Another post by someone who doesn't know what proprietary means. From the Oxford English Dictionary
Proprietary: Belonging to a proprietor or proprietors; owned or held as property; held in private ownership.
H.264 are a collection of standards that utilise the Intellectual Property of the Members of Mpeg LA. This property or ownership controlled legally through license makes the format and encoders/decoders undeniably proprietary.
VP8 is based on Intellectual Property with following license (see below), this makes it non proprietary or common ownership (like the atmosphere).
Google hereby grants to You a perpetual, worldwide, non-exclusive, no-charge, royalty-free, irrevocable (except as stated in this section) patent license to make, have made, use, offer to sell, sell, import, and otherwise transfer implementations of this specification where such license applies only to those patent claims, both currently owned by Google and acquired in the future, licensable by Google that are necessarily infringed by implementation of this specification. If You or your agent or exclusive licensee institute or order or agree to the institution of patent litigation against any entity (including a cross-claim or counterclaim in a lawsuit) alleging that any implementation of this specification constitutes direct or contributory patent infringement, or inducement of patent infringement, then any rights granted to You under the License for this specification shall terminate as of the date such litigation is filed.
While we are at it "open standard" both h.264 and VP8 have freely available, accessible technical documentation, this is all that is required to be an open standard. As regards standards bodies like ISO/ITU et al. HTML wasn't passed through one of those for 9 years and xHTML (widely used) still hasn't been, were/are they not open standards...
I was thinking more of compiling a C++ executable (the sort of thing they may have to do) and grabbing the args into the main. Obviously I have no idea about the students ability or background so another posters advice on levelling them and understanding more about what is already known seems good advice.
I think your ideas are great, a simple bash script could certainly do the same job. If you introduce all your key ideas too soon you may lose the whole group though, but your points are valid and could work well over the whole course. I'd still say a key difference in approach to what students may be used to, is the concept that everything's a file and the idea of supplying command line arguments is vital to CLI's in general.
My fave question to those using a nix type box is, what happens when you issue rm -r * as root in the / folder, which could prove useful to assess understanding at some point.
Get them to create a very simple command line application that takes a single argument and gives a single output.
run it with the argument and see the output, all the other stuff is plain sailing afterwards.
Also do show off the many useful GUI admin functions that exist in modern linux, and tell em the most important thing about Gnu_linux/nix: everything is a file!
While comparing h.264 to HTML, please note HTML wasn't an iso standard for 9 years! xHTML still isn't and neither are a lot of other W3C recommendations. What they are not is proprietary (unlike h.264), just like VP8 any IP related is effectively public domain/free from license restrictions. As for POSIX isn't the very name a Richard Stallman-ism, your suggestions are way off base.
If I was you, I'd have a good think about the importance of the word property and why the W3C would even have a policy to avoid IP controls in the main web standards for hypermedia. There were proprietary hypermedia implementations before the web, at the time they may have even been more widespread than HTML (as you suggest h.264 is to webM/VP8), they may have been technically superior (as you suggest h.264 is to VP8) however they were not free, they were proprietary and they failed to be adopted. Don't get me wrong the MpegLA cartel are powerful and have influence on end users, this will go the distance. Let's not pretend though that h.264 is somehow more like the popular standards in use on the web than webM; when in fact the exact reverse is true!
I hear what you are saying about a lesser impact from advertising than other media however, you may find that if wikipedia did introduce advertising, effectively a (non advertising driven) fork would spring up. Whilst I appreciate you wouldn't mind an advertising model personally. Where would the incentive to end users (or contributors) be to continue to visit the advertising driven version of the data, if it was easy to go to one free of adverts?
My understanding was that things like freebase already reuse wikipedia data; I'm not sure how wikipedia could effective lock in its existing users?
In what way does google own the definition of VP8?
Here is the VP8 bitstream guide for example: http://static.googleusercontent.com/external_content/untrusted_dlcp/www.webmproject.org/en//media/pdf/vp8-bitstream.pdf
It is published under a Creative Commons license http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/3.0/
We are free to share it or remix it with attribution.
-
BTW changes to the format of either VP8 or h.264 are not happening as without a fixed bitstream encoders/decoders are not going to work, the fact that one was produced by a standards body the other behind close door has nothing to do with how open they are now or if they are effectively Intellectual Property of a collective cartel or public domain/royalty free.
-
The codec and encoding/decoding is the collective intellectual property of Mpeg LA members and is indeed proprietary.
