>> All the source is open but some is more open than others.
Please go on. Don't be shy. And if you can't provide the evidence, please just shut the fuck up with your Apple whoring.
"Over the past few months, according to several people familiar with the matter, Google has been demanding that Android licensees abide by "non-fragmentation clauses" that give Google the final say on how they can tweak the Android code—to make new interfaces and add services—and in some cases whom they can partner with."
Or I could have just said: Honeycomb. "Open" indeed.
This could be, for instance, private keys for market signatures, etc. There are some bits that you show *nobody* if you want things to be even remotely secure.
Come on this isn't rainman, he's not going to memorize a private key. It's probably some secret sauce in the Google Android apps, which aren't open source.
By the way, what is this ultra secret, mega proprietary Android source code anyway? I thought Android was open source. Didn't Andy Rubin define "open" as the ability to download and compile the source?
All the source is open but some is more open than others. Now let's all stop posing awkward questions and focus on how evil Apple and Facebook are, those damn liberal elites and lame-stream social media that hate us real internetians.
Let's review all that is being implied here : - 1 picture on page 28 of 1 document apparently swayed the verdict Apple's way - Samsungs lawyers were incompetents that didn't have enough arguments to counter that 1 picture
Meh, I fully expected to get modded down in this discussion. I could've just sat on the sidelines and engaged in mod wars against these kind of biased moderations but where's the fun in that? I'll mod another day, and burn some karma today.
Google won't convert Android to an exclusive OS, a la iOS. First, it means stabbing long time partners in the back, and loosing a lot of advertising market share. Also that would play into Apple's hands because Motorola can't compete with Apple on it's own (yet) without a help from Samsung, HTC, Sony...and every other Android OEM that contributes to the platform becoming "new Windows". Now imagine that they have to fork Android, make it incompatible with each other, or even migrate to other OS-es like Bada. that would be detrimental to Google's business, a suicide move.
As I pointed out elsewhere Apple tried competing against licensees of their own software for a while (the Macintosh clones), it failed miserably and they had to switch back to the exclusive model. Of course Apple was in pretty bad shape at the time, Google is in a much stronger position and may pull it off.
Finally we have everyone, except Apple and Nokia, on the same OS ship, it would be tragic to destroy that kind of success.
I don't believe that they shelled out $12bn only to get patents and sink the company.
Of course, in this case the software is licensed free of charge for everyone. I'd say that, and the fact that the base is all open source, does quite a bit to calm other manufacturers.
That's not strictly true though is it. It might be true for old versions, but Google might well withhold access to new versions. They've already done so with Honeycomb, releasing early to the parties of their choosing. And then there's this mysterious quote from Google : "According to Google, Microsoft did not ask permission before showing Stevenson the Android source code. [...] "The confidential source code improperly provided to Dr. Stevenson is highly proprietary source code that Google does not even share with its partners, such as Motorola," Google said."
I don't know how they are going to make this work. Apple tried this back in the day, both producing its own hardware and licensing the software and it didn't work. Either you are undercut by your licensees and you are losing money, or you are too successful and destroy your licensees' ecosystem. It'll be interesting to see if Google can pull of this balancing act.
Google isn't interested in making money off Android, or Android phones. Early phone retirements and forced phone upgrades do not fit into Google's business strategy. They are interested in getting people on the internet on their phones so they can be advertised at.
They won't be too interested in running that division at a loss either, and there won't be a sudden culture-change in the Motorola Mobile unless they get rid of current management which would be destabilizing (and might cause an outflow of talent.)
Yup Google just switched over to the Apple model: complete control over both the hardware platform and the software, it's going to get real interesting. OTOH this must cause quite a bit of wailing and gnashing of teeth over at Samsung and other Android vendors, seeing as they are now not only competing against Google directly on a platform Google controls, but Google now also has even less incentive to help out their partners/competitors with patent issues.
Yet he did this in a capitalistic system, he just chose to not capitalize on his "invention". And not to rag on any other country, but the greedy ass American model is surely not perfect, but not sure if New Zealand is leading the industry in new life saving drugs.
