Agreed, but still - the comparison was between smartphone OS platforms, not specific companies or devices. The fact that some companies choose to limit the availability of their OS to a single or handful of devices, while significant, does not make the comparison invalid in any way.
RIM = 1 company Apple = 1 company Android = oodles of companies...
Its comparing apples to oranges here.
The valid comparison is for the smartphone OS platforms and their respective ecosystems, not companies or specific devices. The fact that some platforms (iOS, BB OS) are restricted to their respective owners' devices, and others (Android, WP7/WM6.5) are not has no bearing on that comparison.
Similarly, Mac OS is only "legally" available on Mac hardware, whereas Microsoft Windows is available via variety of vendors. This fact does not make consumer desktop OS market share comparison invalid in any way.
- numbers are for new devices only (not total market share) - does not include iPhone 4 - not a lot of people would buy an iPhone 3 in Q2 when new model was expected shortly
More interesting will be Q2 and Q3 totals combined when Q3 numbers are available. Then put BB6 and WP7 in the mix by year's end and it will get really interesting.
It may be useful for congested central areas with no trucks, or at least 3 lanes where small trucks will only stay in the right lane. It looks more like a tram and not a bus. But is it really "better" than a tram?
What about:
- cars slowing down, and congesting traffic behind them, in order to get out of under the bus to change lanes, park, turn, etc.? This could easily cause more congestion than a bus - cars accelerating to pass the bus and do the above would also be dangerous - cars getting stuck (because of traffic) in between lanes blocking the bus would make it very inefficient - drivers (and passengers) under the bus may get disoriented when the bus keeps going and they are supposed to stop or slow down, and vice versa
If there ever was a problem with the DRM then it could never be fixed unless users reinstalled their apps. This method is more secure. The cached response from last run seems like the best solution possible.
In either case, local libraries and apps using those libraries would need to be updated - I'm not sure what else you mean. Besides, "secure" what? DRM is not there for anyone's "security."
So, a couple of Chinese companies with obscure products have not released their sources and that makes Android as a whole "closed?" Android is open source last time I checked. As in you can get the source, change it, compile it, get it to work with your own hardware, and redistribute it. In fact, those obscure companies and products are a testament to that.
The fact that some are trying to lock down their bootloaders, not disclose drivers, or trying to lock down root access, etc. does not make the underlying operating system closed in any way.
1. Much of the justification for paid apps when both free and paid are available, is to get rid of the ads and tracking in the free versions (admob, etc. at dev's option). Now, you'll be tracked by Google (again, at developer's option) even for paid apps.
2. There are 2 modes: strict and server managed. Strict mode will always verify license every time you start an app. This is useless when no network connection is available - e.g. on airplane, and gives maximum tracking to Google. Server managed can cache the server response and use the cached response when there's no network connection available. This has 2 problems: (1) from users' perspective: you'll have to pre-open such apps that you'd want to use on a plane before taking off (or going off-roading, camping, hiking, etc.) - for example, you don't usually play a certain game (but you will on a plane), so cached response could have expired - better remember to pre-open and re-cache everything before taking off! Users shouldn't have to deal with this crap. And (2) from developers' perspective: the cached response is stored "obfuscated" locally. The "obfuscation" is an encrypted file with a 20-byte salt. The salt is stored inside the application. This is not secure by design and once broken, useless.
There are better ways, none of which involve a lot of extra tracking by Google. For example, even in this licensing scheme, since the salt stays the same per apk, why not just validate the license at install time, and "cache" the encrypted license forever for that specific apk? Another option - why not encrypt the apk itself, decrypt when run or JIT compiled binaries only. In general, why not implement a generic encrypted storage container that could be used by users, developers, and the OS to securely store any information? This could even be encrypted via an optional user-settable password to an encryption key. This is not rocket science, it's been done everywhere else.
Because iPad is not an open development platform like OS X. Whatever gets on there is at the mercy of Apple. Microsoft is about to release Windows Phone 7 which will compete with iPhone. How do you think Apple will react to that if it's moderately successful (clue: see Google Voice)?
ok, if that's applied universally then what does the anti-circumvention clause actually mean?
The judge said the anti-circumvention provision can only apply to what is protected by the Copyright Act. i.e. DMCA doesn't on its own extend outside of the bounds of the copyright law. What does this mean? To me it means (IANAL, not a legal advice):
If you are circumventing but not violating copyright, you are clear.
