That ridiculous. Do you have scissors built into your phone? A laser pointer, dog whistle, tissue dispenser or espresso maker? Why not? Isn't it better to have the feature available?
Widgets are just software, adding it isn't like adding the hardware things you suggest, obviously. So no, whilst your argumentum ad absurdum is ridiculous GP's point is valid (even though I don't actually agree with it).
Microsoft doesn't have to "abuse FRAND" because it can abuse it's well established (and confirmed by the courts) monopoly position.
The idea that FAT is necessary to copy files to and from Windows is antiquated beyond belief, with networked devices we're pretty much beyond the point of needing to plug things directly together to copy files.
2% isn't much. Care to guess what Microsoft wants for their alleged patents in Android?
Irrelevant, and in making that comment you make it obvious you need to educate yourself on what Standards Essential Patents are and how they differ from patents that are not Standards Essential.
Yeah, and Microsoft is the worst offender here. They certainly don't deserve any sympathy in this case.
I don't think anybody is asking for sympathy here but you can't say that Microsoft should be slapped for doing it and Google shouldn't because they are doing it Microsoft, that's just eye-for-an-eye pettiness.
The entire notion of a "standards essential patent" is obscene.
Agreed, but Microsoft, Google, Apple, Nokia, etc... all make too much money from them.
A wristband phone can offer much more vertical space. than a watch-like clunker. Wristbands can be wide or narrow, and can be made to look like jewelry. Twisting your wrist can control scrolling.
Wristband phones and smart watches are less convenient since they can't be operated one-handed, that's a ridiculously stupid limitation inherent in their design.
Much more convenient than carrying a brick in your hand, and doesn't look so dweebish.
Maybe you need to get with the times, it's been decades since we've had to carry a brick-like phone and realistically talking into your wristwatch looks a hell of a lot more dweebish.
Agreed, if you avoided everything but what you absolutely needed to survive you would have a pretty damn boring life, actually you wouldn't really be living so much as just existing.
I see where you're coming from. There's no unique "killer" feature that can make any of the alternatives stand out as objectively superior to the current mobile platforms, but the same could have been said about the iPod or iPhone when they were released in their respective markets. It doesn't necessarily take a revolutionary product to change the landscape of a market, just a well executed one.
Fair point, I suppose the only thing that I felt is that while the N9 was a great device Nokia really had to go all out on it and commit to it the same way Apple did with the iPod and iPhone, Nokia's phone smartphone would be the N9 and that's it. Licensing MeeGo would inevitably lead to cheap knockoffs that don't offer the same feel and dilute the brand and having a shedload of models takes away from the tightly coupled and predictable experience you get by tying the hardware and software.
As far as how Nokia would have fared with MeeGo, it may have taken some skillful marketing, a few cross-licensing agreements that Nokia may not have been ready to commit to and a bit of luck, but the potential was there technically to make it a very competitive third player.
I still think it's in the same arena as every other OS though, they could all do the same thing but the advantage Nokia had was their reputation for building brilliant handsets so perhaps they could have leveraged that to some degree.
I guess the argument could be made (IMHO a questionable one) that Windows Phone was in the same position at the time Elop made his decision, but even if that's the case why wouldn't having control over the full hardware/software stack be the better option for Nokia?
Probably, really Nokia needed to be the exclusive Windows Phone maker with Microsoft doing all the work and pouring all the money in to market it and integrate it with Windows, then Nokia could have focused on just building great handsets without having to worry about differentiating from other competitors on the same platform.
If any OS could be have been disruptive enough to overcome the duopoly of Android/iOS, MeeGo on the N9 was it. It still has simplest, most natural interface of any mobile device I've ever used and it accomplishes that without sacrificing any of the power or true multi-tasking capabilities of the N900. The only weakness in the platform at launch (besides very minor bugs) was the lack of apps.
