Why do you keep bringing Android into this? I was talking specifically about a Google Maps app on iOS... what is there, right now, that could possibly prohibit Apple from rejecting such an application? Yeah... if or when Apple has the "market dominance" that you are talking about it'd be an issue... but they don't right now, and they aren't likely to anytime particularly soon (at least on the time scale of how long it takes to develop most mobile applications), so it's really a moot point with regards to the question I was asking about Apple rejecting a Google Maps app.
Not quite. Evidently, she posted the "LOL" remark about her DUI on FB *BEFORE* her court appearance, and it was this flippant remark that prompted the judge to demand that she delete her FB account (merely deactivating it may have been adequate to satisfy the judge's request. I am not sure about that). When the judge later learned the account was still active, however, she then faced contempt of court charges, and was put in jail for that.
The position of market power that you describe is only an issue if Apple succeeds in getting rid of Android... it has no bearing on whether or not Apple is going to allow Google to have their own map app on iOS.
Google maps doesn't work fully inside of the iPhone's browser. Most notably, Street View functionality is missing (but this is because the web-based version of Street View utilizes flash).
What I think is most likely is Apple rejecting the Google Maps app from the iTunes store, but not other competing map applications. It's their store, and I do not think they can be legally *forced* to carry a product.
Do you have a qualified reference for this, or are you making assumptions?
And what evidence do you have that Apple will not simply reject any possible future Google Maps app on the basis that it "duplicates internal functionality"?
Unknown... to the best of my knowledge, Google has not officially announced any intent to write a new map application for the iPhone. I certainly hope that they do, and yeah... as you alluded to yourself, I hope that Apple doesn't reject on the grounds that it duplicates apple's "built-in functionality". (because it doesn't. It does quite a lot of very useful things that Apple maps doesn't do (and probably won't for a long time) And if Apple is going to disallow Google on that basis, then shouldn't they also be disallowing all of the many dozens of other map applications that are currently available in the app store?)
Third, Maps.app has never provided Street View. (Has the author even used the app?)
You're far from the first person to not realize that the Google native iOS map app had Street View. It did... and has had it for a very long time.
To access Street View in the Google maps app, place a pin, then touch the pin. Wait a moment for the info to download, then touch the orange portrait icon on the side of the popup, which will bring up a Street View of that location.
Although I will concede the point that the mechanism for accessing Street View may be a bit obscure, given the limited interface available on a pure touchscreen device like the iPhone, I'm unsure how else Google could have implemented this to make it more obvious.
Countries where the iPhone wasn't available aren't counted among the nations affected (because they aren't. It wasn't available there before, so not having it now makes no difference).
Performance issues aside, the google maps website doesn't even have all of the features that the native map application does. I agree, hopefully Google will have one for us soon... and even more hopefully, Apple won't just turn around and deny them on the basis that it "duplicates internal functionality" (it doesn't anyways, Google maps does plenty of stuff that Apple maps doesn't currently do and probably never will, which is why I'm personally quite upset about this move). Although Apple would be betraying their blind prejudice against Google quite clearly if they did not also disallow all the many dozens of other GPS and mapping applications that are currently available for the iPhone.
Yes, "exotic matter" does include matter that has been theorized to exist based on already understood laws, but has never been discovered. However, such hypothetical matter often goes by another name (such as non-barionic dark matter, as you mentioned). The only practical reason to ever call matter "exotic" if its existence has not yet been theorized in a manner consistent with known laws of physics, and it does not have a better name yet , and calling it "unobtanium" isn't practical for whatever reason.
It is more correct to say that "exotic matter" refers to some substance that has never been observed to exist and possesses one or more properties that are so radically distinct from properties you would find more conventionally that it might as well be magic.
Examples: A frictionless pulley; a shield against gravity; an invulnerable metal.
What's proved by vision is that most of the people in the field seem to be male... not that most of the ones that happen to be female are ugly (although I've seen no shortage of male programmers who would be fugly as hell if they were women).
In fact, the ratio of attractive women to unattractive women in the field is even higher than the ratio of attractive men to unattractive men.
But this may be because women in a professional field tend to have more regard for their own appearance than the kinds of guys who are typically drawn into computer programming.
I'd question calling offensive language "mature", when that's not really the case.
Not that I'm saying that adults don't often talk like that... I know many that do. But in my own experience, it really seems to me that such offensive language is far more frequently used by younger people than by older.
It reminds me of how some kids will sometimes start smoking because they think it's "grown-up", whereas almost everybody who smokes these days actually started before they even turned 18.
Bittorent was designed to be decentralized from the ground up, true, but it was designed this way so for the express purpose that it could distribute the network load it created across multiple network routes, which would thus more efficiently transfer data, and would have the desirable upshot of both reducing the network load placed on any single content provider, while, in general, often increasing data throughput at the recipient's end.
That, plain and simple, is what motivated the creation of Bittorrent. Not P2P file sharing. Get your history and facts right.
Slashdot Mirror
Why do you keep bringing Android into this? I was talking specifically about a Google Maps app on iOS... what is there, right now, that could possibly prohibit Apple from rejecting such an application? Yeah... if or when Apple has the "market dominance" that you are talking about it'd be an issue... but they don't right now, and they aren't likely to anytime particularly soon (at least on the time scale of how long it takes to develop most mobile applications), so it's really a moot point with regards to the question I was asking about Apple rejecting a Google Maps app.
