well, you only have to "make it available"...which means you probably can download the source to the android kernel...but Google dont publicize its location...and I guess they dont have to...
but it would be nice if they embraced the ideals of the kernel and not just its benefits...
I dont see google moving away from chrome, since their future is built on top of it to some degree.
Neither Microsoft, nor Mozilla, nor Apple have their business core on the web, so they can shift to other products without a major shift in company direction. But Google is different - they live on the web - they need the web.
Creating Chrome (and Chrome OS) was not just about competing for browser market share - it is about owning the foundation that all of Google's empire is built on. Rather than relying on Microsoft, Mozilla, and Apple products for their services to work on, they now own the entire platform, from the browser to the cloud.
So, you're saying that the Google funded, closed source, web browser "Chrome" is capable of quickly catching up to the features that the free donation & ads supported Firefox took so long to develop.
Basically you're saying: more money and developers == Faster Development. Thanks for your input Mr. Obvious.
P.S. Yeah, that's right: I said, "Chrome is closed source". Chromium is open source, and Chrome may or may not be a direct derivative of the open source Chromium. Needless to say, Google adds their own proprietary bits to Chromium before they ship it as Chrome, ergo: Chrome = Close Source.
Don't get me wrong, I like Chromium. Chrome is a joke -- Why anyone would want to use the closed / proprietary version (with Google's late-night secret sauce added), when there's a clean open source version available is beyond me.
Whilst you are partially correct, your post sounds like a troll. Dont like closed source?, I hope you're not using windows or OSX. Dont like company-funded things? I really hope you're not even using a computer...or a phone...hell, I guess you could be labelled a hypocrite in any case (I'm not going that far...but just so you know, your arguments are paper-thin at best).
You suggest that Chromium is GREAT while Chrome is BAD, and also that Google add closed-source stuff to chromium which is also somehow bad.
That kind of paints a different picture to the truth, when you realise that Google are behind the development of Chromium too (not just chrome), and about the only difference between chrome and chromium (from a user perspective) is the google logo. Sure there are more differences but in my experience it is Chrome, and NOT Chromium that has always been the more polished, stable version.
so its new technology. NFC itself is a standard. Putting the chip in the phone is not the problem.
Its use in mobile phones still needs work.
This doesn't change the fact that rather than work with the 14-30+ manufacturers who have signed up to work out a global standard, Apple would choose to go on their own to create a system that is incompatible with everything else.
Just because Apple say there isn't a standard doesn't mean you have to blindly believe them.
About time the iDrones started using the grey matter between their ears and thinking for themselves again.
Its got ISO certification and everything, and the support of most manufacturers in the industry.
I'm not sure what part of it Apple consider to be not a standard....?
oh wait...they want to build their own incompatible system, and they want to profit from it. business as usual for Apple.
complaining about lack of industry standard and then proposing to create your own standard that will only work with your own devices...kind of hypocritical isn't it?
um, NFC IS an approved standard, and with Google behind it it pretty much IS an industry standard. With both Google and Apple behind it, then it would DEFINITELY be an industry standard.
What has Apple's one got? Do you really think Apple will create something that works with anything/anyone except Apple?
People aren't ignoring what Apple said, they just dont believe it. Its bogus.
Apple's solution to this is to create their own? Well here's the thing, Apple's version wont be an industry standard either!! And it wont be open, like NFC is, so it'll be restricted to Apple only.
Think about what you (and the GP) have said. Then read the article again. Google have provided industry support for NFC, so there will now be many manufacturers supporting it. Apple are the ones creating their own, incompatible standard (as always), so actually, you ought to criticize Apple for not supporting what will shortly be a worldwide industry standard.
the damage they are doing is all to their own brand name. If you behave like a niche, then pretty soon you will become one. Apple have remained a niche in the PC market, after being initially popular. We're just seeing the repeat now, because they haven't changed their tactics, and the world is now catching on to their tricks.
so these claims turn out to be bogus...who knew? could it be that Apple doesn't like it because Apple doesn't control it? Also, its an open standard...oh noes.
But Apple didn't leave us guessing as to their real motive: From the article: "But Apple isn't completely abandoning the idea of mobile payments. Instead, the company plans to implement its own contactless payment technology"
and to finish off (and prove the GP correct): From the article: "the company's answer to mobile payments will run through its iTunes store. This would likely allow the company to reap a portion of transactions, as is the case for many products purchases through iTunes."
also, evolution is not science based on evidence. Its actually closer to companies that twist statistics to suit their own purposes than unbiased objective science.