Just because a model is dominant doesn't make it good. For an example look at the American model of banking that has swept the world and caused (and continues to cause) mayhem everywhere. Besides that, New Zealand has a population of 4,5 million people compared to 210 million for the US so there's a significant difference in resources.
I don't think that the system works best if EVERYONE was either socialist or capitalist, but good old fashioned greed is a useful tool to get people to invest in something that is a long shot. Greed is often a very useful tool, even if ugly.
Greed has its use and I'm not even opposed to people profiting from what they've developed, but it has to be in proportion to the risk taken/investment made. Especially in a sector as critical to humanity as a whole as medicine there can't be an expectation of a perpetual gargantuan payout, there has to be a humanitarian factor too. So greed, yes, but greed constrained.
Apparently if you have a dissenting opinion around here you must be either a) a shill, or b) an idiot. If you ask me it shows nothing but how overinflated the self-opinion is of these people who like to shout others down.
One example ?Jonas Salk, a very bad capitalist and a wonderful human being :
"In 1947, Salk accepted an appointment to the University of Pittsburgh School of Medicine. In 1948, he undertook a project funded by the National Foundation for Infantile Paralysis to determine the number of different types of polio virus. Salk saw an opportunity to extend this project towards developing a vaccine against polio, and, together with the skilled research team he assembled, devoted himself to this work for the next seven years. [...] His sole focus had been to develop a safe and effective vaccine as rapidly as possible, with no interest in personal profit. When he was asked in a televised interview who owned the patent to the vaccine, Salk replied: "There is no patent. Could you patent the sun?"[4]"
Image if the bastard who developed AIDS anti-viral drugs had the same attitude.
Also you've got what's known as the "kiwi-model" of New Zealand where the government acts as the purchaser of medicines, forcing manufacturers to give better deals :
"The Pharmaceutical Management Agency of New Zealand (PHARMAC), which was established in 1993, uses a capped national medicines budget, along with a variety of supplier contracts, to purchase medicines. The contracts include rebates on list prices, tendering for off-patent drugs, and bundle agreements where PHARMAC may list expensive new drugs in return for the manufacturer discounting the price of other products it supplies."
That's a good deal. A friend of mine recently dropped his HTC Wildfire and said it was 150 EUR to replace the cracked glass. He didn't have any kind of insurance on it though. Ended up just buying another phone.
OSX Lion is also a whopping 3 weeks old, while Win7 is 2 years old. Want to bet that when Windows 8 comes out, it will be more secure than OSX Lion?
Regardless, you and I both know that when the next Pwn2Own comes along, the Probook is going down first. Where the money is, there will be the exploits.
Sure I hope every OS that comes out after Lion will be even more secure, I wouldn't mind a security arms race. I was just pointing out that Apple has (privately at least) acknowledged some of its shortcomings and is taking steps.
The next Pwn2own will certainly be interesting as the traditional attack vector, Safari, has had a lot of work done under the hood. Can't wait to see what they'll come up with.
Meanwhile actual hackers, like the guys who won the Pwn2own contests by beating OSX security, now say OSX Lion is more secure than Windows (even though they previously freely admitted Snow Leopard was trailing Windows' latest offering in that department.)
"Both Miller and his co-author in the book The Mac Hacker's Handbook, Dino Dai Zovi of Trail of Bits said that from a security perspective, Snow Leopard was little better on Leopard, but that Lion is a "significant improvement." Zovi describes the level of security in Lion as "Windows 7 plus plus." Apple hired the inventor of the BitFrost security system for OLPC, Ivan Krstic, two years ago in an effort to beef up core OS security. Krstic's methods in BitFrost mirror closely what has now been implemented in Lion."
Yeah : Stop And Identify Statutes. Or you know, excercise your right to remain silent and be photographed, fingerprinted and thrown in the hole. I'll just show my ID thanks, all that's on those papers is my name and where I live. if you are being given a ticket or being arrested they're going to ask you that anyway.