H.264 is part of MPEG-4, which is an ISO/IEC standard. It's an open standard.
I'll do it one last time for the hard of thinking. Regardless of the open process which brought open specification for an open standard, the h.264 format is undeniably proprietary, in that the Mpeg LA members hold Intellectual Property that they license under their collective cartels terms to those who wish to use the format.
This is analogous to a collective owning/design various parts of a building, door, roof etc. - this is property, this is proprietary.
VP8 and webM however are not. VP8 and WebM are under the sole control of Google. They are both proprietary.
Please explain in what way these are the property of any entity, they are released from patent license terms for everyone in effect in the public domain. Your statement is like saying something with common ownership (like the atmosphere) is property or owned.
VP8 a is freely and openly available technical specification which is the same as say the w3c standard of xhtml. Both have had all their IP rights released in perpetuity. Just like the W3C google may currently co ordinate effort of improvement, just like the W3C google have no legal mechanism to actually control the Property (intellectual), they have given to the public domain.
If you didn't know this, I'll apologise and move you from "hidden agenda" to "ignorant of the key facts"...
I note that you did not address any of my points about the various downsides of H.264 and the MPEG LA, by the way.
Indeed they did not, you could file them under the hidden agenda. An open standard can be defined as open and a technological specification. RE: ISO/ITU "standards" HTML wasn't one for 9 years and xHTML still isn't. I find it odd that the people pushing h.264 don't think it relevant that proprietary IP licensed hypermedia systems existed before the web and proved in effective, due in some part to the very nature of licensed/pay for tech (no matter the size of fee). We don't pay for languages (which are methods to encode self expression also) and neither should we seek to for other media formats on an open web. By the way h.264 is unlikely ever to be part of a W3C recommendation for this very reason, TimBL and gang know what they are doing!
Regardless of how open the process to create the standard is in the case of h.264 it is definitely a proprietary format, VP8 and webM however are not. See below for an explanation:
proprietary relates to property and ownership.
MpegLA members own and licenses the intellectual property for H.264. Like co ownership of a house - property or proprietary.
Everyone owns or has free license to the IP for VP8. Like the atmosphere - not property or proprietary.
The suggestion that Google owns VP8 or webM is false.
Not my android device, it doesn't have h.264 hardware. I'd like to see evidence of numbers of mobile user (where hw accel may be more important) currently viewing web video versus total web video use. Then I'd like to see data on %age of these mobile devices with h.264 h/w support. This data could support the claim I've read a lot that h.264 decode support is ubiquitous. Anecdotally I do not own a single device with it.
Except VP8 is a proprietary codec (WebM is just a container), while H.264 is an open standard. That is, the definition of VP8 is entirely defined and controlled by Google, while the definition of MPEG4 is controlled by the ISO standards organization.
This is the same as saying black = white
proprietary relates to property and ownership.
MpegLA members own and licenses the intellectual property for H.264. Like co ownership of a house - property or proprietary.
Everyone owns or has free license to the IP for VP8. Like the atmosphere - not property or proprietary.
So if an individual (which a corporation is legally termed) behaves objectionably abroad it is no business of the government from which the individual came from? Don't get me wrong "when in Rome" and all that is fine. But how would the US government react to a US corporation working in north Korea on weapons development, I mean all the work would be obey local regulations...
Your suggestion suggests a level of naivety that I would categorise as in-genuine; to the point of drawing parallels to three monkeys covering their eyes, ears and mouth....
I wonder when such investigations will occur in areas where Americans aren't affected?
How is the behaviour of companies such as Exxon in the Niger delta being tracked, oh wait it isn't.
Still that doesn't matter, because it doesn't affect fat American business men!
Vanity Fair, I do wonder how well financially their business model is doing, that "article" was based on the worst kind of journalistic bias I have read recently. It's manipulative structure was so obvious, was it written for idiots.
After buttering up the audience with starry eyed stories of the Grauniad and Assange we eventually get to what they want to do.
Express a bunch of opinions about Assange's character.
Suggest wikileaks is no longer interesting to the public due to a lack of new leaks/funding.
Spout verbatim (second hand) drivel about the quality of the Guardian and its business model from its competitors.
For a balance perhaps a real journalist could mention, why the no new articles/lack of funding.
US officials not using due process and making unofficial requests to private American companies to block wikileaks and donations to it. Yes Assange was put on an interpol list, is this standard procedure for people who have never been charged with anything?
