Oh, cool, you found an article that talks about "Apple fragmentation" that you didn't even bother to read. Gee, that makes e feel dumb.
If I were wearing "Apple binders" I wouldn't even care about Android market fragmentation. Instead I'm an Android user who has to live with the nasty results of fragmentation.
How is that fragmentation in Android, and not in Apple?
Because it isn't happening with Apple.
Apple is zealous about updates, and an OS upgrade typically is on a 2/3 of devices within weeks of its release. There are still a lot of devices running old versions, but this is due to people hanging onto older phones that are no longer supported,
By contrast Android 4.0, despite being out for more than a year, runs on about 10% of all Android devices. (My data is about 6 months old, but I don't see things changing that rapidly.) The dominant versions are 2.3 (65%; about 21 months old) and 2.2 (20%, over 2 years old.) And this isn't mainly about slow updates: it is mostly due to manufacturers continuing to sell new phones with older versions of the OS. That seems to be changing, but very slowly.
So, the only iOS users stuck with legacy OSs are the minority hanging onto very old devices, of which no more are being made. By contrast, Android devices with a legacy OS constitute 90%, and new devices with the legacy OS still account for a majority of sales.
Things do change. Any sign that this is happening at Mozilla? No? Until there is, I'm gonna assume that Firefox OS is just another poorly managed Mozilla project.
So one particular product, promoted by a company with the marketing skill of an over-ripe banana, goes nowhere and the whole concept is dead? Whatever.
It's easy to make existing HTML5 applications installable to Firefox OS.
Provided they don't use any of the HTML5 features that Firefox doesn't support. If you send FF to html5test.com you'll get a score of 350 or so — not very impressive.
Anyway, you're missing the point. The issue here is not what technologies Mozilla has. The issue here is their habit of screwing up the technologies they do have. I stuck with FF for years after Chrome came out because their developer ecosystem was so much more mature and advanced. But I finally got tired of their screwups and switched to Chrome, even though Chrome still hasn't completely caught up with FF featurewise. I just needed to have a browser that won't drive me crazy.
Yeah, they have a hardware vendor. I guess I overlooked the news that it will be released, Next year. In Brazil. If the response isn't a big collective "Este é fodido!" then I'll admit that they might be on to something.
You're talking about network computers? These were not web-based. They ran a special OS with server storage; applications were written in Java.
When this idea was big (1997) they were too optimistic with their assumptions: that it was easy to wean people away from Windows, the absence of network infrastructure would not be a problem, and that Java was mature enough to write serious applications in.
Now there seems to be rather less MS Office lockin, everybody has fast networking, and instead of Java we have some really promising web technology.
Of course, this approach might well fail too. (My own experience with browser-based word processing is not encouraging.) But it's something new and deserves an honest chance.
To be disruptive, a device has to attract developers and users. This one hasn't even got a hardware vendor. In any case, the constant screwups with Firefox and Thunderbird make me very skeptical that Mozilla can disrupt a church picnic, never mind find a place in an extremely competitive mobile device market.
Yeah right, these cameras are all about revenue and have nothing to with the 35,000 Americans who died in speeding related deaths last year. Jeez, if that many people died in a terrorist attack, people would be demanding a nuclear attack! But hey, it's just people in a hurry, no big deal.
The ability of bad drivers to rationalize their own stupidity is really impressive. If we could harness it for good, we could end war or something just as cool.
Yeah, that should work out, assuming Apple management is sane enough to drop Steve Jobs's anti-Android Jihad. Nobody deserves to die the way Steve Jobs did, but I'm not at all sorry that his obsessions are no longer Apple corporate policy.
One Steve made a name for himself by opening up computers. His idea that a desktop computer should be a big open platform that anybody can plug into dominates computer design to this very day, and had a lot to do with the explosive growth of computing.
The other Steve wanted to close up smartphones. Come to think of it, he took a control-freak attitude toward every product he ever launched. Ironic, really.
If it were just Samsung getting a little sloppy about Apple's design patents, you'd have a point. But the motivation for this war is the belief that Android itself is one big ripoff of iOS and needs to die. If Apple is allowed to claim ownership of the dominant user interaction paradigm, they will end up being the sole owner of the smart phone marketplace.
You say there are alternatives? These are a few small time platforms that manage to stay outside Apple's claimed IP They will always be too nonstandard to attract significant user or developer mindshare.
He's not talking about flaky ISPs or NAPs. He's talking about a routing protocol that he says prevents clouds from working. At all. Further explanation required.
Slashdot Mirror
TLDR.
Oh, cool, you found an article that talks about "Apple fragmentation" that you didn't even bother to read. Gee, that makes e feel dumb.
If I were wearing "Apple binders" I wouldn't even care about Android market fragmentation. Instead I'm an Android user who has to live with the nasty results of fragmentation.
How is that fragmentation in Android, and not in Apple?
Because it isn't happening with Apple.
