> I believe access to a tablet device can be credited with that, because of it's interactive and hands-on nature. > It is a more intuitive design for written material than a computer, and it is in a more accessible forma
I find this use of the technology really appealing. As "enjar" writes below tablets aren't bad themselves. It's how we use them. It's all about not falling into excess and providing diverse experiences to people.
As for math learning, I am working on an ipad app that we will release in a few weeks. It is intended for the masses but I believe it will as well help a lot of people in the situation of your sister. If you're curious our (freshly set up) site is at http://wewanttoknow.com
And good luck with your sister, it seems she is lucky to have you taking care of her!
"if you let your friend joyride the car off the record you are putting the other co-owners in a losing situation"
assumption
* maybe my friend would never have bought the car in the first place * maybe he instead will buy it after the joy ride, or do something else positive (recommend the car, buy the next model, go to a car expo, buy car manufacturer tee-shirts)
So according to you * printing, storing, shipping costs are not a large part of the book price as Extra costs (marketing, etc) are to be applied * this is only valid for large scale sales as low scale aren't envisioned due to poor viability * because of large scale, they need to have large marketing costs, increasing the cost ratio of these Extra activities * because of large scale, publishing costs get lowered per item, thereby reducing its ratio
The publishing costs are just low per item because the system is focusing on large scale printing to actually lower the distribution costs per item...
Aren't you just describing an inefficient system that justifies itself ? I say cut the inefficient part.
According to http://ireaderreview.com/2009/05/03/book-cost-analysis-cost-of-physical-book-publishing/
And author's get 8/15% of a book. That's a bit small to me. And that's in part caused by this inefficiency.
I would have paid one dollar for the app. Maybe CBS wants to reconsider instead, contract the developper to modify the app. If they keep the open source version, they could have a different theme for the OSS one.
So one can block the sale of a device on a whole continent because it possibly infringes on a functionality that represents 1/10000 of the default functionality of the phone. My phone can call, video call, chat, do my email, take and edit videos, upload pictures to the net, scan bar codes for maintaining list of books and dvds, do anything a browser can do, play games like a console, be my alarm clock, and I can't buy it because of the way it reacts if I scroll half way my pictures in the photo editor ?
When something is painfull, do it more often. If a company wait years to release a new browser then it will be painfull. If you wait years to upgrade it same thing.
Some companies manage to develop and deploy software continuously. Same should be for infrastructure.
Gettings stuck with a 5+ years old browser isn't a "key productivity" advantage. The more you wait, the more a change is risky. Reminds of that: http://www.itjoblog.co.uk/2011/06/the-iteration-is-too-long.html
Browsers should be upgraded every few weeks (like chrome and firefox now) and companies could upgrade almost as fast. There are many ways to achieve this, not because it is a little bit different and harder problem.
My father is not what one would consider a technology friendly person, but he understood what BCC is for and is using it right. It took a few months and a few mistakes. And now he teaches others to do it. So I think most people don't use it, because they don't even know it exists or don't understand the problem caused by it.
One nice thing I've noticed: the group of those who don't use BCC, almost 100% interesects with the one of those who send me hoaxes (in a top posting, hotmail/yahoo style forwarding with the headers of past messages containing previous senders/recipients). It's very practical because I can answer to everybody and point them to http://hoaxbusters.org/ or like (using BCC this time).
2 versions of Android ? What a waste ! 2 competing Desktop Environments on Linux ? Bouh ! Different Linux distributions ? Yack ! Different people ? Uerg... Different species on Earth ? pfff Different planets & environments ? Crazy ! Different universes ? (not yet proven, but...)
Operators that ship android don't need to distribute the Google version of it. They can take the open source version and add a mail, maps and app store application of their own.
Android is open. Google's android version has a few restrictions.
> There's already a tax on buggy software, it's > just paid by the wrong side of the equation, the > user.
I don't think software is paid by the wrong side of the equation.
Software being insecure is most often insecure when used in ways not intended by their creators. Security is most often a property of the software, often ranked well below real functionality.
e.g. You don t buy Outlook because it protects you from viruses, you buy it to read your mail.