If you are circumventing and violating copyright, you are on hook for at least 2 violations: - DMCA anti-circumvention - Copyright infringement
Disclaimer: IANAL, this is not a legal advice, consult your lawyer.
- Windows Phone 7 phones? - Windows Phone 7s? - Phones with Windows Phone 7? - Windows Phone System 7 Phone with 7 phones and system with 7 windows Phone?
That's right. However, those events in the contract were under a bigger umbrella of Force majeure and not under Act of God. GP is right - the contract was just poorly worded in a way that this was not clear.
I don't see that anywhere. The use of the software to circumvent protection to enable lawfully obtained applications to run would apply to a mall booth just the same as to any private party.
I don't see any requirement that you are only allowed do it to the phone you own and not allowed to do it to someone else's phone.
I don't think legality was holding people back. It mainly was the technical expertise to do so.
Before this narrow exemption, it was illegal. Because it was illegal, it was not commercialized. What if there were booths in the mall that (after installing your screen protector, or selling you an accessory) offered you to jailbreak your iPhone for extra few bucks? They could even demo some of the cool apps for you right there. Not everyone would do it, but many easily could.
I think jailbreaking will be still limited to the hobbiest.
To use a car analogy (Which will be replied to with a better analogy proving me wrong): Now everyone can put "illegal" flamethrower pipes on their car and not get arrested, but who's going to do it but hobbiest?
If you must use a car analogy, it's more like installing non-factory accessories (navigation, entertainment system, bigger wheels, different headlights, etc.). Many do it, and there is a healthy market for it.
Sure, but Chrome and Opera are not major players - I specifically said so in my previous post.
Ignore mobile support at your own peril.
I didn't say "ignore" - I said as long as there's the Web between production and consumption, bigger part of the battle will be fought there, not offline.
This is not even remotely relevant. It's important to us geeks...
It's relevant to the point where Google can't start marketing and "arm-twisting" if the technology is not ready for production; i.e. it is comparable (features, performance, etc.) with the closest competing products on the market.
This puts WebM, as a newcomer, at the very bottom of the list.
Sure it does - today - the "battle" will go on for the next few years.
You are looking at it too short-term. If the "fight" was being called today and everyone's flash plugin was to magically disappear, you may be right (what about IE users?); but this is a more long-term affair.
In fact, I don't see a one-sided game at all, if Google play their cards right. And, Google does hold some major cards - YouTube, Android, OHA partners, Firefox (Opera and Chrome are not major), and WebM. MS will allow WebM with an optional codec install for IE which can be handled on youtube.com - "user, to play youtube videos we recommend you install this codec", or "to get most out of youtube... blah blah blah" - I don't know I'm not a marketing expert.
On the other side you'll have Safari (on iOS and OS X) and IE (partially, see above) who will support H.264. This is not exactly a clear-cut battle.
You'll also have recording devices like video cameras, cell phone cameras, etc., but as long as there's the Web in between those and significant part of the consumption of content most of the battle will be fought online, and relatively smaller portion offline.
But first, before any major moves, Google has to make WebM workable - i.e. fully optimized encoders, decoders, quality, etc.; then start making major moves towards its adoption. It seems to me like they are trying to make sure Flash (for video) hangs around long enough for them to accomplish this step. That's why, on the flip side, Apple would want to take out Flash as soon as possible.
If you hate Java so much, why did you base your phone OS around it?
That's a good question, and I think it leads to the real issue. The problem is not how "hard" or "easy" a particular programming language is. Most modern programming languages nowadays are relatively equal in that regard, and on par with features. The issues are what kind of supporting standardized extensible libraries, SDKs, APIs are readily available to programmers to complete 99% of the tasks they'd like to implement, and how "hard" are they?
When you say Java is too complex - you must have something specific in mind. Because if you look at Android SDK, it's not complex at all. When you say C++ is too complex - sure it is, if you are sitting in front of an empty file in vi and you want to implement a complex piece of software with no place to start. But I look at Qt and I can guarantee that most script kiddies can start picking it up in 30 minutes flat (well, maybe I will not guarantee it, but you get the idea).
So, if you are writing a piece of software and you think it's too "complex" maybe the real issue is that you don't have or you are not using the right tools for the job.