Consider this, the experiment referred to here involved mixing some chemicals and forming amino acids, which are said to be the building blocks of life. Note that no life actually formed, but that is beside the point.
So a car analogy would be like mixing some chemicals together, and forming steel. And then claiming that all cars were formed by random chance, because they are all made from steel. And if you think I'm exaggerating and that that is a giant leap from steel to a full car, then you dont fully appreciate the difference between the amino acids compared to a fully functioning human being.
Showing that the right gases at the right mix can form amino acids is not evidence that that is what happened. It can fuel a theory, but it cannot prove it. At the end of the day, none of these experiments or findings can prove that that is how "life as we know it" came to be. You just cant come up with one method of forming a car and then conclude that all cars must have been formed by that method.
All the scientists are doing is forming a theory, based on wishful thinking. And hey, the theory may even appear to "work" (for some definition of 'work', because there are still many flaws and unknowns), but there's no way to actually prove that that is what happened. Its no more science than philosophy.
You can say the same about creationism or ID, and that is fine, but at least realise that evolution is a kind of science where the only accepted results and conclusions are the ones that match the theory. They've already worked out what they want to believe, now they are just setting out to try and prove it...and ignoring anything that doesn't suit.
hmmm, well, is there any problem advertising their product on their own website? i mean, people choose to go to google, right? MS advertise a lot more products on their websites, and no doubt they advertise MS products on bing.com from time to time too. I doubt this is illegal practice.
Buying out competitors is legal - and I'm pretty sure such buyouts are required to have government approval before they can go ahead.
Most companies do this now - even Apple has bought several other companies in areas it wants to move into. Nothing wrong with it, so long as it doesn't lock out competition.
I certainly dont think DoubleClick had a monopoly at the time of purchase, and youtube didn't either.
anyway, I dont think any examples you've given point to illegal activity. It seems you just dont like Google being as successful as they are.
What? A device manufacturer isn't releasing a software update for a device that's 2,5 years old (3G launch date: 11.08.2008)? Someone call the press! Seriously, with other manufacturers you are lucky if you get updates for a single year. Bitching that your 2,5 year old phone isn't getting an update is completely ridiculous.
its not about when the original launch date was, its about when the last sale date was.
the point is that there are iPhone 3G users who are still in their 2 year contract period.
The issue is much worse with Android phones, but we've been moaning about that for ages now already. Apple has been praised for its backwards compatibility until now, so its deserving of the criticism on this point I think.
If the iPhone 3G had been discontinued over 2 years ago from retail stores then I'd agree with you.
and even then, I'm not suggesting any phone needs feature updates, just security updates. Google (and partners) - that means you too!
In the end all you really need for Android is the ADB binary and an app which roots the phone for you. After updating the recovery partition then it's as simple as pressing two buttons to upload the update zip.
Wow! You DO realize, don't you, that even a pretty damn tech-savvy Android user (not talking about a developer; just a decidedly non-n00b user) would process most of those instructions as "noise", right?
um, no, non-n00b != pretty damn tech-savvy.
If you're "pretty damn tech-savvy" then rooting an android phone should be a cinch. If you're not, then you wouldn't know what it is and wouldn't be interested.
P.S. For kicks, also think about what may happen if such a company gets hacked. Enjoy.
is this greater or less than the risk of someone stealing your wallet, or breaking into your house and stealing your things?
I guess what it means is that the people who should be most worried about this stuff is those with the most to hide. Nothing wrong with that either, just trying to put some meaning into it.
I mean, its not like we have a choice. Either live like a hermit, in which case your quality of life suffers, or risk having your data stolen (albeit, a very small risk) at which point your quality of life suffers....but in the middle are those whose data has not yet been stolen and they can go on living as normal. So the only real choice we have is to be a little bit savvy with who we give information to, but on the whole just ignore the issue and move on.
See, just being the best or being popular isn't illegal (how could it be?)...but if you are the most popular by a long way, it can automatically lock out your competitors...I think this is what we're seeing here.
Google will probably also do what it can to maintain the situation, but I cant see anything illegal in just being the most popular. If that does become illegal, then that is why I said I cant see what the solution would be...
to use your analogy - people ARE forced to use Microsoft. retailers were penalized by microsoft if they shipped anything other than windows etc. Its not because MS is popular, its because they used anti-competitive practices to lock competitors out, and they used the market power to lock others out too.
