We have more screen space and screen resolution than ever before
Screen resolutions are pretty much the same as they were 5 years (well even more than that) ago. 22" is still 1680x1050, 24" is still 1920x1200, 30" 2560x1600, etc...
Every moment I spend moving a window around or resizing it is frankly wasted time.
If only the UI could read your mind and know exactly when and how to manipulate windows to your liking. Not everyone works in the same way or has the same display setup (different sizes, resolutions, number of displays) so being able to position and resize windows is a good thing in a multitasking environment.
Same with launching programs
Launching programs is wasted time? You want everything loaded all the time?
organizing my menus.
What's your one-size-fits-all solution menus that is perfect for 100% of people then?
If we can abandon the model where the user has to fiddle with a bunch of unnecessary crap just to use their computer, that would be a step forward.
What is this 'bunch of unnecessary crap' that the user has to 'fiddle' with 'just to use their computer'? I don't think i've ever seen such things.
There is no such thing as honest marketing. They are trying to make you buy something, but you don't see adverts starting off with "consider whether there is any actual reason you need this expensive new toy" do you?
Honest as in they aren't deceiving you, not honest as in they won't try and make you buy something unless you absolutely need it.
Oh, and for non-Apple fanboys, Apple marketing is actually pretty nauseating.
I'm not an apple fanboy, i don't particularly like the iphone but i don't have a problem with their marketing. What is it you find nauseating about it?
Go back and read my comment again. If Android provided a good standard UI, most would not replace it.
Of course they would, it's their key point of differentiation outside of hardware, you know the thing they've been doing for and advertising themselves for years?! Or did you miss that?
Replacing the UI is a major change, it is a derivative work.
So running LiteStep creates a derivative of Windows does it? By what definition of 'derivative work' are you basing your comment on? Certainly not that of the ASL.
Google could add restrictions that state: If an OEM customizes it, they have to be able to meet/exceed those same standards (which could include performance, responsiveness, and compatibility benchmarks) in order to use the Android name.
No they couldn't, there is no way they could do it if for example HTC decided to run Sense on top of Android because by the nature of Sense and the definition of 'derivative work' it would not create a derivative work.
Nowhere in there did I say they can't replace the UI, or otherwise customize it
And i didn't say you did, but you claim to know a hell of a lot about the intentions of some major corporations which conflict with how they are currently doing business.
I also said is that Google could set standards they have to meet to be able to use the Android name.
Purely by your ignorance of the fact that running something like Sense UI does not create a derivative work.
If you want some precedent on trademark usage
By which you mean something completely different to what we are discussing similar only by way of the fact that they deal with trademarks.
here's one. In that case, MS settled because of issues with their claim to "Windows", but the fact that it was allowed to proceed as far as it was when "Lindows" wasn't even using MS's trademark, but a very similar name gives some indication of how much control over a trademark usage the owner really has (within their market/business).
That has absolutely nothing whatsoever to do with using someone elses trademark, that's completely 100% about a trademark being similar to an existing one, hence your example is of absolutely no relevance to this discussion. Completely offtopic.
Perhaps an even better case is Apple Corps v Apple Computer, they were in completely different businesses and the names weren't the same, but Apple Computer still paid Apple Corps (multiple times) to use the name.
As above, completely offtopic, it's just demonstrating you don't understand the issue at all, these cases are not even remotely similar to what we are discussing.
These cases strongly suggest Google can certainly impose the restrictions I suggested on "Android".
Except that given those are about 2 potentially conflicting trademarks rather than use of a single trademark it's obvious that they have absolutely no relevance or precedent in this situation.
If it had a good, usable, UI standard, but an OEM felt they had a way to improve it, they would be free to do so to differentiate their product.
It doesn't take a genius to figure out that if OEMs change the UI then it becomes non-standard.
But if the default UI didn't suck, they wouldn't all need to change it, and most wouldn't.
So now you're saying that even though you explicitly said they could differentiate their device by running a different UI like they do now, you just know that they won't.
Yes, they can. If I own the trademark, you can't use it without my permission unless you're making a reference to my product. If that product is OSS, and you've modified it, then it's no longer my product (it's a derivative), so the only way you can use my trademarked name is with my permission.
Except that this is not about a derivative work because running Sense on top of Android does not create a derivative work, just like running LiteStep on Windows does not create a derivative work.
Go back and reread my earlier post. I didn't ignore that at all. First you argue with my premise, then when your own comments demonstrate my premise is valid, you assert I'm ignoring something I stated in my premise.
Here's what you said: If it had a good, usable, UI standard, but an OEM felt they had a way to improve it, they would be free to do so to differentiate their product.
It doesn't take a genius to figure out that if OEMs change the UI then it becomes non-standard.
Google owns the Android trademark. They can place restrictions on it's use as they see fit. That they haven't restricted it as I suggested is part of the problem.
They cannot stop an OEM from stating that their device runs Android, that's not how trademarks work, there is no legal method for them to do such a thing.