Yes. Please read up on dynamic linking and the GPL and LGPL. The questions your asking have been asked, answered, and discussed by many people every day for the past twenty years. Try Google, it's very useful.
It may have been asked and discussed, but I don't think it's clear at all.
GPL relies on copyright. You are only bound to GPL if you are either (1) [re]distributing the GPLed software, or (2) distributing a derivative work of GPLed software.
Let's say you created MyAwsomeClass.php which is 1000 lines of PHP script of your own writing, out of which on 5 lines it makes calls to SomeGPLClass->SomeFunctions(). Now, if you are only distributing MyAwsomeClass.php and not any GPLed code, then (1) does not apply. And just because you are calling those 5 functions it does not mean all your work suddenly becomes a "derivative" and therefore violating copyright. So (2) does not apply. So, in this case, GPL does not apply to you and you can license your script any way you like.
Now, if you were copying large chunks of GPLed code into your script, or extending the GPLed class, then it would be a different discussion. But simply calling functions that exist somewhere in another file cannot be reasonably considered a copyright violation and under the protection of the GPL (or any other copyright license, for that matter).
Problem if you start trusting some random comments and bashing.
My three year old Blackberry sees a phone number, in just about every app, and if you highlight it (single click), it pulls up a menu asking what you want to do with it, including DIALING it (SMS, Add to phonebook, copy, etc).
Works the same on pretty much every version of Android. I'm not sure if the GP was referring to that specific number or its format, or that specific phone model's default messaging app + number combination - I don't know. I can easily dial any number from the default text messaging app, or pretty much any app with similar text fields/components. Besides, there are other choices for messaging apps you can install with more options, if you like others better.
Email addresses, web addresses and whatnot all have similar options.
Add physical addresses (for maps/directions/navigation) and bunch of other things to that too.
If you notice, I didn't make any claims related to antennas or anything else (including anyone being "evil") in my reply to you. I merely pointed out that I believed that's what Apple PR was trying to accomplish - (i.e. partly creating more confusion), and they clearly did just that judging by your post.
But if you want to fit every event you read or see within the bounds of your pre-labeled dispositions, then that's totally up to you. It seems though, in that regard, your mind is just as made up as the people you are trying to critique.
The only reason this is being discussed is Apple pointed out the external antenna.
Yes, but you didn't go all the way. It is being discussed because the design of the external antenna on iPhone4 is such where connecting the miniscule seam on the lower left side with a conductive material (e.g. your hand, keys, etc.) causes dramatic drop in the signal. Touch of a finger, while holding your phone in a perfectly normal way, can cause this.
This is not to be confused with the "death grip" shown in these videos where they are attempting to cover phones' internal antennas with both hands. In fact it's purely coincidental that the "death grip" that may or may not cover the internal antennas (depending on its location) is also connecting the 2 antennas on the iPhone4 with the bottom of your palm.
There is no single "death grip" issue shared between iPhone4 and other phones - this is just what PR Apple used to drag others into the discussion. There are 2 distinct problems:
1. cover internal antenna(s) to "lose" signal 2. touch iPhone in a lower left side to "lose" signal
Some people are saying (2) is way more common and annoying and some are saying it should never have been designed that way. That's why it's being discussed.
That's not to say that it hasn't been discussed enough already. But Apple dragging others into it prolonged it, IMO.
Exactly. I'd always thought Google was trying to set a new baseline for hardware manufacturers. Their intention was never to "revolutionize" sales (in spite of what their sales pitch may have said) or attempt to release the next "iPhone." They generated just enough buzz/marketing, just enough sales to accomplish the goal. And they didn't even need Verizon to do this - even though they had that in their back pocket as well - the market did the rest.
Slashdot Mirror
It's more accurate to compare Android to iOS, which would then include the iPad.
No, it's a valid comparison - the category is smartphone OS market share, which is a perfectly valid and meaningful category.
Agreed, but still - the comparison was between smartphone OS platforms, not specific companies or devices. The fact that some companies choose to limit the availability of their OS to a single or handful of devices, while significant, does not make the comparison invalid in any way.
I am sorry, but this comparison is pretty crap.
RIM = 1 company
Apple = 1 company
Android = oodles of companies...
Its comparing apples to oranges here.