<bad_analogy> You don t put windows on your house because you want people to stay out of it. You put them because you want light in, view outside, etc. Ideally with little heatloss. And best if people can t in easily. Now if someone finds out that a mixture of 24.6% pee and olive oil 75.4% at 35degrees placed on the windows joints makes it easy to open the window from the outside, is it really the problem of the window builder ? As a buyer, would you hold out if you knew that an unknown liquid mixture might reduce the security of the window ? Probably not. You may add shutters and an alarm system. And a safe. </bad_analogy>
When you have an entire industry relying on a piece of software and then complaining it doesn t have the properties they really want, I say blame them. Big industries have the mean to reduce their risks. Individuals that rely a lot on IT should think twice of how they manage their data.
My take, people who buy software should invest more in checking whether it is secure or not.
And if you really want to introduce 3rd parties, instead of taxes, use a (optional) insurance system. It will probably adapt better to risks than a tax. And people are used to that.
They didnt take a full OS or product and relicensed it. They took 7 files. Those files arent even used.
Yes its probably a mistake or a very bad judgement. In no way this decision was to give Google a competitive advantage, a better product or etc. Nothing like taking a full product from someone else and reusing it.
Comply with the license (mostly done). Optionally pay a reasonable fee and move on. Not a full scale SCO lawsuit for 7 files again please. Thatsick.
(for the lawsuit, please go on, because there are other argumentrs. But that one seems moot).
Yes Google did a mistake (whether it was intended, it may be hard to prove). But were talking about 7 files that are not even part of the runtime OS. Were talking about no patented functionality, no functionality at all in fact (no runtime code), no linking of these files with Androids other files. Hei Google even removed the files from the (future) trees as soon as it became aware of it.
Does this warrant a multi million lawsuit ? Really ? (I know there are other arguments, but this one seems a bit light to me, at least on its own)
I find it strange that people complain it's not a standard while the 2 other actors who could have done something, didn't, didn't want, and actually act against such an idea (supporting a non free format). And actually complaining about google's stance on h264 very ironically (hint: IE team).
I applaud Google's action.I know it's in their interest, but I also think it's in our interest.
And to me it's not a standoff. The standoff was when Apple and Microsoft did nothing.
"And lets face it, WebM has a specification, independent implementations, backing from hardware manufacturers, and is supported in all browsers that are not MPEG LA H.264 patent licensor — once Firefox 4 is released that makes about sixty percent of the desktop browser market."
Replacing flash with an other monopoly on a non free standard isn't a good solution. I far prefer Google's stance on the matter.
> But then Google got greedy, and thought > "Why can't I have Adobe's position"?
That is an opinion not a fact.
> So under the guise of being open, Google is pushing for a standard controlled by them.
That is also an opinion, not a fact.
Google is pushing an open standard. Yes. Fact Google may try to control the video format on the web. Like Apple, like Microsoft before.
My reading: Google is pushing for an open standard that *noone else* did before, either because of lack of interest, conflicting interests or lacking the guts to do so because of the patent minefield.
Yes they stand to win something if they do so, but they are also taking risks. Who else is doing ?
> The end effect is now the same standoff we had before,
It's still maybe a standoff, but the potential result (an open and free standard for video on the web) has much better consequences for all.
> The why the f*ck did they need to pick the Java > Language when there is a shed-load of other > languages out there, including their own Go?
Let's see the advantage of using Java: * large developer base * large and mature tool base * large set of libraries * attractive for manufacturers and developers who choose JavaME in the past (sort of 'upgrade' path) * go isn't targeted to the same usage (go is more a C/C++ replacement for performance) * because they could (technically, and probably according to their evaluation - legally)
It made lots of sense. Really. For me it's a really smart move.
> It appears they wanted to lure Java developers > to their platform
yes:)
> but was it really worth the risk of angering > Java's "owner",
Android isn't a subset of the Java environment. And Google hasn't accepted any Java license agreement.
The java license agreements are for * the implementers of Java environments (which Microsoft agreed, broke, got punished for, etc). Google provide a complete alternative tool stack and hasn't agreed to this agreement
* the users of the SDK, which prevents (in section D of the SUPPLEMENTAL LICENSE TERMS) the user from altering elements under the java[x], sun, etc packages. http://java.sun.com/javase/6/jdk-6u2-license.txt Google hasn't accepted this user agreement either. The developer may have.