After all these awful Assange articles we should take a look at why Assange is constantly made the point of interest by old media news outlets and no I do not see this as his own doing. Heaven forbid we hear about the alleged originators of the frankly damning (to nearly all governments involved) info. I hear some of them are in prison and don't have the luxury of public (and I mean rank and file members of the public) campaigns to free them, they're tucked up tight by the likes of the US government who have proven happy to ignore the principle of innocent before proven guilty. Old media like pushing the Assange angle, and supposed "chaos of transparency". Remember likely whistle blowers, the chaos of wikileaks and the poor character of its founder mean you should bring your stories to the editorially sound old media, no chaos of transparency here, just the old question, will it make us enough money, or will suppression/distortion buy us enough government favour to betray journalism.
Vanity Fair - your article was about as bad as I expected, you are not journalists you're barely entertainment!
That's only one of the topics he brings up with regard to performance in his article, although it is one focused upon heavily in the discussion. Referring to Android phones as having "only average" battery performance when compared to an iPhone, however, is being politic[sic] and the AC I was replying to was making some rather spurious claims in that regard.
So your opinion is that he meant to say "much worse", either way I'm an evidence man. If either the Originator or you have something specific feel free to post.
I don't have the resources to do large scale testing, nor do I even have an iPhone and Android of my own, just access to them for testing at work. Anecdotally: eBuddy, Qik, ESPN sports center, fring, imovicha. Note several are IM clients that some reason ignore the push APIs and Google has no way to force them to use the push features.
Thanks for your suggestions of the offenders, albeit with your proviso that you haven't tested your theories. I'd also be interested in how popular the apps you have issue with are with the rank and file Android users you suggest are at such risk.
But as to whether or not they exist cross platform evenly, well no I strongly suspect they don't for a variety of reasons. Apps on the iPhone are limited in dev tools and in access to system resources much more so than Android apps. This is annoying as a developer and even as a power user, but it also means apps can't just start sending pings to a server on a regular interval, but instead are required to use push services and are required to break out only specific types of background threads when running in the background. They can't constantly query the GPS if they aren't in the foreground.
I agree the development environments and eco systems are very different, as an Android user I've pointed out what I believe is a major advantage, in that the OS has become tangibly more efficient on older hardware, a trait I have also observed in Linux but never in a proprietary operating system, especially one where the developer gains direct profit from each new hardware sale. As to the idea that apps made for such an open eco system are likely to be lower quality than proprietary ones. This is not a new suggestion but one I've yet to see great evidence for. For example FLOSS often has several active projects with similar goals, whilst some may be poorer/weaker others are often very high quality, that is called competition. It may be possible for Android users to download all kinds of rubbish should it exist, the market is after all relatively free/open, it doesn't mean we will or that we do.
Perhaps you're laboring under a misunderstanding. Apps are software that makes the hardware do things. ALL battery usage is a combination of software AND hardware. It's a matter of what hardware and how often it is used by an app. Does it use the built in push notification service like a good app or does it waste battery power constantly running a thread in the background and constantly sending unneeded data? (Note I keep coming back to the network usage model, because it is a big differentiator with real, measurable battery ramifications.)
Perhaps you are labouring under a misconception. All battery usage comes from the flow of current through hardware, software is generally any information, this may be said to be stored on flash (or other non volatile) memory, However information (like an idea) consumes no current. This is why software is generally protected by intellectual property laws, not property laws. Now it's OK to say that hardware usage may be affected by the design of software and you are welcome to argue that on average that popular software is more likely to be flawed on the Android ecosystem than the iPhones. If you have good evidence of this please do show that. My also anecdotal experience is that a clean Android 2.2 is a good deal better than a clean 2.1 or 1.6 at manag
Indeed your achieles heel comes in the shape of poor 3rd party apps, though this whole thread is about the need to render the UI via GPU for the sake of power.
Please name and shame these poorly optimised android apps (that presumably don't exist evenly across mobile platforms?), or accept the fact that the hardware burns through so much power than virtually any trivial (and without the hardware mentioned mobile apps generally are trivial) applications power use is irrelevant.
Functioning how?
I don't believe many modern "democrassies" have done much of a job actually representing the will of their people.
Every 5 years you get mostly, 2 choices of individual (PM or president type thing), both right wingers, one pretends to like spending a little more money on the people, the other making even more money for business and relying on a trickle down.
Well it is a fact that the xerox parc guys innovated and everyone else were business men, end of.