Not quite. Evidently, she posted the "LOL" remark about her DUI on FB *BEFORE* her court appearance, and it was this flippant remark that prompted the judge to demand that she delete her FB account (merely deactivating it may have been adequate to satisfy the judge's request. I am not sure about that). When the judge later learned the account was still active, however, she then faced contempt of court charges, and was put in jail for that.
The position of market power that you describe is only an issue if Apple succeeds in getting rid of Android... it has no bearing on whether or not Apple is going to allow Google to have their own map app on iOS.
What? Do you seriously think that would stop Apple from rejecting it?
It's Apple's store... I don't think they can be legally required to carry any product they don't want to.
Google maps doesn't work fully inside of the iPhone's browser. Most notably, Street View functionality is missing (but this is because the web-based version of Street View utilizes flash).
What I think is most likely is Apple rejecting the Google Maps app from the iTunes store, but not other competing map applications. It's their store, and I do not think they can be legally *forced* to carry a product.
The "already available" google map app is just a web-app. And is not as fast, easy, or as feature-filled as the native application was.
And what do you place the odds on that Apple will turn around and reject Google's map application?
Ironically, however, the version of Google maps as accessed via Safari on the iPhone, does not seem to have any facility for showing Street View.
"Google will have Maps as a standalone app..."
Do you have a qualified reference for this, or are you making assumptions?
And what evidence do you have that Apple will not simply reject any possible future Google Maps app on the basis that it "duplicates internal functionality"?
Turn by turn navigation isn't available on all devices that iOS6 works with.
Unknown... to the best of my knowledge, Google has not officially announced any intent to write a new map application for the iPhone. I certainly hope that they do, and yeah... as you alluded to yourself, I hope that Apple doesn't reject on the grounds that it duplicates apple's "built-in functionality". (because it doesn't. It does quite a lot of very useful things that Apple maps doesn't do (and probably won't for a long time) And if Apple is going to disallow Google on that basis, then shouldn't they also be disallowing all of the many dozens of other map applications that are currently available in the app store?)
You're far from the first person to not realize that the Google native iOS map app had Street View. It did... and has had it for a very long time.
To access Street View in the Google maps app, place a pin, then touch the pin. Wait a moment for the info to download, then touch the orange portrait icon on the side of the popup, which will bring up a Street View of that location.
Although I will concede the point that the mechanism for accessing Street View may be a bit obscure, given the limited interface available on a pure touchscreen device like the iPhone, I'm unsure how else Google could have implemented this to make it more obvious.
Did you even read the article?
(Of course not... this is slashdot).
Countries where the iPhone wasn't available aren't counted among the nations affected (because they aren't. It wasn't available there before, so not having it now makes no difference).
Performance issues aside, the google maps website doesn't even have all of the features that the native map application does. I agree, hopefully Google will have one for us soon... and even more hopefully, Apple won't just turn around and deny them on the basis that it "duplicates internal functionality" (it doesn't anyways, Google maps does plenty of stuff that Apple maps doesn't currently do and probably never will, which is why I'm personally quite upset about this move). Although Apple would be betraying their blind prejudice against Google quite clearly if they did not also disallow all the many dozens of other GPS and mapping applications that are currently available for the iPhone.
Where, exactly, do you propose that an iOS6 user download this alleged Google Maps app from?
References, please. This is not my experience when I was working with hydrogen gas in Chemistry 12.
I never once said that exotic matter was impossible... only that its properties might as well be magic*, given what we know right now.
*See Clarke's Third Law.
Yes, "exotic matter" does include matter that has been theorized to exist based on already understood laws, but has never been discovered. However, such hypothetical matter often goes by another name (such as non-barionic dark matter, as you mentioned). The only practical reason to ever call matter "exotic" if its existence has not yet been theorized in a manner consistent with known laws of physics, and it does not have a better name yet , and calling it "unobtanium" isn't practical for whatever reason.
It is more correct to say that "exotic matter" refers to some substance that has never been observed to exist and possesses one or more properties that are so radically distinct from properties you would find more conventionally that it might as well be magic.
Examples: A frictionless pulley; a shield against gravity; an invulnerable metal.
What's proved by vision is that most of the people in the field seem to be male... not that most of the ones that happen to be female are ugly (although I've seen no shortage of male programmers who would be fugly as hell if they were women).
In fact, the ratio of attractive women to unattractive women in the field is even higher than the ratio of attractive men to unattractive men.
But this may be because women in a professional field tend to have more regard for their own appearance than the kinds of guys who are typically drawn into computer programming.
Citation, please.
I'll be interested when they invent one that a) can do stairs, and b) can empty its own bin into a trash receptacle when full.
I'd question calling offensive language "mature", when that's not really the case.
Not that I'm saying that adults don't often talk like that... I know many that do. But in my own experience, it really seems to me that such offensive language is far more frequently used by younger people than by older.
It reminds me of how some kids will sometimes start smoking because they think it's "grown-up", whereas almost everybody who smokes these days actually started before they even turned 18.
That, plain and simple, is what motivated the creation of Bittorrent. Not P2P file sharing. Get your history and facts right.