Oracle cannot control what Google does with code written in Java that doesn't target the official Java platforms. The language isn't copyrighted (nor copyrightable - http://carlodaffara.conecta.it/?p=478), and except if they have specific patents in the conversion mechanism (which for example Gemalto is suing Google for - http://lwn.net/Articles/411852/), or in the implementation techniques used by the Java SE platform (which Google refutes) then Oracle should probably will lose (IANAL)
Microsoft on the other hand was implementing a JVM for Windows, under a license to do so from Sun. Microsoft extended the platform in a non cross-platform way (against the license) in order to "Kill cross-platform Java by grow[ing] the polluted Java market." Doh !
So now back on the android/dalvik google/oracle suit.
> Dalvik shoots Java ME and probably also JavaFX in the head.
First JavaFX is for the desktop. Nothing to do with the mobile. Second JavaMe has had its success (2B devices) but isn't technically adapted to compete on smartphones. It's a 10 years old platform. The programming model for application developers is outdated. The licensing scheme (and fees) is not adapted, and the amount of work for implementors is too large. Android seeks and manages to alleviate those issues. Third, Google is under no contractual obligation to not compete with Sun on providing a _platform_ for mobiles.
> That is not in Sun's interest, not in Oracle's > interest, and generally not in the development > community's interest.
It's not in Sun's interest, it's not in Oracle's interest but who says it's not in the community's interest ? You ? Based on what ?
As a developer, I say: JavaMe doesn't work for everything, there's a better technology out there, let's use it. The manufacturers say: this allows us to focus on building and selling a phone, not a VM and software stack. Great !
Only Oracle is unhappy because their expected revenues on JavaME are potentially reduced.
> Google/OHA should not be allowed to fragment the Java platform [...]
JavaME and JavaSE are already different platforms you know ? There's no such thing as a unique Java platform. Google isn't thus fragmenting _the platform_.
> Google could have worked with the community to > fix JavaME and JavaFX, but Google doesn't foster > than kind of an environment internally.
You can't fix an inappropriate platform. You replace it: the VM, the class libraries, everything had to be modified in a non compatible manner.
So why would Google help Sun/Oracle create something that only one compagny had control on ? No one wanted that. Hence the OHA.
Given the patent wars risks & the market complexity, with its reuse of the Java language, development environment and developer pools, the reuse of Apache code, the OHA, Android is one of the smartest move in the industry in the past years. Sun couldn't pull that. Google did. Oracle is pissed because it kills their revenue forecast. But there's a big chance Oracle cannot do anything about what Google did. Google carefully thought their plan, and Sun/Oracle's patents/copyrights/license&strategy may not have protected them against Google's move. That's called business.
Now instead of working hand in hand to make the language and the platforms more universal, Oracle seems to have taken a step against, alienating some of their best supporters (developers and FOSS community). That's a very very bad long term move for the platforms that Oracle present.
To me, the one who is damaging the most the platforms, isn't Google. It's Oracle.
Nope. Microsoft modified Java's platform and still called it Java. It wanted to add incompatible features and extend Java to its liking, ruining the write once run everywhere.
There was already a Sun/Oracle lead platform (and strategy) for Java on the phone, it was JavaMe and it wasn't good enough.
Google is thus taking the result of the compilation of a Java program and making it run on a phone in a different platform. It never clamed dalvik to be a Java VM, it just uses the Java language. That's very different from what Microsoft did.
Google has no interest in destroying the Java language and platform. It uses it in several places, including Google App Engine.
Slashdot Mirror
> I believe access to a tablet device can be credited with that, because of it's interactive and hands-on nature.
> It is a more intuitive design for written material than a computer, and it is in a more accessible forma
I find this use of the technology really appealing. As "enjar" writes below tablets aren't bad themselves. It's how we use them. It's all about not falling into excess and providing diverse experiences to people.
As for math learning, I am working on an ipad app that we will release in a few weeks. It is intended for the masses but I believe it will as well help a lot of people in the situation of your sister. If you're curious our (freshly set up) site is at http://wewanttoknow.com
And good luck with your sister, it seems she is lucky to have you taking care of her!
"if you let your friend joyride the car off the record you are putting the other co-owners in a losing situation"
assumption
* maybe my friend would never have bought the car in the first place
* maybe he instead will buy it after the joy ride, or do something else positive (recommend the car, buy the next model, go to a car expo, buy car manufacturer tee-shirts)
So according to you
* printing, storing, shipping costs are not a large part of the book price as Extra costs (marketing, etc) are to be applied
* this is only valid for large scale sales as low scale aren't envisioned due to poor viability
* because of large scale, they need to have large marketing costs, increasing the cost ratio of these Extra activities
* because of large scale, publishing costs get lowered per item, thereby reducing its ratio
The publishing costs are just low per item because the system is focusing on large scale printing to actually lower the distribution costs per item...
