot blame Google any more than fat people can legitimately blame mcdonalds. But then I guess this is why people will blame Google for it...because apparently not banning something is the same as supporting and encouraging it.