Whether Google is doing the same remains to be seen...but on the surface it just looks like people are complaining because everyone uses google...
I agree with you about the rest of the planet thinking "appliances" are a better idea than "general purpose computers"...and to that end, I applaud the mac app store and any equivalents that may crop up in competitors (ubuntu had one before that but not as highly publicized)...
However, I also love the ability on android to tick a button and allow external apps in. Herein lies the core issue.
A device may be designed to protect the user etc, but at the end of the day, the user should be in charge.
I cannot deny that Apple's approach is working well for them though. They seem to target a specific subset of the market and they are not concerned with people who dont fall in that subset (ie. me). Which side is the minority...remains to be seen...and again, I dont think Apple care about that either, so long as they are making tons of money.
Today he's of the opinion that we are planted by aliens. The biologic soup theorist.
I find this amusing and also completely stupid. To say we are planted by aliens is not an explanation for anything...it just moves the problem elsewhere.
The next question is going to obviously be...so where did the aliens come from...
but I fear the response would be like the first..."from other aliens".
Slashdot Mirror
android 3 isn't covered by the GPL (nor is any android version). they use other open source licenses IIRC.
only the kernel is GPL, and its source is available already.
well, you only have to "make it available"...which means you probably can download the source to the android kernel...but Google dont publicize its location...and I guess they dont have to...
but it would be nice if they embraced the ideals of the kernel and not just its benefits...
How does anything you just said make Microsoft "not evil". ?
Claiming that others are "more evil" has no bearing on Microsoft at all.
I dont see google moving away from chrome, since their future is built on top of it to some degree.
Neither Microsoft, nor Mozilla, nor Apple have their business core on the web, so they can shift to other products without a major shift in company direction. But Google is different - they live on the web - they need the web.
Creating Chrome (and Chrome OS) was not just about competing for browser market share - it is about owning the foundation that all of Google's empire is built on. Rather than relying on Microsoft, Mozilla, and Apple products for their services to work on, they now own the entire platform, from the browser to the cloud.
I think Chrome will be with us for a long time.
So, you're saying that the Google funded, closed source, web browser "Chrome" is capable of quickly catching up to the features that the free donation & ads supported Firefox took so long to develop.
Basically you're saying: more money and developers == Faster Development. Thanks for your input Mr. Obvious.
P.S. Yeah, that's right: I said, "Chrome is closed source". Chromium is open source, and Chrome may or may not be a direct derivative of the open source Chromium. Needless to say, Google adds their own proprietary bits to Chromium before they ship it as Chrome, ergo: Chrome = Close Source.
Don't get me wrong, I like Chromium. Chrome is a joke -- Why anyone would want to use the closed / proprietary version (with Google's late-night secret sauce added), when there's a clean open source version available is beyond me.
Whilst you are partially correct, your post sounds like a troll. Dont like closed source?, I hope you're not using windows or OSX. Dont like company-funded things? I really hope you're not even using a computer...or a phone...hell, I guess you could be labelled a hypocrite in any case (I'm not going that far...but just so you know, your arguments are paper-thin at best).
You suggest that Chromium is GREAT while Chrome is BAD, and also that Google add closed-source stuff to chromium which is also somehow bad.
That kind of paints a different picture to the truth, when you realise that Google are behind the development of Chromium too (not just chrome), and about the only difference between chrome and chromium (from a user perspective) is the google logo. Sure there are more differences but in my experience it is Chrome, and NOT Chromium that has always been the more polished, stable version.
Not sure why I would sell a web app on an app store.
how does 'free advertising' sound to you?
so its new technology. NFC itself is a standard. Putting the chip in the phone is not the problem.
Its use in mobile phones still needs work.
This doesn't change the fact that rather than work with the 14-30+ manufacturers who have signed up to work out a global standard, Apple would choose to go on their own to create a system that is incompatible with everything else.
but surely we can, you know, turn it off when not in use. or have it manually activated at time of purchase.
and Apple aren't avoiding it on those grounds, they are avoiding it because they want to do their own incompatible system that they can profit from.
time for you to give the if-its-not-apple-i-dont-like-it reflex a rest sir.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Near_field_communication#Standards
Just because Apple say there isn't a standard doesn't mean you have to blindly believe them.
About time the iDrones started using the grey matter between their ears and thinking for themselves again.