I freely admit I'm a pragmatist. I can see the philosophical reasoning but I'll take the real benefits over the purely theoretical loss of dignity. There's no sense in ending up with half baked systems (like the US social security card, which from what I understand relies on security by obscurity) or basically outsourcing identification services to the DMV or worse, the banks (who famously even send credit card offers to dogs.)
The deal is, that We The People delegate certain of our inalienable rights to Our Government; we do not need ANYTHING to prove that we exist as individuals. This is why we do not have nor do we ever need government identity papers -- Because We The People give the power to the government, not the other way around. Your mere existence is its own inalienable self-proof.
You don't need anything to prove you exist as individuals ? I think I know someone on 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue who'd disagree with that. And it's not proof of existence, it's just identification. You'd think geeks of all people would understand the value of proper identification during interactions with service providers.
We are also a free country, there's no checkpoints in the streets.
I really don't get it, if I : deal with the bank, I prove my identity with a debit card, deal with the library, I prove my identity with a library card, deal with traffic cops, I prove my identity with a driver's license, and if I deal with the government, I prove my identity with an ID card.
What's the big deal ? I mean look what's on this thing and tell me what exactly about that is supposed to enslave me ?
No, everyone gets an ID and you must carry it with you at all times. I don't see why that would be a big deal, it's basically just a plastic card with a summary of the information the government has on you anyway.
"Belgium is the OECD country that levies the highest tax and social security burden on the labour income of single taxpayers, whether they have low, average or high earnings."
Now you know why we produce so much beer, it's to drown our sorrows.
Doing this kind of thing is a breeze in Belgium. Everyone has an ID card with chip containing a couple of certificates on it. A site can use these to validate you say who you say you are by checking through a government server. Ebay does account verification in this way. Quick, painless.
Slashdot Mirror
>> All the source is open but some is more open than others.
Please go on. Don't be shy. And if you can't provide the evidence, please just shut the fuck up with your Apple whoring.
"Over the past few months, according to several people familiar with the matter, Google has been demanding that Android licensees abide by "non-fragmentation clauses" that give Google the final say on how they can tweak the Android code—to make new interfaces and add services—and in some cases whom they can partner with."
Or I could have just said: Honeycomb. "Open" indeed.
BTW, they have pills for Tourette's now.
This could be, for instance, private keys for market signatures, etc. There are some bits that you show *nobody* if you want things to be even remotely secure.
Come on this isn't rainman, he's not going to memorize a private key. It's probably some secret sauce in the Google Android apps, which aren't open source.
By the way, what is this ultra secret, mega proprietary Android source code anyway? I thought Android was open source. Didn't Andy Rubin define "open" as the ability to download and compile the source?
All the source is open but some is more open than others. Now let's all stop posing awkward questions and focus on how evil Apple and Facebook are, those damn liberal elites and lame-stream social media that hate us real internetians.
Let's review all that is being implied here :
- 1 picture on page 28 of 1 document apparently swayed the verdict Apple's way
- Samsungs lawyers were incompetents that didn't have enough arguments to counter that 1 picture
Conspiracy fail.
Meh, I fully expected to get modded down in this discussion. I could've just sat on the sidelines and engaged in mod wars against these kind of biased moderations but where's the fun in that? I'll mod another day, and burn some karma today.
Google won't convert Android to an exclusive OS, a la iOS. First, it means stabbing long time partners in the back, and loosing a lot of advertising market share.
Also that would play into Apple's hands because Motorola can't compete with Apple on it's own (yet) without a help from Samsung, HTC, Sony...and every other Android OEM that contributes to the platform becoming "new Windows".
Now imagine that they have to fork Android, make it incompatible with each other, or even migrate to other OS-es like Bada.
that would be detrimental to Google's business, a suicide move.
As I pointed out elsewhere Apple tried competing against licensees of their own software for a while (the Macintosh clones), it failed miserably and they had to switch back to the exclusive model. Of course Apple was in pretty bad shape at the time, Google is in a much stronger position and may pull it off.