I will say there's a fair chance some of the cash Apple started on is related to the sale of devices to hack phone time from ATnT
Which is ironic considering Apples position of running their code on other hardware, or for that matter circumventing their DRM.
I have an old Tmoby pulse (huawei 8230) running Android 2.2.
I can confirm that the battery usage is very much affected by Screen/GPS/WIFI and 3G connections in that order.
The idea that the UI effects is the power sucker is:
1. A crock.
2. If it was true, avoidable by disabling window animations in settings
3. For power consumption, brightness, time out of screen saver, intelligence about wireless devices come so much higher up the list as to make this whole topic so irrelevant it isn't rel.
P.S. Other things I like on this thread are people suggesting, what about people on older Android where performance is poor.
Good argument, my Tmoby pulse has been on Android 1.6, 2.1 and 2.2 each upgrade adds more flair and makes the battery/performance better.
How is this a failing for software development? A failing is when you release a new version of your OS and hardware a couple of years old runs like a total dog and is less efficient (looks at iOS and Apple hmmm). The old fashioned bloat and replace cycle of pay for software and tied in Hardware companies...
OK this is DNS and the internet, Due process by whom under what laws?
The US is not the internet, removing names against IP address is not the place of any one country.
Of course Apple had no idea that they were distributing an App (regardless of which 3rd party submitted it) which contravened the applications original licence GPLv2?
Still the approval process could never have known this was an issue.
The final piece of idiocy in the post is to blame gpl zealots for the fact that a free (in many more ways than you seem to understand) media player won't stay on iOS. One for that matter that enables users to sidestep the frankly idiotic patent/license/drm/locked in nonsense around video, that Apple (and several other corporate interest groups) uses for self serving, anti competitive practices.
Not to mention their practices simply disadvantages users. Open formats are better for end users - end of, some things are infrastructure even in capitalism, language for example, why we should even allow formats for video etc to be tied up in IP hell I really don't know.
Frankly VLC doesn't have a proprietary, Apple approved equivalent for a simple reason - such organisations/developers have no interest in empowering you, it is the GPL zealots you complain about that take the risks to challenge these practices.
Still what do I know, why not watch your media on Apples quality media player software, while you're at it, manage your media using the excellent iTunes. I know when I want to move my data from one device I OWN, to another that I OWN, I like to actually "think different"!
Slashdot Mirror
Another post by someone who doesn't know what proprietary means. From the Oxford English Dictionary
H.264 are a collection of standards that utilise the Intellectual Property of the Members of Mpeg LA. This property or ownership controlled legally through license makes the format and encoders/decoders undeniably proprietary.
VP8 is based on Intellectual Property with following license (see below), this makes it non proprietary or common ownership (like the atmosphere).
While we are at it "open standard" both h.264 and VP8 have freely available, accessible technical documentation, this is all that is required to be an open standard. As regards standards bodies like ISO/ITU et al. HTML wasn't passed through one of those for 9 years and xHTML (widely used) still hasn't been, were/are they not open standards...
I was thinking more of compiling a C++ executable (the sort of thing they may have to do) and grabbing the args into the main. Obviously I have no idea about the students ability or background so another posters advice on levelling them and understanding more about what is already known seems good advice.
I think your ideas are great, a simple bash script could certainly do the same job. If you introduce all your key ideas too soon you may lose the whole group though, but your points are valid and could work well over the whole course. I'd still say a key difference in approach to what students may be used to, is the concept that everything's a file and the idea of supplying command line arguments is vital to CLI's in general.
My fave question to those using a nix type box is, what happens when you issue rm -r * as root in the / folder, which could prove useful to assess understanding at some point.
Get them to create a very simple command line application that takes a single argument and gives a single output. run it with the argument and see the output, all the other stuff is plain sailing afterwards.
Also do show off the many useful GUI admin functions that exist in modern linux, and tell em the most important thing about Gnu_linux/nix: everything is a file!
While comparing h.264 to HTML, please note HTML wasn't an iso standard for 9 years! xHTML still isn't and neither are a lot of other W3C recommendations. What they are not is proprietary (unlike h.264), just like VP8 any IP related is effectively public domain/free from license restrictions.
As for POSIX isn't the very name a Richard Stallman-ism, your suggestions are way off base.