Aren't you just describing an inefficient system that justifies itself ? I say cut the inefficient part.
According to http://ireaderreview.com/2009/05/03/book-cost-analysis-cost-of-physical-book-publishing/
And author's get 8/15% of a book. That's a bit small to me. And that's in part caused by this inefficiency.
I agree.
I would have paid one dollar for the app. Maybe CBS wants to reconsider instead, contract the developper to modify the app. If they keep the open source version, they could have a different theme for the OSS one.
Win-win ?
I haven't found a petition. Is there one ?
So one can block the sale of a device on a whole continent because it possibly infringes on a functionality that represents 1/10000 of the default functionality of the phone. My phone can call, video call, chat, do my email, take and edit videos, upload pictures to the net, scan bar codes for maintaining list of books and dvds, do anything a browser can do, play games like a console, be my alarm clock, and I can't buy it because of the way it reacts if I scroll half way my pictures in the photo editor ?
This is just wrong.
When something is painfull, do it more often. If a company wait years to release a new browser then it will be painfull. If you wait years to upgrade it same thing.
Some companies manage to develop and deploy software continuously. Same should be for infrastructure.
Gettings stuck with a 5+ years old browser isn't a "key productivity" advantage. The more you wait, the more a change is risky. Reminds of that: http://www.itjoblog.co.uk/2011/06/the-iteration-is-too-long.html
Browsers should be upgraded every few weeks (like chrome and firefox now) and companies could upgrade almost as fast. There are many ways to achieve this, not because it is a little bit different and harder problem.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alan_Magee
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ivan_Chisov
a bit different (and controversal) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vesna_Vulović
My father is not what one would consider a technology friendly person, but he understood what BCC is for and is using it right. It took a few months and a few mistakes. And now he teaches others to do it. So I think most people don't use it, because they don't even know it exists or don't understand the problem caused by it.
One nice thing I've noticed: the group of those who don't use BCC, almost 100% interesects with the one of those who send me hoaxes (in a top posting, hotmail/yahoo style forwarding with the headers of past messages containing previous senders/recipients). It's very practical because I can answer to everybody and point them to http://hoaxbusters.org/ or like (using BCC this time).
Hehe
... ...)
Talking about fragmentation!
2 versions of Android ? What a waste !
2 competing Desktop Environments on Linux ? Bouh !
Different Linux distributions ? Yack !
Different people ? Uerg
Different species on Earth ? pfff
Different planets & environments ? Crazy !
Different universes ? (not yet proven, but
Operators that ship android don't need to distribute the Google version of it. They can take the open source version and add a mail, maps and app store application of their own.
Android is open. Google's android version has a few restrictions.
> There's already a tax on buggy software, it's
> just paid by the wrong side of the equation, the
> user.
I don't think software is paid by the wrong side of the equation.
Software being insecure is most often insecure when used in ways not intended by their creators.
Security is most often a property of the software, often ranked well below real functionality.
e.g. You don t buy Outlook because it protects you from viruses, you buy it to read your mail.
<bad_analogy>
You don t put windows on your house because you want people to stay out of it. You put them because you want light in, view outside, etc. Ideally with little heatloss. And best if people can t in easily. Now if someone finds out that a mixture of 24.6% pee and olive oil 75.4% at 35degrees placed on the windows joints makes it easy to open the window from the outside, is it really the problem of the window builder ? As a buyer, would you hold out if you knew that an unknown liquid mixture might reduce the security of the window ? Probably not. You may add shutters and an alarm system. And a safe.
</bad_analogy>
When you have an entire industry relying on a piece of software and then complaining it doesn t have the properties they really want, I say blame them. Big industries have the mean to reduce their risks. Individuals that rely a lot on IT should think twice of how they manage their data.
My take, people who buy software should invest more in checking whether it is secure or not.
And if you really want to introduce 3rd parties, instead of taxes, use a (optional) insurance system. It will probably adapt better to risks than a tax. And people are used to that.
No they didnt.
They didnt take a full OS or product and relicensed it.
They took 7 files. Those files arent even used.
Yes its probably a mistake or a very bad judgement. In no way this decision was to give Google a competitive advantage, a better product or etc. Nothing like taking a full product from someone else and reusing it.