Finally we have everyone, except Apple and Nokia, on the same OS ship, it would be tragic to destroy that kind of success.
I don't believe that they shelled out $12bn only to get patents and sink the company.
You forgot HP, poor suffering WebOS :-). Also RIM.
Of course, in this case the software is licensed free of charge for everyone. I'd say that, and the fact that the base is all open source, does quite a bit to calm other manufacturers.
That's not strictly true though is it. It might be true for old versions, but Google might well withhold access to new versions. They've already done so with Honeycomb, releasing early to the parties of their choosing. And then there's this mysterious quote from Google : "According to Google, Microsoft did not ask permission before showing Stevenson the Android source code. [...] "The confidential source code improperly provided to Dr. Stevenson is highly proprietary source code that Google does not even share with its partners, such as Motorola," Google said."
Yeah well, what are they gonna say ? "Shit, we're screwed." might have kind of a negative impact on the stock price.
I don't know how they are going to make this work. Apple tried this back in the day, both producing its own hardware and licensing the software and it didn't work. Either you are undercut by your licensees and you are losing money, or you are too successful and destroy your licensees' ecosystem. It'll be interesting to see if Google can pull of this balancing act.
Google isn't interested in making money off Android, or Android phones. Early phone retirements and forced phone upgrades do not fit into Google's business strategy. They are interested in getting people on the internet on their phones so they can be advertised at.
They won't be too interested in running that division at a loss either, and there won't be a sudden culture-change in the Motorola Mobile unless they get rid of current management which would be destabilizing (and might cause an outflow of talent.)
Yup Google just switched over to the Apple model: complete control over both the hardware platform and the software, it's going to get real interesting. OTOH this must cause quite a bit of wailing and gnashing of teeth over at Samsung and other Android vendors, seeing as they are now not only competing against Google directly on a platform Google controls, but Google now also has even less incentive to help out their partners/competitors with patent issues.
Yet he did this in a capitalistic system, he just chose to not capitalize on his "invention". And not to rag on any other country, but the greedy ass American model is surely not perfect, but not sure if New Zealand is leading the industry in new life saving drugs.
Just because a model is dominant doesn't make it good. For an example look at the American model of banking that has swept the world and caused (and continues to cause) mayhem everywhere. Besides that, New Zealand has a population of 4,5 million people compared to 210 million for the US so there's a significant difference in resources.
I don't think that the system works best if EVERYONE was either socialist or capitalist, but good old fashioned greed is a useful tool to get people to invest in something that is a long shot. Greed is often a very useful tool, even if ugly.
Greed has its use and I'm not even opposed to people profiting from what they've developed, but it has to be in proportion to the risk taken/investment made. Especially in a sector as critical to humanity as a whole as medicine there can't be an expectation of a perpetual gargantuan payout, there has to be a humanitarian factor too. So greed, yes, but greed constrained.
Apparently if you have a dissenting opinion around here you must be either a) a shill, or b) an idiot. If you ask me it shows nothing but how overinflated the self-opinion is of these people who like to shout others down.
One example ?Jonas Salk, a very bad capitalist and a wonderful human being :
"In 1947, Salk accepted an appointment to the University of Pittsburgh School of Medicine. In 1948, he undertook a project funded by the National Foundation for Infantile Paralysis to determine the number of different types of polio virus. Salk saw an opportunity to extend this project towards developing a vaccine against polio, and, together with the skilled research team he assembled, devoted himself to this work for the next seven years. [...] His sole focus had been to develop a safe and effective vaccine as rapidly as possible, with no interest in personal profit. When he was asked in a televised interview who owned the patent to the vaccine, Salk replied: "There is no patent. Could you patent the sun?"[4]"
Image if the bastard who developed AIDS anti-viral drugs had the same attitude.