Apple is zealous about updates, and an OS upgrade typically is on a 2/3 of devices within weeks of its release. There are still a lot of devices running old versions, but this is due to people hanging onto older phones that are no longer supported,
By contrast Android 4.0, despite being out for more than a year, runs on about 10% of all Android devices. (My data is about 6 months old, but I don't see things changing that rapidly.) The dominant versions are 2.3 (65%; about 21 months old) and 2.2 (20%, over 2 years old.) And this isn't mainly about slow updates: it is mostly due to manufacturers continuing to sell new phones with older versions of the OS. That seems to be changing, but very slowly.
So, the only iOS users stuck with legacy OSs are the minority hanging onto very old devices, of which no more are being made. By contrast, Android devices with a legacy OS constitute 90%, and new devices with the legacy OS still account for a majority of sales.
Nice summary. It sounds like Google is behaving reasonably, but they let Asus catch them flatfooted PRwise.
I do wish that they'd address the fragmentation issue with the same vigor.
Solaris is based on System V, The rebranding from SunOS to Solaris (back in 1991!) coincides with the move away from a BSD-based OS.
NOTHING EVER CHANGES.
Things do change. Any sign that this is happening at Mozilla? No? Until there is, I'm gonna assume that Firefox OS is just another poorly managed Mozilla project.
Fine, my source is screwed up and it's only (guessing wildly) 10,000 people killed by speeding. I guess if it's only 10,000 it doesn't matter.
Check out this guy, who turned up a few year ago in San Jose, about an hour's drive south of SF.
So one particular product, promoted by a company with the marketing skill of an over-ripe banana, goes nowhere and the whole concept is dead? Whatever.
It's easy to make existing HTML5 applications installable to Firefox OS.
Provided they don't use any of the HTML5 features that Firefox doesn't support. If you send FF to html5test.com you'll get a score of 350 or so — not very impressive.
Anyway, you're missing the point. The issue here is not what technologies Mozilla has. The issue here is their habit of screwing up the technologies they do have. I stuck with FF for years after Chrome came out because their developer ecosystem was so much more mature and advanced. But I finally got tired of their screwups and switched to Chrome, even though Chrome still hasn't completely caught up with FF featurewise. I just needed to have a browser that won't drive me crazy.
Yeah, they have a hardware vendor. I guess I overlooked the news that it will be released, Next year. In Brazil. If the response isn't a big collective "Este é fodido!" then I'll admit that they might be on to something.
What makes you think that Jobs thought his lawsuits were spurious?
Supersoakers! Ready! Aim!
You're talking about network computers? These were not web-based. They ran a special OS with server storage; applications were written in Java.
When this idea was big (1997) they were too optimistic with their assumptions: that it was easy to wean people away from Windows, the absence of network infrastructure would not be a problem, and that Java was mature enough to write serious applications in.
Now there seems to be rather less MS Office lockin, everybody has fast networking, and instead of Java we have some really promising web technology.
Of course, this approach might well fail too. (My own experience with browser-based word processing is not encouraging.) But it's something new and deserves an honest chance.
To be disruptive, a device has to attract developers and users. This one hasn't even got a hardware vendor. In any case, the constant screwups with Firefox and Thunderbird make me very skeptical that Mozilla can disrupt a church picnic, never mind find a place in an extremely competitive mobile device market.
Right, and speeding is an essential liberty? Get over yourself.
Yeah right, these cameras are all about revenue and have nothing to with the 35,000 Americans who died in speeding related deaths last year. Jeez, if that many people died in a terrorist attack, people would be demanding a nuclear attack! But hey, it's just people in a hurry, no big deal.
The ability of bad drivers to rationalize their own stupidity is really impressive. If we could harness it for good, we could end war or something just as cool.
So he justified his control freakdom by the need to build a good product. That doesn't make him any less a control freak.
Yeah, that should work out, assuming Apple management is sane enough to drop Steve Jobs's anti-Android Jihad. Nobody deserves to die the way Steve Jobs did, but I'm not at all sorry that his obsessions are no longer Apple corporate policy.
One Steve made a name for himself by opening up computers. His idea that a desktop computer should be a big open platform that anybody can plug into dominates computer design to this very day, and had a lot to do with the explosive growth of computing.
The other Steve wanted to close up smartphones. Come to think of it, he took a control-freak attitude toward every product he ever launched. Ironic, really.
If it were just Samsung getting a little sloppy about Apple's design patents, you'd have a point. But the motivation for this war is the belief that Android itself is one big ripoff of iOS and needs to die. If Apple is allowed to claim ownership of the dominant user interaction paradigm, they will end up being the sole owner of the smart phone marketplace.
You say there are alternatives? These are a few small time platforms that manage to stay outside Apple's claimed IP They will always be too nonstandard to attract significant user or developer mindshare.
Balloons can use hydrogen. Much more fun at parties. And if you need helium to talk like a Munchkin you're just not trying.
Bonum est canis tuus ambulat in litore.
Yet another way to use up a nonrenewable resource.
Then you're not defending the belittlement of the pro-censorship stance in the article summary? So why are we arguing?
He's not talking about flaky ISPs or NAPs. He's talking about a routing protocol that he says prevents clouds from working. At all. Further explanation required.