Comply with the license (mostly done). Optionally pay a reasonable fee and move on. Not a full scale SCO lawsuit for 7 files again please. Thatsick.
(for the lawsuit, please go on, because there are other argumentrs. But that one seems moot).
Can we put things in perspective ?
Yes Google did a mistake (whether it was intended, it may be hard to prove). But were talking about 7 files that are not even part of the runtime OS. Were talking about no patented functionality, no functionality at all in fact (no runtime code), no linking of these files with Androids other files. Hei Google even removed the files from the (future) trees as soon as it became aware of it.
Does this warrant a multi million lawsuit ? Really ? (I know there are other arguments, but this one seems a bit light to me, at least on its own)
You're right.
I find it strange that people complain it's not a standard while the 2 other actors who could have done something, didn't, didn't want, and actually act against such an idea (supporting a non free format). And actually complaining about google's stance on h264 very ironically (hint: IE team).
I applaud Google's action.I know it's in their interest, but I also think it's in our interest.
And to me it's not a standoff. The standoff was when Apple and Microsoft did nothing.
> WebM was purchased and opened up by Google. Nobody else could have proposed it before.
Somebody else could have tried to buy the technology and open it. Or develop a competing technology. No ?
http://www.hotstocked.com/article/0197/on2-technologies-ont-launches-their-new-product-flix-r-engine.html
> It wouldn't surprise me at all if Google bought
> WebM for the specific purpose of providing a
> good open compromise.
I agree with you there.
Define standard.
Some counter arguments:
http://www.osnews.com/thread?458060
"What you perhaps actually mean is that WebM is a standard that is not yet endorsed by any official independent standards body."
According to Wikipedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Technical_standard):
"A technical standard may be developed privately or unilaterally, for example by a corporation, regulatory body, military, etc."
H.264 is not a standard acceptable by the W3c http://my.opera.com/haavard/blog/2011/01/13/openness
And finally:
http://annevankesteren.nl/2011/01/why-webm
"And lets face it, WebM has a specification, independent implementations, backing from hardware manufacturers, and is supported in all browsers that are not MPEG LA H.264 patent licensor — once Firefox 4 is released that makes about sixty percent of the desktop browser market."
Exactly. How often can you solve problems by just getting rid of the fear ?
People are afraid all the time.
Replacing flash with an other monopoly on a non free standard isn't a good solution. I far prefer Google's stance on the matter.
> But then Google got greedy, and thought
> "Why can't I have Adobe's position"?
That is an opinion not a fact.
> So under the guise of being open, Google is pushing for a standard controlled by them.
That is also an opinion, not a fact.
Google is pushing an open standard. Yes. Fact
Google may try to control the video format on the web. Like Apple, like Microsoft before.
My reading: Google is pushing for an open standard that *noone else* did before, either because of lack of interest, conflicting interests or lacking the guts to do so because of the patent minefield.
Yes they stand to win something if they do so, but they are also taking risks. Who else is doing ?
> The end effect is now the same standoff we had before,
It's still maybe a standoff, but the potential result (an open and free standard for video on the web) has much better consequences for all.
> As long as they provide information to the public in an open
> format such as HTML or PDF, I don't care what they adopt in an SOE.
Try filling up a PDF form with open source software and save it. Very practical.Not.
Where if your proof that the author of the blog is the same as or working together with the one of the comments ?
> The why the f*ck did they need to pick the Java
> Language when there is a shed-load of other
> languages out there, including their own Go?
Let's see the advantage of using Java:
* large developer base
* large and mature tool base
* large set of libraries
* attractive for manufacturers and developers who choose JavaME in the past (sort of 'upgrade' path)
* go isn't targeted to the same usage (go is more a C/C++ replacement for performance)
* because they could (technically, and probably according to their evaluation - legally)
It made lots of sense. Really. For me it's a really smart move.
> It appears they wanted to lure Java developers
> to their platform
yes :)
> but was it really worth the risk of angering
> Java's "owner",
According to their evaluation, I guess yes
Time will tell.
Wrong.
Android isn't a subset of the Java environment. And Google hasn't accepted any Java license agreement.
The java license agreements are for
* the implementers of Java environments (which Microsoft agreed, broke, got punished for, etc). Google provide a complete alternative tool stack and hasn't agreed to this agreement
* the users of the SDK, which prevents (in section D of the SUPPLEMENTAL LICENSE TERMS) the user from altering elements under the java[x], sun, etc packages. http://java.sun.com/javase/6/jdk-6u2-license.txt Google hasn't accepted this user agreement either. The developer may have.