Also you've got what's known as the "kiwi-model" of New Zealand where the government acts as the purchaser of medicines, forcing manufacturers to give better deals :
"The Pharmaceutical Management Agency of New Zealand (PHARMAC), which was established in 1993, uses a capped national medicines budget, along with a variety of supplier contracts, to purchase medicines. The contracts include rebates on list prices, tendering for off-patent drugs, and bundle agreements where PHARMAC may list expensive new drugs in return for the manufacturer discounting the price of other products it supplies."
That's a good deal. A friend of mine recently dropped his HTC Wildfire and said it was 150 EUR to replace the cracked glass. He didn't have any kind of insurance on it though. Ended up just buying another phone.
OSX Lion is also a whopping 3 weeks old, while Win7 is 2 years old. Want to bet that when Windows 8 comes out, it will be more secure than OSX Lion?
Regardless, you and I both know that when the next Pwn2Own comes along, the Probook is going down first. Where the money is, there will be the exploits.
Sure I hope every OS that comes out after Lion will be even more secure, I wouldn't mind a security arms race. I was just pointing out that Apple has (privately at least) acknowledged some of its shortcomings and is taking steps.
The next Pwn2own will certainly be interesting as the traditional attack vector, Safari, has had a lot of work done under the hood. Can't wait to see what they'll come up with.
Meanwhile actual hackers, like the guys who won the Pwn2own contests by beating OSX security, now say OSX Lion is more secure than Windows (even though they previously freely admitted Snow Leopard was trailing Windows' latest offering in that department.)
"Both Miller and his co-author in the book The Mac Hacker's Handbook, Dino Dai Zovi of Trail of Bits said that from a security perspective, Snow Leopard was little better on Leopard, but that Lion is a "significant improvement." Zovi describes the level of security in Lion as "Windows 7 plus plus." Apple hired the inventor of the BitFrost security system for OLPC, Ivan Krstic, two years ago in an effort to beef up core OS security. Krstic's methods in BitFrost mirror closely what has now been implemented in Lion."
Yeah : Stop And Identify Statutes. Or you know, excercise your right to remain silent and be photographed, fingerprinted and thrown in the hole. I'll just show my ID thanks, all that's on those papers is my name and where I live. if you are being given a ticket or being arrested they're going to ask you that anyway.
I freely admit I'm a pragmatist. I can see the philosophical reasoning but I'll take the real benefits over the purely theoretical loss of dignity. There's no sense in ending up with half baked systems (like the US social security card, which from what I understand relies on security by obscurity) or basically outsourcing identification services to the DMV or worse, the banks (who famously even send credit card offers to dogs.)
The deal is, that We The People delegate certain of our inalienable rights to Our Government; we do not need ANYTHING to prove that we exist as individuals. This is why we do not have nor do we ever need government identity papers -- Because We The People give the power to the government, not the other way around. Your mere existence is its own inalienable self-proof.
You don't need anything to prove you exist as individuals ? I think I know someone on 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue who'd disagree with that.
And it's not proof of existence, it's just identification. You'd think geeks of all people would understand the value of proper identification during interactions with service providers.
We are also a free country, there's no checkpoints in the streets.
I really don't get it, if I :
deal with the bank, I prove my identity with a debit card,
deal with the library, I prove my identity with a library card,
deal with traffic cops, I prove my identity with a driver's license,
and if I deal with the government, I prove my identity with an ID card.
What's the big deal ? I mean look what's on this thing and tell me what exactly about that is supposed to enslave me ?
No, everyone gets an ID and you must carry it with you at all times. I don't see why that would be a big deal, it's basically just a plastic card with a summary of the information the government has on you anyway.
Here, this'll discourage you :
"Belgium is the OECD country that levies the highest tax and social security burden on the labour income of single taxpayers, whether they have low, average or high earnings."
Now you know why we produce so much beer, it's to drown our sorrows.
Why do you hate America?
Because of your freedoms, obviously ;-)
Doing this kind of thing is a breeze in Belgium. Everyone has an ID card with chip containing a couple of certificates on it. A site can use these to validate you say who you say you are by checking through a government server. Ebay does account verification in this way. Quick, painless.