The valid comparison is for the smartphone OS platforms and their respective ecosystems, not companies or specific devices. The fact that some platforms (iOS, BB OS) are restricted to their respective owners' devices, and others (Android, WP7/WM6.5) are not has no bearing on that comparison.
Similarly, Mac OS is only "legally" available on Mac hardware, whereas Microsoft Windows is available via variety of vendors. This fact does not make consumer desktop OS market share comparison invalid in any way.
Notes:
- numbers are for new devices only (not total market share)
- does not include iPhone 4 - not a lot of people would buy an iPhone 3 in Q2 when new model was expected shortly
More interesting will be Q2 and Q3 totals combined when Q3 numbers are available. Then put BB6 and WP7 in the mix by year's end and it will get really interesting.
It may be useful for congested central areas with no trucks, or at least 3 lanes where small trucks will only stay in the right lane. It looks more like a tram and not a bus. But is it really "better" than a tram?
What about:
- cars slowing down, and congesting traffic behind them, in order to get out of under the bus to change lanes, park, turn, etc.? This could easily cause more congestion than a bus
- cars accelerating to pass the bus and do the above would also be dangerous
- cars getting stuck (because of traffic) in between lanes blocking the bus would make it very inefficient
- drivers (and passengers) under the bus may get disoriented when the bus keeps going and they are supposed to stop or slow down, and vice versa
It doesn't sound to me like the cached responses expire. Where did you get that information from?
Right here.
If there ever was a problem with the DRM then it could never be fixed unless users reinstalled their apps. This method is more secure. The cached response from last run seems like the best solution possible.
In either case, local libraries and apps using those libraries would need to be updated - I'm not sure what else you mean. Besides, "secure" what? DRM is not there for anyone's "security."
they shouldn't be using Android anyway because it's not an open platform.
So, a couple of Chinese companies with obscure products have not released their sources and that makes Android as a whole "closed?" Android is open source last time I checked. As in you can get the source, change it, compile it, get it to work with your own hardware, and redistribute it. In fact, those obscure companies and products are a testament to that.
The fact that some are trying to lock down their bootloaders, not disclose drivers, or trying to lock down root access, etc. does not make the underlying operating system closed in any way.
This is generally a bad idea:
1. Much of the justification for paid apps when both free and paid are available, is to get rid of the ads and tracking in the free versions (admob, etc. at dev's option). Now, you'll be tracked by Google (again, at developer's option) even for paid apps.
2. There are 2 modes: strict and server managed. Strict mode will always verify license every time you start an app. This is useless when no network connection is available - e.g. on airplane, and gives maximum tracking to Google. Server managed can cache the server response and use the cached response when there's no network connection available. This has 2 problems: (1) from users' perspective: you'll have to pre-open such apps that you'd want to use on a plane before taking off (or going off-roading, camping, hiking, etc.) - for example, you don't usually play a certain game (but you will on a plane), so cached response could have expired - better remember to pre-open and re-cache everything before taking off! Users shouldn't have to deal with this crap. And (2) from developers' perspective: the cached response is stored "obfuscated" locally. The "obfuscation" is an encrypted file with a 20-byte salt. The salt is stored inside the application. This is not secure by design and once broken, useless.
There are better ways, none of which involve a lot of extra tracking by Google. For example, even in this licensing scheme, since the salt stays the same per apk, why not just validate the license at install time, and "cache" the encrypted license forever for that specific apk? Another option - why not encrypt the apk itself, decrypt when run or JIT compiled binaries only. In general, why not implement a generic encrypted storage container that could be used by users, developers, and the OS to securely store any information? This could even be encrypted via an optional user-settable password to an encryption key. This is not rocket science, it's been done everywhere else.
Because iPad is not an open development platform like OS X. Whatever gets on there is at the mercy of Apple. Microsoft is about to release Windows Phone 7 which will compete with iPhone. How do you think Apple will react to that if it's moderately successful (clue: see Google Voice)?
ok, if that's applied universally then what does the anti-circumvention clause actually mean?
The judge said the anti-circumvention provision can only apply to what is protected by the Copyright Act. i.e. DMCA doesn't on its own extend outside of the bounds of the copyright law. What does this mean? To me it means (IANAL, not a legal advice):
If you are circumventing but not violating copyright, you are clear.