That's exactly the problem, I agree the N9 was very good, it worked well, but it wasn't that much better in any objective way and didn't have any feature that would appeal to the broad consumer-base as something so substantial and over-arching that they would give up their existing familiarity, app catalog and purchases to switch. Meego is no different to any of the other platforms.
If Nokia hadn't intentionally sabotaged their own product by releasing the device in limited markets and declaring the platform dead before release, every indication is that the N9 would have been a huge success.
Every indication is that it would be no different to webOS or FirefoxOS or Ubuntu Phone or Maemo, they work very well and very naturally but their unique benefits only speak to geeks.
That alone may not have been enough to become a player on par with Apple and Google, but it certainly would have been a better start than Windows Phone has been so far.
I doubt it, there's little objectively wrong with any of the alternatives but they are all 'me-too' platforms in a mature market.
Google a few other reviews and they will all be along those lines. I didn't buy it because it was dead on arrival, I bet a lot of others did the same. And it's a shame because it could have been a great platform, especially because it was a fairly standard Linux system below the hood.
Android is a fairly standard Linux system too, as was Maemo. Having yet another Linux phone is pretty pointless, the N900 was great but it really only appealed to geeks, it had some great capabilities but I found it kinda sucked as a phone and these days there's nothing it could really do that you can't do on an Android device anyway.
The smartphone market is relatively mature now so emerging platforms need to offer something particularly disruptive, Meego, webOS, Windows Phone, Ubuntu Phone, etc... didn't and AFAICT FirefoxOS doesn't either (except maybe hitting the extreme low end). All those platforms (yes even Windows Phone) are very very good but the problem is they aren't significantly better than the incumbents in any way that would convince existing users to make the switch particularly with their vast app catalogs which many existing users have made significant purchases from.
This is actually pretty consistent with how Apple has operated lately. Lots of new features in recent history (iCloud, Maps, Notes, Reminders, FaceTime, etc.) have been iOS-first, OS X second.
But AirDrop has been on OSX for years and is only now coming to iOS.
The reality is someone used chemical weapons in Syria. The problem is was it rebels, Al queada, or Asssad.
Apparently the US government has evidence that it was the Syrian government, now I'm not a fan of the Syrian government anymore than I was of the last target that the US has 'evidence' around WMDs for but they hardly have a good track record on 'intelligence' despite their extensive surveillance.
This is the same 'US intel' which missed the collapse of the USSR, 9/11, the Boston Bombers, and were totally sure Saddam Hussein had WMDs, right, not another 'US intel' that's actually competent?
But this time they're sure the Syrian government used chemical weapons.
Bluetooth has existed for wireless filesharing for years, you really think Apple couldn't come up with a solution to transfer files with AirDrop using just bluetooth on older devices?
It seems strange that they have the same feature with the same name that essentially does the same thing on both platforms yet they are incompatible with eachother.
From what I've seen the answer is actually no. They issued a patch to the OEMs which then are responsible for patching handsets. Also AFAIK the update issued via Google Play was to patch Google Play itself to scan for this issue, it didn't patch Android:
Slashdot Mirror
That ridiculous. Do you have scissors built into your phone? A laser pointer, dog whistle, tissue dispenser or espresso maker? Why not? Isn't it better to have the feature available?
Widgets are just software, adding it isn't like adding the hardware things you suggest, obviously. So no, whilst your argumentum ad absurdum is ridiculous GP's point is valid (even though I don't actually agree with it).
This is the beginning of the end... SELL APPL, SELL APPL!!!!
The time to sell AAPL was before the share price plummeted.
Microsoft doesn't have to "abuse FRAND" because it can abuse it's well established (and confirmed by the courts) monopoly position.
The idea that FAT is necessary to copy files to and from Windows is antiquated beyond belief, with networked devices we're pretty much beyond the point of needing to plug things directly together to copy files.
It is not as if MS, Oracle, and Apple, have been running patent scams against Google.
Yes, they are all as evil as eachother and it is right to call them out on it no matter which of those corporations it happens to be.