Its got ISO certification and everything, and the support of most manufacturers in the industry.
I'm not sure what part of it Apple consider to be not a standard....?
oh wait...they want to build their own incompatible system, and they want to profit from it. business as usual for Apple.
complaining about lack of industry standard and then proposing to create your own standard that will only work with your own devices...kind of hypocritical isn't it?
um, NFC IS an approved standard, and with Google behind it it pretty much IS an industry standard. With both Google and Apple behind it, then it would DEFINITELY be an industry standard.
Its got ISO approval and everything.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Near_field_communication#Standards
What has Apple's one got? Do you really think Apple will create something that works with anything/anyone except Apple?
People aren't ignoring what Apple said, they just dont believe it. Its bogus.
Apple's solution to this is to create their own? Well here's the thing, Apple's version wont be an industry standard either!! And it wont be open, like NFC is, so it'll be restricted to Apple only.
Think about what you (and the GP) have said. Then read the article again. Google have provided industry support for NFC, so there will now be many manufacturers supporting it. Apple are the ones creating their own, incompatible standard (as always), so actually, you ought to criticize Apple for not supporting what will shortly be a worldwide industry standard.
I imagine the technology is like bluetooth in the sense that it can be turned off.
the damage they are doing is all to their own brand name. If you behave like a niche, then pretty soon you will become one. Apple have remained a niche in the PC market, after being initially popular. We're just seeing the repeat now, because they haven't changed their tactics, and the world is now catching on to their tricks.
From the article: "Citing fears over a lack of an industry standard, "
From wikipedia: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Near_field_communication#Standards
so these claims turn out to be bogus...who knew? could it be that Apple doesn't like it because Apple doesn't control it?
Also, its an open standard...oh noes.
But Apple didn't leave us guessing as to their real motive:
From the article: "But Apple isn't completely abandoning the idea of mobile payments. Instead, the company plans to implement its own contactless payment technology"
and to finish off (and prove the GP correct):
From the article: "the company's answer to mobile payments will run through its iTunes store. This would likely allow the company to reap a portion of transactions, as is the case for many products purchases through iTunes."
The "leopard" never changes its spots.
yeah i agree, features are BAD.
we shouldn't have features, they just make the phone slower, and hurt my privacy and blah blah blah.
We should only have the features we need, you know, the ones Apple invented. They know what we need...
If it wasn't invented by Apple then its bad.
Anyone with any scientific knowledge can see that humans have a pretty good chance of creating artificial life as intelligent as we are (eventually)
I really hope you're not into gambling...
So go off and create intelligent artificial life (from non-life) then...hell, even create non-intelligent life.
I'll wait.
(excuse the sarcasm...I just dont think its fair that people who dont accept evolution theory are always the ones labelled as irrational)
also, evolution is not science based on evidence. Its actually closer to companies that twist statistics to suit their own purposes than unbiased objective science.
Consider this, the experiment referred to here involved mixing some chemicals and forming amino acids, which are said to be the building blocks of life. Note that no life actually formed, but that is beside the point.
So a car analogy would be like mixing some chemicals together, and forming steel. And then claiming that all cars were formed by random chance, because they are all made from steel. And if you think I'm exaggerating and that that is a giant leap from steel to a full car, then you dont fully appreciate the difference between the amino acids compared to a fully functioning human being.
Showing that the right gases at the right mix can form amino acids is not evidence that that is what happened. It can fuel a theory, but it cannot prove it. At the end of the day, none of these experiments or findings can prove that that is how "life as we know it" came to be. You just cant come up with one method of forming a car and then conclude that all cars must have been formed by that method.
All the scientists are doing is forming a theory, based on wishful thinking. And hey, the theory may even appear to "work" (for some definition of 'work', because there are still many flaws and unknowns), but there's no way to actually prove that that is what happened. Its no more science than philosophy.
You can say the same about creationism or ID, and that is fine, but at least realise that evolution is a kind of science where the only accepted results and conclusions are the ones that match the theory. They've already worked out what they want to believe, now they are just setting out to try and prove it...and ignoring anything that doesn't suit.
call it 'science with blinkers on' if you will.
no, humans "creating" life also proves that life is unable to just happen without the assistance of some intelligent being.
there are more than 2 possible outcomes, yet scientists refuse to acknowledge all except one of them...
hmmm, well, is there any problem advertising their product on their own website? i mean, people choose to go to google, right? MS advertise a lot more products on their websites, and no doubt they advertise MS products on bing.com from time to time too. I doubt this is illegal practice.