If you are circumventing and violating copyright, you are on hook for at least 2 violations:
- DMCA anti-circumvention
- Copyright infringement
Disclaimer: IANAL, this is not a legal advice, consult your lawyer.
I'm just wondering how the marketing is supposed to work out:
Here we have:
- iPhones
- Blackberry phones (or Blackberries)
- Android phones
and here we have:
- Windows Phone 7 phones?
- Windows Phone 7s?
- Phones with Windows Phone 7?
- Windows Phone System 7 Phone with 7 phones and system with 7 windows Phone?
As a backup?
That's right. However, those events in the contract were under a bigger umbrella of Force majeure and not under Act of God. GP is right - the contract was just poorly worded in a way that this was not clear.
Disclaimer: IANAL
I don't see that anywhere. The use of the software to circumvent protection to enable lawfully obtained applications to run would apply to a mall booth just the same as to any private party.
I don't see any requirement that you are only allowed do it to the phone you own and not allowed to do it to someone else's phone.
I don't think legality was holding people back. It mainly was the technical expertise to do so.
Before this narrow exemption, it was illegal. Because it was illegal, it was not commercialized. What if there were booths in the mall that (after installing your screen protector, or selling you an accessory) offered you to jailbreak your iPhone for extra few bucks? They could even demo some of the cool apps for you right there. Not everyone would do it, but many easily could.
I think jailbreaking will be still limited to the hobbiest.
To use a car analogy (Which will be replied to with a better analogy proving me wrong):
Now everyone can put "illegal" flamethrower pipes on their car and not get arrested, but who's going to do it but hobbiest?
If you must use a car analogy, it's more like installing non-factory accessories (navigation, entertainment system, bigger wheels, different headlights, etc.). Many do it, and there is a healthy market for it.
Chrome also supports H.264.
Sure, but Chrome and Opera are not major players - I specifically said so in my previous post.
Ignore mobile support at your own peril.
I didn't say "ignore" - I said as long as there's the Web between production and consumption, bigger part of the battle will be fought there, not offline.
This is not even remotely relevant. It's important to us geeks ...
It's relevant to the point where Google can't start marketing and "arm-twisting" if the technology is not ready for production; i.e. it is comparable (features, performance, etc.) with the closest competing products on the market.
This puts WebM, as a newcomer, at the very bottom of the list.
Sure it does - today - the "battle" will go on for the next few years.
You are looking at it too short-term. If the "fight" was being called today and everyone's flash plugin was to magically disappear, you may be right (what about IE users?); but this is a more long-term affair.
In fact, I don't see a one-sided game at all, if Google play their cards right. And, Google does hold some major cards - YouTube, Android, OHA partners, Firefox (Opera and Chrome are not major), and WebM. MS will allow WebM with an optional codec install for IE which can be handled on youtube.com - "user, to play youtube videos we recommend you install this codec", or "to get most out of youtube ... blah blah blah" - I don't know I'm not a marketing expert.
On the other side you'll have Safari (on iOS and OS X) and IE (partially, see above) who will support H.264. This is not exactly a clear-cut battle.
You'll also have recording devices like video cameras, cell phone cameras, etc., but as long as there's the Web in between those and significant part of the consumption of content most of the battle will be fought online, and relatively smaller portion offline.
But first, before any major moves, Google has to make WebM workable - i.e. fully optimized encoders, decoders, quality, etc.; then start making major moves towards its adoption. It seems to me like they are trying to make sure Flash (for video) hangs around long enough for them to accomplish this step. That's why, on the flip side, Apple would want to take out Flash as soon as possible.
If you hate Java so much, why did you base your phone OS around it?
That's a good question, and I think it leads to the real issue. The problem is not how "hard" or "easy" a particular programming language is. Most modern programming languages nowadays are relatively equal in that regard, and on par with features. The issues are what kind of supporting standardized extensible libraries, SDKs, APIs are readily available to programmers to complete 99% of the tasks they'd like to implement, and how "hard" are they?
When you say Java is too complex - you must have something specific in mind. Because if you look at Android SDK, it's not complex at all.
When you say C++ is too complex - sure it is, if you are sitting in front of an empty file in vi and you want to implement a complex piece of software with no place to start. But I look at Qt and I can guarantee that most script kiddies can start picking it up in 30 minutes flat (well, maybe I will not guarantee it, but you get the idea).