2% isn't much. Care to guess what Microsoft wants for their alleged patents in Android?
Irrelevant, and in making that comment you make it obvious you need to educate yourself on what Standards Essential Patents are and how they differ from patents that are not Standards Essential.
Yeah, and Microsoft is the worst offender here. They certainly don't deserve any sympathy in this case.
I don't think anybody is asking for sympathy here but you can't say that Microsoft should be slapped for doing it and Google shouldn't because they are doing it Microsoft, that's just eye-for-an-eye pettiness.
The entire notion of a "standards essential patent" is obscene.
Agreed, but Microsoft, Google, Apple, Nokia, etc... all make too much money from them.
it's been decades since we've had to carry a brick-like phone
Most smartphones are a boring rectangular solid with rounded corners - a brick.
Oh well call the Oxford Dictionary, the meaning of the word 'brick' has been re-defined to mean any rectangular solid with rounded corners!
A wristband phone can offer much more vertical space. than a watch-like clunker. Wristbands can be wide or narrow, and can be made to look like jewelry. Twisting your wrist can control scrolling.
Wristband phones and smart watches are less convenient since they can't be operated one-handed, that's a ridiculously stupid limitation inherent in their design.
Much more convenient than carrying a brick in your hand, and doesn't look so dweebish.
Maybe you need to get with the times, it's been decades since we've had to carry a brick-like phone and realistically talking into your wristwatch looks a hell of a lot more dweebish.
Nowhere near as cool as the 15 Swatches I wore on both arms every day!
before you were mugged?
No, after he mugged 15 people wearing swatches.
Agreed, if you avoided everything but what you absolutely needed to survive you would have a pretty damn boring life, actually you wouldn't really be living so much as just existing.
I see where you're coming from. There's no unique "killer" feature that can make any of the alternatives stand out as objectively superior to the current mobile platforms, but the same could have been said about the iPod or iPhone when they were released in their respective markets. It doesn't necessarily take a revolutionary product to change the landscape of a market, just a well executed one.
Fair point, I suppose the only thing that I felt is that while the N9 was a great device Nokia really had to go all out on it and commit to it the same way Apple did with the iPod and iPhone, Nokia's phone smartphone would be the N9 and that's it. Licensing MeeGo would inevitably lead to cheap knockoffs that don't offer the same feel and dilute the brand and having a shedload of models takes away from the tightly coupled and predictable experience you get by tying the hardware and software.
As far as how Nokia would have fared with MeeGo, it may have taken some skillful marketing, a few cross-licensing agreements that Nokia may not have been ready to commit to and a bit of luck, but the potential was there technically to make it a very competitive third player.
I still think it's in the same arena as every other OS though, they could all do the same thing but the advantage Nokia had was their reputation for building brilliant handsets so perhaps they could have leveraged that to some degree.
I guess the argument could be made (IMHO a questionable one) that Windows Phone was in the same position at the time Elop made his decision, but even if that's the case why wouldn't having control over the full hardware/software stack be the better option for Nokia?
Probably, really Nokia needed to be the exclusive Windows Phone maker with Microsoft doing all the work and pouring all the money in to market it and integrate it with Windows, then Nokia could have focused on just building great handsets without having to worry about differentiating from other competitors on the same platform.
Have you ever used a N9?
Yes, I have and it's a very good device.
If any OS could be have been disruptive enough to overcome the duopoly of Android/iOS, MeeGo on the N9 was it. It still has simplest, most natural interface of any mobile device I've ever used and it accomplishes that without sacrificing any of the power or true multi-tasking capabilities of the N900. The only weakness in the platform at launch (besides very minor bugs) was the lack of apps.
That's exactly the problem, I agree the N9 was very good, it worked well, but it wasn't that much better in any objective way and didn't have any feature that would appeal to the broad consumer-base as something so substantial and over-arching that they would give up their existing familiarity, app catalog and purchases to switch. Meego is no different to any of the other platforms.