Buying out competitors is legal - and I'm pretty sure such buyouts are required to have government approval before they can go ahead.
Most companies do this now - even Apple has bought several other companies in areas it wants to move into. Nothing wrong with it, so long as it doesn't lock out competition.
I certainly dont think DoubleClick had a monopoly at the time of purchase, and youtube didn't either.
anyway, I dont think any examples you've given point to illegal activity. It seems you just dont like Google being as successful as they are.
What? A device manufacturer isn't releasing a software update for a device that's 2,5 years old (3G launch date: 11.08.2008)? Someone call the press! Seriously, with other manufacturers you are lucky if you get updates for a single year. Bitching that your 2,5 year old phone isn't getting an update is completely ridiculous.
its not about when the original launch date was, its about when the last sale date was.
the point is that there are iPhone 3G users who are still in their 2 year contract period.
The issue is much worse with Android phones, but we've been moaning about that for ages now already. Apple has been praised for its backwards compatibility until now, so its deserving of the criticism on this point I think.
If the iPhone 3G had been discontinued over 2 years ago from retail stores then I'd agree with you.
and even then, I'm not suggesting any phone needs feature updates, just security updates. Google (and partners) - that means you too!
In the end all you really need for Android is the ADB binary and an app which roots the phone for you. After updating the recovery partition then it's as simple as pressing two buttons to upload the update zip.
Wow! You DO realize, don't you, that even a pretty damn tech-savvy Android user (not talking about a developer; just a decidedly non-n00b user) would process most of those instructions as "noise", right?
um, no, non-n00b != pretty damn tech-savvy.
If you're "pretty damn tech-savvy" then rooting an android phone should be a cinch. If you're not, then you wouldn't know what it is and wouldn't be interested.
But if an Android phone already had the features that Apple is just now putting into updates (just a hypothetical example), what is the difference?
isn't the update content more important than the timing of the update?
the only real reason to want regular updates is for security patches, and that side of things does suck with android.
features-wise, you should buy a phone for what it does now, not hope for some future update.
if feature updates mean that much to you, you bought the wrong phone - simple.
P.S. For kicks, also think about what may happen if such a company gets hacked. Enjoy.
is this greater or less than the risk of someone stealing your wallet, or breaking into your house and stealing your things?
I guess what it means is that the people who should be most worried about this stuff is those with the most to hide. Nothing wrong with that either, just trying to put some meaning into it.
I mean, its not like we have a choice. Either live like a hermit, in which case your quality of life suffers, or risk having your data stolen (albeit, a very small risk) at which point your quality of life suffers....but in the middle are those whose data has not yet been stolen and they can go on living as normal. So the only real choice we have is to be a little bit savvy with who we give information to, but on the whole just ignore the issue and move on.
No I meant solution.
See, just being the best or being popular isn't illegal (how could it be?)...but if you are the most popular by a long way, it can automatically lock out your competitors...I think this is what we're seeing here.
Google will probably also do what it can to maintain the situation, but I cant see anything illegal in just being the most popular. If that does become illegal, then that is why I said I cant see what the solution would be...
to use your analogy - people ARE forced to use Microsoft. retailers were penalized by microsoft if they shipped anything other than windows etc. Its not because MS is popular, its because they used anti-competitive practices to lock competitors out, and they used the market power to lock others out too.
Whether Google is doing the same remains to be seen...but on the surface it just looks like people are complaining because everyone uses google...
I agree with you about the rest of the planet thinking "appliances" are a better idea than "general purpose computers"...and to that end, I applaud the mac app store and any equivalents that may crop up in competitors (ubuntu had one before that but not as highly publicized)...
However, I also love the ability on android to tick a button and allow external apps in. Herein lies the core issue.
A device may be designed to protect the user etc, but at the end of the day, the user should be in charge.
I cannot deny that Apple's approach is working well for them though. They seem to target a specific subset of the market and they are not concerned with people who dont fall in that subset (ie. me). Which side is the minority...remains to be seen...and again, I dont think Apple care about that either, so long as they are making tons of money.
Today he's of the opinion that we are planted by aliens. The biologic soup theorist.
I find this amusing and also completely stupid. To say we are planted by aliens is not an explanation for anything...it just moves the problem elsewhere.
The next question is going to obviously be...so where did the aliens come from...
but I fear the response would be like the first..."from other aliens".