But ignores the fact that OEMs need to differentiate, and do so by changing the UI if they can, but you could be right and maybe when the source for ICS is released HTC will drop its 'Sense' UI and Samsung will drop whatever it uses, time will tell.
Also did you have any source for the ability to place restrictions on usage of the Android name?
That's what they do, and that's part of what causes the problem. HTC's Android isn't the same as Samsung's Android even though there is a standard UI on vanilla Android. OEMs want - or rather need - to differentiate so of course they will make changes if the OS is free software.
Clearly, they don't, or they wouldn't have the problems they have.
Except the fact is they do, the OEMs could use vanilla android, but they overlay their own UI to differentiate.
Android phones are outselling iPhone, actually. By a large margin. That's not an apples to oranges comparison; the iPhone outsells any given Android phone.
Which makes sense, if i have a Galaxy and want to keep everything i've bought from the marketplace when i upgrade my phone i don't necessarily have to get the new Galaxy, i could get any Android phone. If i have an iPhone and want to do the same thing the only option i have is the new iPhone, can't get any other kind of phone.
Actually, Android can to all of that, and still allow customization. If it had a good, usable, UI standard, but an OEM felt they had a way to improve it, they would be free to do so to differentiate their product.
That's what they do, and that's part of what causes the problem. HTC's Android isn't the same as Samsung's Android even though there is a standard UI on vanilla Android. OEMs want - or rather need - to differentiate so of course they will make changes if the OS is free software.
One of the things the license gives you access to is the use of the Android name. Licenses can impose restrictions, even on OSS.
You can restrict them from using the name of a FOSS project in the product under their license? I know they have restrictions on the Google branding, but i haven't seen anything for the Android name.
Google could add restrictions that state: If an OEM customizes it, they have to be able to meet/exceed those same standards (which could include performance, responsiveness, and compatibility benchmarks) in order to use the Android name.
Pretty sure they have some kind of system like that for their Google branding, but obviously not all manufacturers bother with that.
If they don't meet those, they can either use the OS, but they can't claim Android compatibility. That gives OEMs a strong incentive to meet the specifications, but they're free to forego them if they think it's worth the trade-off, and Android as a platform isn't harmed by that OEM's choice.
I don't think they can put that restriction on it, the OS is Android and can be marketed as such whether there are specifications that are met or not.
Android needs more standardization. A standard UI, a minimum resolution, and a minimum hardware set.
But you can't do that without it being a non-free platform. Google can't know the minimum requirements when the OEMs are free to modify the software and add more stuff.
The great thing about the current smartphone market is that the logical 3 approaches are being taken by different companies. Android is free and lets the OEMs do whatever they want and customize the software to put on any device of any specs. WP7 mandates that licensees preserve the user experience, which in turn almost eliminates OEM software customization outside of OEM-specific apps but allows for hardware customization. iOS goes almost to appliance levels of software/hardware tie in, good for user experience but bad if the hardware doesn't suit your needs (e.g. screen size).
No it's because iPhones are marketed like wine. The people who buy them are going to love them at least somewhat based upon owning something of "quality". Something that's exclusive.
Are you sure you're talking about the iPhone? The most common smartphone in the world? It's pretty much the most anti-exclusive phone there is. If you want exclusive you'd choose a Palm Pre, or a Windows Phone, or it's starting to look like a Blackberry too. That said, their marketing is second to none and for the most part it's honest marketing too.
Secureboot is in no way a Windows thing, it can be used for securely booting any OS. Whether MS uses it in their product is irrelevant, they don't have control over the feature unlike kernel-mode driver signing.
SecureBoot is just a Windows thing too. If you just build you own computer from scratch you aren't hamstrung by SecureBoot.
Did you read the article? Or even the summary? Or the comment thread? Secureboot is a component of UEFI, the concern has been that for some unspecified reason motherboard manufacturers or OEMs would prevent Secureboot from being turned off and would therefore only boot an OS corresponding to the embedded keys.
But that's just a Windows thing, if you choose not to run Windows you aren't hamstrung by kernel mode code signing. The issue here is that if - for some unspecified reason - secureboot could not be turned off there would be no alternative OS, but of course if OEMs or motherboard manufacturers wanted to lock people in to windows there's no reason they couldn't have done it before.
Where it is illegal to listen to your own music or watch your own movies?
I'm not sure you understand the DMCA, i'm no advocate of it but i know it hasn't prevented me from legally watching my own movies or listening to my own music.
But Secureboot is only required for Windows, not for any other operating system. Do you really expect that motherboard manufacturers will - for some reason - disallow disabling of it and effectively allow only Windows to be installed on systems built with their peripherals? There's no reason they couldn't have done this before if they wanted to.
>There's never been any real reason to believe that locking down of this feature would happen, apart from FUD.
This is untrue. An OEM can control whether or not the purchaser can control the keys and trust list on the hardware they sell. There is nothing about secure boot that forces the OEM to take one action or another. Locking down of the feature might well happen on some platforms. Check before you buy.
An OEM can completely lock you out of the BIOS too, this is no different.