If Nokia hadn't intentionally sabotaged their own product by releasing the device in limited markets and declaring the platform dead before release, every indication is that the N9 would have been a huge success.
Every indication is that it would be no different to webOS or FirefoxOS or Ubuntu Phone or Maemo, they work very well and very naturally but their unique benefits only speak to geeks.
That alone may not have been enough to become a player on par with Apple and Google, but it certainly would have been a better start than Windows Phone has been so far.
I doubt it, there's little objectively wrong with any of the alternatives but they are all 'me-too' platforms in a mature market.
Google a few other reviews and they will all be along those lines. I didn't buy it because it was dead on arrival, I bet a lot of others did the same. And it's a shame because it could have been a great platform, especially because it was a fairly standard Linux system below the hood.
Android is a fairly standard Linux system too, as was Maemo. Having yet another Linux phone is pretty pointless, the N900 was great but it really only appealed to geeks, it had some great capabilities but I found it kinda sucked as a phone and these days there's nothing it could really do that you can't do on an Android device anyway.
The smartphone market is relatively mature now so emerging platforms need to offer something particularly disruptive, Meego, webOS, Windows Phone, Ubuntu Phone, etc... didn't and AFAICT FirefoxOS doesn't either (except maybe hitting the extreme low end). All those platforms (yes even Windows Phone) are very very good but the problem is they aren't significantly better than the incumbents in any way that would convince existing users to make the switch particularly with their vast app catalogs which many existing users have made significant purchases from.
The way bluetooth security works, it wouldn't be seamless.
It certainly could be given that users do have to accept file transfers on AirDrop anyway.
Sure - at 1 MBit/s.
Yeah (well it could probably be double that), which is plenty for transferring contacts or a photo.
This is actually pretty consistent with how Apple has operated lately. Lots of new features in recent history (iCloud, Maps, Notes, Reminders, FaceTime, etc.) have been iOS-first, OS X second.
But AirDrop has been on OSX for years and is only now coming to iOS.
The reality is someone used chemical weapons in Syria. The problem is was it rebels, Al queada, or Asssad.
Apparently the US government has evidence that it was the Syrian government, now I'm not a fan of the Syrian government anymore than I was of the last target that the US has 'evidence' around WMDs for but they hardly have a good track record on 'intelligence' despite their extensive surveillance.
This is the same 'US intel' which missed the collapse of the USSR, 9/11, the Boston Bombers, and were totally sure Saddam Hussein had WMDs, right, not another 'US intel' that's actually competent?
But this time they're sure the Syrian government used chemical weapons.
Bluetooth has existed for wireless filesharing for years, you really think Apple couldn't come up with a solution to transfer files with AirDrop using just bluetooth on older devices?
Key word: "can". You have the option to NOT use icloud keychain sync, and it clearly asks you whether you want to.
Yes obviously, but what idiot would actually want that?
It says it will enhance cloud integration and "all your passwords" can be in the cloud.
Just what I want, all my passwords in a bunch of data centers in various locations.
It seems strange that they have the same feature with the same name that essentially does the same thing on both platforms yet they are incompatible with eachother.
Anybody know is OSX Mavericks AirDrop compatible with iOS7 AirDrop? I know Mountain Lion's isn't.
Not maybe the iphone isn't very popular, and people aren't designing malware for it because they want to go for Fort Knox instead of a piggy bank.
If the iPhone is not very popular then what smartphone is popular?
Yes and yes.
From what I've seen the answer is actually no. They issued a patch to the OEMs which then are responsible for patching handsets. Also AFAIK the update issued via Google Play was to patch Google Play itself to scan for this issue, it didn't patch Android:
"Google Play scans for this issue – and Verify Apps provides protection for Android users who download apps to their devices outside of Play"
http://9to5google.com/2013/07/09/google-patches-android-to-block-application-signature-vulnerability/