If I was you, I'd have a good think about the importance of the word property and why the W3C would even have a policy to avoid IP controls in the main web standards for hypermedia. There were proprietary hypermedia implementations before the web, at the time they may have even been more widespread than HTML (as you suggest h.264 is to webM/VP8), they may have been technically superior (as you suggest h.264 is to VP8) however they were not free, they were proprietary and they failed to be adopted. Don't get me wrong the MpegLA cartel are powerful and have influence on end users, this will go the distance. Let's not pretend though that h.264 is somehow more like the popular standards in use on the web than webM; when in fact the exact reverse is true!
I hear what you are saying about a lesser impact from advertising than other media however, you may find that if wikipedia did introduce advertising, effectively a (non advertising driven) fork would spring up. Whilst I appreciate you wouldn't mind an advertising model personally. Where would the incentive to end users (or contributors) be to continue to visit the advertising driven version of the data, if it was easy to go to one free of adverts?
My understanding was that things like freebase already reuse wikipedia data; I'm not sure how wikipedia could effective lock in its existing users?
In what way does google own the definition of VP8?
Here is the VP8 bitstream guide for example:
http://static.googleusercontent.com/external_content/untrusted_dlcp/www.webmproject.org/en//media/pdf/vp8-bitstream.pdf
It is published under a Creative Commons license
http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/3.0/
We are free to share it or remix it with attribution.
-
BTW changes to the format of either VP8 or h.264 are not happening as without a fixed bitstream encoders/decoders are not going to
work, the fact that one was produced by a standards body the other behind close door has nothing to do with how open they are
now or if they are effectively Intellectual Property of a collective cartel or public domain/royalty free.
-
The codec and encoding/decoding is the collective intellectual property of Mpeg LA members and is indeed proprietary.
I'll do it one last time for the hard of thinking. Regardless of the open process which brought open specification for an open standard, the h.264 format is undeniably proprietary, in that the Mpeg LA members hold Intellectual Property that they license under their collective cartels terms to those who wish to use the format.
This is analogous to a collective owning/design various parts of a building, door, roof etc. - this is property, this is proprietary.
Please explain in what way these are the property of any entity, they are released from patent license terms for everyone in effect in the public domain. Your statement is like saying something with common ownership (like the atmosphere) is property or owned.
VP8 a is freely and openly available technical specification which is the same as say the w3c standard of xhtml. Both have had all their IP rights released in perpetuity. Just like the W3C google may currently co ordinate effort of improvement, just like the W3C google have no legal mechanism to actually control the Property (intellectual), they have given to the public domain.
If you didn't know this, I'll apologise and move you from "hidden agenda" to "ignorant of the key facts"...
Advertising can/will have editorial impact on information and bias.
Indeed they did not, you could file them under the hidden agenda. An open standard can be defined as open and a technological specification. RE: ISO/ITU "standards" HTML wasn't one for 9 years and xHTML still isn't. I find it odd that the people pushing h.264 don't think it relevant that proprietary IP licensed hypermedia systems existed before the web and proved in effective, due in some part to the very nature of licensed/pay for tech (no matter the size of fee). We don't pay for languages (which are methods to encode self expression also) and neither should we seek to for other media formats on an open web. By the way h.264 is unlikely ever to be part of a W3C recommendation for this very reason, TimBL and gang know what they are doing!
Regardless of how open the process to create the standard is in the case of h.264 it is definitely a proprietary format, VP8 and webM however are not. See below for an explanation:
proprietary relates to property and ownership.
MpegLA members own and licenses the intellectual property for H.264. Like co ownership of a house - property or proprietary.
Everyone owns or has free license to the IP for VP8. Like the atmosphere - not property or proprietary.
The suggestion that Google owns VP8 or webM is false.
Not my android device, it doesn't have h.264 hardware. I'd like to see evidence of numbers of mobile user (where hw accel may be more important) currently viewing web video versus total web video use. Then I'd like to see data on %age of these mobile devices with h.264 h/w support. This data could support the claim I've read a lot that h.264 decode support is ubiquitous. Anecdotally I do not own a single device with it.
This is the same as saying black = white
proprietary relates to property and ownership.
MpegLA members own and licenses the intellectual property for H.264. Like co ownership of a house - property or proprietary.
Everyone owns or has free license to the IP for VP8. Like the atmosphere - not property or proprietary.
So if an individual (which a corporation is legally termed) behaves objectionably abroad it is no business of the government from which the individual came from? Don't get me wrong "when in Rome" and all that is fine. But how would the US government react to a US corporation working in north Korea on weapons development, I mean all the work would be obey local regulations...