So, if you are writing a piece of software and you think it's too "complex" maybe the real issue is that you don't have or you are not using the right tools for the job.
Yes. Please read up on dynamic linking and the GPL and LGPL. The questions your asking have been asked, answered, and discussed by many people every day for the past twenty years. Try Google, it's very useful.
It may have been asked and discussed, but I don't think it's clear at all.
GPL relies on copyright. You are only bound to GPL if you are either (1) [re]distributing the GPLed software, or (2) distributing a derivative work of GPLed software.
Let's say you created MyAwsomeClass.php which is 1000 lines of PHP script of your own writing, out of which on 5 lines it makes calls to SomeGPLClass->SomeFunctions(). Now, if you are only distributing MyAwsomeClass.php and not any GPLed code, then (1) does not apply. And just because you are calling those 5 functions it does not mean all your work suddenly becomes a "derivative" and therefore violating copyright. So (2) does not apply. So, in this case, GPL does not apply to you and you can license your script any way you like.
Now, if you were copying large chunks of GPLed code into your script, or extending the GPLed class, then it would be a different discussion. But simply calling functions that exist somewhere in another file cannot be reasonably considered a copyright violation and under the protection of the GPL (or any other copyright license, for that matter).
Disclaimer: IANAL
And your response? Basically, "Well yeah, that's because Apple's PR is evil and is manipulating us to hide the truth! Wake up, sheeple!"
No, that's actually you putting words in others' "mouths;" and then applying your labels to them.
Well see, that's a problem for me.
Problem if you start trusting some random comments and bashing.
My three year old Blackberry sees a phone number, in just about every app, and if you highlight it (single click), it pulls up a menu asking what you want to do with it, including DIALING it (SMS, Add to phonebook, copy, etc).
Works the same on pretty much every version of Android. I'm not sure if the GP was referring to that specific number or its format, or that specific phone model's default messaging app + number combination - I don't know. I can easily dial any number from the default text messaging app, or pretty much any app with similar text fields/components. Besides, there are other choices for messaging apps you can install with more options, if you like others better.
Email addresses, web addresses and whatnot all have similar options.
Add physical addresses (for maps/directions/navigation) and bunch of other things to that too.
If you notice, I didn't make any claims related to antennas or anything else (including anyone being "evil") in my reply to you. I merely pointed out that I believed that's what Apple PR was trying to accomplish - (i.e. partly creating more confusion), and they clearly did just that judging by your post.
But if you want to fit every event you read or see within the bounds of your pre-labeled dispositions, then that's totally up to you. It seems though, in that regard, your mind is just as made up as the people you are trying to critique.
How much of this problem is caused by the apparent design flaw? No point in answering that question-- I won't trust you.
Then Apple PR has accomplished its goal as far as you are concerned.
The only reason this is being discussed is Apple pointed out the external antenna.
Yes, but you didn't go all the way. It is being discussed because the design of the external antenna on iPhone4 is such where connecting the miniscule seam on the lower left side with a conductive material (e.g. your hand, keys, etc.) causes dramatic drop in the signal. Touch of a finger, while holding your phone in a perfectly normal way, can cause this.
This is not to be confused with the "death grip" shown in these videos where they are attempting to cover phones' internal antennas with both hands. In fact it's purely coincidental that the "death grip" that may or may not cover the internal antennas (depending on its location) is also connecting the 2 antennas on the iPhone4 with the bottom of your palm.
There is no single "death grip" issue shared between iPhone4 and other phones - this is just what PR Apple used to drag others into the discussion. There are 2 distinct problems:
1. cover internal antenna(s) to "lose" signal
2. touch iPhone in a lower left side to "lose" signal
Some people are saying (2) is way more common and annoying and some are saying it should never have been designed that way. That's why it's being discussed.
That's not to say that it hasn't been discussed enough already. But Apple dragging others into it prolonged it, IMO.
Exactly. I'd always thought Google was trying to set a new baseline for hardware manufacturers. Their intention was never to "revolutionize" sales (in spite of what their sales pitch may have said) or attempt to release the next "iPhone." They generated just enough buzz/marketing, just enough sales to accomplish the goal. And they didn't even need Verizon to do this - even though they had that in their back pocket as well - the market did the rest.
Goal accomplished. Project closed. End of story.