Oracle cannot control what Google does with code written in Java that doesn't target the official Java platforms. The language isn't copyrighted (nor copyrightable - http://carlodaffara.conecta.it/?p=478), and except if they have specific patents in the conversion mechanism (which for example Gemalto is suing Google for - http://lwn.net/Articles/411852/), or in the implementation techniques used by the Java SE platform (which Google refutes) then Oracle should probably will lose (IANAL)
The word is not destroy but kill.
http://www.justice.gov/atr/cases/f1700/1762.htm#N_57_
"Naturally, we would never do it, but it would give us some idea of how much time we have to work with in killing Sun's Java."
> very much the same thing that Microsoft did
Let's clear this up a last time. Microsoft and Google did _very different things_.
As you agree, Java is a language (syntax) _and_ a platform (the API and the VM). (actually there are 3 platforms from Oracle: ME, SE, EE)
Google is using the _language_. Google never said it was using a _platform_ from Oracle. Check http://developer.android.com/guide/topics/fundamentals.html
Microsoft on the other hand was implementing a JVM for Windows, under a license to do so from Sun. Microsoft extended the platform in a non cross-platform way (against the license) in order to "Kill cross-platform Java by grow[ing] the polluted Java market." Doh !
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Microsoft_Java_Virtual_Machine#Antitrust_trial
This is *very* different!
So now back on the android/dalvik google/oracle suit.
> Dalvik shoots Java ME and probably also JavaFX in the head.
First JavaFX is for the desktop. Nothing to do with the mobile.
Second JavaMe has had its success (2B devices) but isn't technically adapted to compete on smartphones. It's a 10 years old platform. The programming model for application developers is outdated. The licensing scheme (and fees) is not adapted, and the amount of work for implementors is too large. Android seeks and manages to alleviate those issues.
Third, Google is under no contractual obligation to not compete with Sun on providing a _platform_ for mobiles.
> That is not in Sun's interest, not in Oracle's
> interest, and generally not in the development
> community's interest.
It's not in Sun's interest, it's not in Oracle's interest but who says it's not in the community's interest ? You ? Based on what ?
As a developer, I say: JavaMe doesn't work for everything, there's a better technology out there, let's use it.
The manufacturers say: this allows us to focus on building and selling a phone, not a VM and software stack. Great !
Only Oracle is unhappy because their expected revenues on JavaME are potentially reduced.
> Google/OHA should not be allowed to fragment the Java platform [...]
JavaME and JavaSE are already different platforms you know ? There's no such thing as a unique Java platform.
Google isn't thus fragmenting _the platform_.
> Google could have worked with the community to
> fix JavaME and JavaFX, but Google doesn't foster
> than kind of an environment internally.
You can't fix an inappropriate platform. You replace it: the VM, the class libraries, everything had to be modified in a non compatible manner.
So why would Google help Sun/Oracle create something that only one compagny had control on ? No one wanted that. Hence the OHA.
Given the patent wars risks & the market complexity, with its reuse of the Java language, development environment and developer pools, the reuse of Apache code, the OHA, Android is one of the smartest move in the industry in the past years. Sun couldn't pull that. Google did. Oracle is pissed because it kills their revenue forecast. But there's a big chance Oracle cannot do anything about what Google did. Google carefully thought their plan, and Sun/Oracle's patents/copyrights/license&strategy may not have protected them against Google's move. That's called business.
Now instead of working hand in hand to make the language and the platforms more universal, Oracle seems to have taken a step against, alienating some of their best supporters (developers and FOSS community). That's a very very bad long term move for the platforms that Oracle present.
To me, the one who is damaging the most the platforms, isn't Google. It's Oracle.
Er vi enig ?
Nope. Microsoft modified Java's platform and still called it Java. It wanted to add incompatible features and extend Java to its liking, ruining the write once run everywhere.
There was already a Sun/Oracle lead platform (and strategy) for Java on the phone, it was JavaMe and it wasn't good enough.
Google is thus taking the result of the compilation of a Java program and making it run on a phone in a different platform. It never clamed dalvik to be a Java VM, it just uses the Java language. That's very different from what Microsoft did.
Google has no interest in destroying the Java language and platform. It uses it in several places, including Google App Engine.