Your suggestion suggests a level of naivety that I would categorise as in-genuine; to the point of drawing parallels to three monkeys covering their eyes, ears and mouth....
If I was you I'd consider the value of a Pay as you go, low cost Android phone over the tablet form factor.
Best in the UK is the orange San Francisco at £100, easily unlocked and if moved to Tmobile it's £20 per 6 months 3G internet.
I wonder when such investigations will occur in areas where Americans aren't affected? How is the behaviour of companies such as Exxon in the Niger delta being tracked, oh wait it isn't. Still that doesn't matter, because it doesn't affect fat American business men!
Vanity Fair, I do wonder how well financially their business model is doing, that "article" was based on the worst kind of journalistic bias I have read recently. It's manipulative structure was so obvious, was it written for idiots. After buttering up the audience with starry eyed stories of the Grauniad and Assange we eventually get to what they want to do. Express a bunch of opinions about Assange's character. Suggest wikileaks is no longer interesting to the public due to a lack of new leaks/funding. Spout verbatim (second hand) drivel about the quality of the Guardian and its business model from its competitors. For a balance perhaps a real journalist could mention, why the no new articles/lack of funding. US officials not using due process and making unofficial requests to private American companies to block wikileaks and donations to it. Yes Assange was put on an interpol list, is this standard procedure for people who have never been charged with anything? After all these awful Assange articles we should take a look at why Assange is constantly made the point of interest by old media news outlets and no I do not see this as his own doing. Heaven forbid we hear about the alleged originators of the frankly damning (to nearly all governments involved) info. I hear some of them are in prison and don't have the luxury of public (and I mean rank and file members of the public) campaigns to free them, they're tucked up tight by the likes of the US government who have proven happy to ignore the principle of innocent before proven guilty. Old media like pushing the Assange angle, and supposed "chaos of transparency". Remember likely whistle blowers, the chaos of wikileaks and the poor character of its founder mean you should bring your stories to the editorially sound old media, no chaos of transparency here, just the old question, will it make us enough money, or will suppression/distortion buy us enough government favour to betray journalism. Vanity Fair - your article was about as bad as I expected, you are not journalists you're barely entertainment!
That's only one of the topics he brings up with regard to performance in his article, although it is one focused upon heavily in the discussion. Referring to Android phones as having "only average" battery performance when compared to an iPhone, however, is being politic[sic] and the AC I was replying to was making some rather spurious claims in that regard.
So your opinion is that he meant to say "much worse", either way I'm an evidence man. If either the Originator or you have something specific feel free to post.
I don't have the resources to do large scale testing, nor do I even have an iPhone and Android of my own, just access to them for testing at work. Anecdotally: eBuddy, Qik, ESPN sports center, fring, imovicha. Note several are IM clients that some reason ignore the push APIs and Google has no way to force them to use the push features.
Thanks for your suggestions of the offenders, albeit with your proviso that you haven't tested your theories. I'd also be interested in how popular the apps you have issue with are with the rank and file Android users you suggest are at such risk.
But as to whether or not they exist cross platform evenly, well no I strongly suspect they don't for a variety of reasons. Apps on the iPhone are limited in dev tools and in access to system resources much more so than Android apps. This is annoying as a developer and even as a power user, but it also means apps can't just start sending pings to a server on a regular interval, but instead are required to use push services and are required to break out only specific types of background threads when running in the background. They can't constantly query the GPS if they aren't in the foreground.
I agree the development environments and eco systems are very different, as an Android user I've pointed out what I believe is a major advantage, in that the OS has become tangibly more efficient on older hardware, a trait I have also observed in Linux but never in a proprietary operating system, especially one where the developer gains direct profit from each new hardware sale. As to the idea that apps made for such an open eco system are likely to be lower quality than proprietary ones. This is not a new suggestion but one I've yet to see great evidence for. For example FLOSS often has several active projects with similar goals, whilst some may be poorer/weaker others are often very high quality, that is called competition. It may be possible for Android users to download all kinds of rubbish should it exist, the market is after all relatively free/open, it doesn't mean we will or that we do.
Perhaps you're laboring under a misunderstanding. Apps are software that makes the hardware do things. ALL battery usage is a combination of software AND hardware. It's a matter of what hardware and how often it is used by an app. Does it use the built in push notification service like a good app or does it waste battery power constantly running a thread in the background and constantly sending unneeded data? (Note I keep coming back to the network usage model, because it is a big differentiator with real, measurable battery ramifications.)
Perhaps you are labouring under a misconception. All battery usage comes from the flow of current through hardware, software is generally any information, this may be said to be stored on flash (or other non volatile) memory, However information (like an idea) consumes no current. This is why software is generally protected by intellectual property laws, not property laws. Now it's OK to say that hardware usage may be affected by the design of software and you are welcome to argue that on average that popular software is more likely to be flawed on the Android ecosystem than the iPhones. If you have good evidence of this please do show that. My also anecdotal experience is that a clean Android 2.2 is a good deal better than a clean 2.1 or 1.6 at manag
Indeed your achieles heel comes in the shape of poor 3rd party apps, though this whole thread is about the need to render the UI via GPU for the sake of power.
Please name and shame these poorly optimised android apps (that presumably don't exist evenly across mobile platforms?), or accept the fact that the hardware burns through so much power than virtually any trivial (and without the hardware mentioned mobile apps generally are trivial) applications power use is irrelevant.
There are two types of people in the world, those who like Gattaca and those who ain't too bright.
Functioning how? I don't believe many modern "democrassies" have done much of a job actually representing the will of their people.
Every 5 years you get mostly, 2 choices of individual (PM or president type thing), both right wingers, one pretends to like spending a little more money on the people, the other making even more money for business and relying on a trickle down.
It's hardly Athenian in its qualities.
Well it is a fact that the xerox parc guys innovated and everyone else were business men, end of. I will say there's a fair chance some of the cash Apple started on is related to the sale of devices to hack phone time from ATnT Which is ironic considering Apples position of running their code on other hardware, or for that matter circumventing their DRM.
I have an old Tmoby pulse (huawei 8230) running Android 2.2. I can confirm that the battery usage is very much affected by Screen/GPS/WIFI and 3G connections in that order. The idea that the UI effects is the power sucker is: 1. A crock. 2. If it was true, avoidable by disabling window animations in settings 3. For power consumption, brightness, time out of screen saver, intelligence about wireless devices come so much higher up the list as to make this whole topic so irrelevant it isn't rel. P.S. Other things I like on this thread are people suggesting, what about people on older Android where performance is poor. Good argument, my Tmoby pulse has been on Android 1.6, 2.1 and 2.2 each upgrade adds more flair and makes the battery/performance better. How is this a failing for software development? A failing is when you release a new version of your OS and hardware a couple of years old runs like a total dog and is less efficient (looks at iOS and Apple hmmm). The old fashioned bloat and replace cycle of pay for software and tied in Hardware companies...
Advertising will have a negative impact on the impartiality of information. [1] [1]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Propaganda_model
OK this is DNS and the internet, Due process by whom under what laws? The US is not the internet, removing names against IP address is not the place of any one country.
Your post on this is entirely idiotic.
Of course Apple had no idea that they were distributing an App (regardless of which 3rd party submitted it) which contravened the applications original licence GPLv2?
Yet they did/can decide if any App has been developed to use interpreted code? http://www.pcpro.co.uk/news/357121/apple-bans-flash-from-iphone-and-ipad
They can manage to filter (censor) this award winning political cartoonist, until the world calls their bluff! http://www.wired.com/epicenter/2010/04/apple-bans-satire/ how many less connected voices are also quietly sidelined?
And of course they can prevent Apps with explicit content. http://techcrunch.com/2010/02/18/did-apple-just-ban-sexual-content-from-the-app-store/
Still the approval process could never have known this was an issue.
The final piece of idiocy in the post is to blame gpl zealots for the fact that a free (in many more ways than you seem to understand) media player won't stay on iOS. One for that matter that enables users to sidestep the frankly idiotic patent/license/drm/locked in nonsense around video, that Apple (and several other corporate interest groups) uses for self serving, anti competitive practices. Not to mention their practices simply disadvantages users. Open formats are better for end users - end of, some things are infrastructure even in capitalism, language for example, why we should even allow formats for video etc to be tied up in IP hell I really don't know.
Frankly VLC doesn't have a proprietary, Apple approved equivalent for a simple reason - such organisations/developers have no interest in empowering you, it is the GPL zealots you complain about that take the risks to challenge these practices.
Still what do I know, why not watch your media on Apples quality media player software, while you're at it, manage your media using the excellent iTunes. I know when I want to move my data from one device I OWN, to another that I OWN, I like to actually "think different"!