Slashdot Mirror
Apple has billions in the bank because they have all their stuff built in China...
It doesn't cost $80billion to run a fab and if Apple can't afford to run their own fab then who exactly do you suppose can afford it?
Fair enough, but that's the way you like to work and IMO the ability to set it up that way is a good thing.
There are a ton of American semiconductor manufacturers which cannot reasonably afford to run their own fabs. ...and Apple
Oh come on, Apple with its nearly $80billion in the bank can't afford it?
Usability does not come from gradients and curved corners.
It's not necessarily diminished by those things either.
We have more screen space and screen resolution than ever before
Screen resolutions are pretty much the same as they were 5 years (well even more than that) ago. 22" is still 1680x1050, 24" is still 1920x1200, 30" 2560x1600, etc...
Ask me before you make the changes.
So that you can tell Henry Ford that you want a faster horse?
No, so i can tell MS that I don't want Microsoft Bob.
Every moment I spend moving a window around or resizing it is frankly wasted time.
If only the UI could read your mind and know exactly when and how to manipulate windows to your liking. Not everyone works in the same way or has the same display setup (different sizes, resolutions, number of displays) so being able to position and resize windows is a good thing in a multitasking environment.
Same with launching programs
Launching programs is wasted time? You want everything loaded all the time?
organizing my menus.
What's your one-size-fits-all solution menus that is perfect for 100% of people then?
If we can abandon the model where the user has to fiddle with a bunch of unnecessary crap just to use their computer, that would be a step forward.
What is this 'bunch of unnecessary crap' that the user has to 'fiddle' with 'just to use their computer'? I don't think i've ever seen such things.
There is no such thing as honest marketing. They are trying to make you buy something, but you don't see adverts starting off with "consider whether there is any actual reason you need this expensive new toy" do you?
Honest as in they aren't deceiving you, not honest as in they won't try and make you buy something unless you absolutely need it.
Oh, and for non-Apple fanboys, Apple marketing is actually pretty nauseating.
I'm not an apple fanboy, i don't particularly like the iphone but i don't have a problem with their marketing. What is it you find nauseating about it?
Go back and read my comment again. If Android provided a good standard UI, most would not replace it.
Of course they would, it's their key point of differentiation outside of hardware, you know the thing they've been doing for and advertising themselves for years?! Or did you miss that?
Replacing the UI is a major change, it is a derivative work.
So running LiteStep creates a derivative of Windows does it? By what definition of 'derivative work' are you basing your comment on? Certainly not that of the ASL.
Google could add restrictions that state: If an OEM customizes it, they have to be able to meet/exceed those same standards (which could include performance, responsiveness, and compatibility benchmarks) in order to use the Android name.
No they couldn't, there is no way they could do it if for example HTC decided to run Sense on top of Android because by the nature of Sense and the definition of 'derivative work' it would not create a derivative work.
Nowhere in there did I say they can't replace the UI, or otherwise customize it
And i didn't say you did, but you claim to know a hell of a lot about the intentions of some major corporations which conflict with how they are currently doing business.
I also said is that Google could set standards they have to meet to be able to use the Android name.
Purely by your ignorance of the fact that running something like Sense UI does not create a derivative work.
If you want some precedent on trademark usage
By which you mean something completely different to what we are discussing similar only by way of the fact that they deal with trademarks.
here's one. In that case, MS settled because of issues with their claim to "Windows", but the fact that it was allowed to proceed as far as it was when "Lindows" wasn't even using MS's trademark, but a very similar name gives some indication of how much control over a trademark usage the owner really has (within their market/business).
That has absolutely nothing whatsoever to do with using someone elses trademark, that's completely 100% about a trademark being similar to an existing one, hence your example is of absolutely no relevance to this discussion. Completely offtopic.
Perhaps an even better case is Apple Corps v Apple Computer, they were in completely different businesses and the names weren't the same, but Apple Computer still paid Apple Corps (multiple times) to use the name.
As above, completely offtopic, it's just demonstrating you don't understand the issue at all, these cases are not even remotely similar to what we are discussing.
These cases strongly suggest Google can certainly impose the restrictions I suggested on "Android".
Except that given those are about 2 potentially conflicting trademarks rather than use of a single trademark it's obvious that they have absolutely no relevance or precedent in this situation.
If it had a good, usable, UI standard, but an OEM felt they had a way to improve it, they would be free to do so to differentiate their product.
It doesn't take a genius to figure out that if OEMs change the UI then it becomes non-standard.
But if the default UI didn't suck, they wouldn't all need to change it, and most wouldn't.
So now you're saying that even though you explicitly said they could differentiate their device by running a different UI like they do now, you just know that they won't.
Yes, they can. If I own the trademark, you can't use it without my permission unless you're making a reference to my product. If that product is OSS, and you've modified it, then it's no longer my product (it's a derivative), so the only way you can use my trademarked name is with my permission.
Except that this is not about a derivative work because running Sense on top of Android does not create a derivative work, just like running LiteStep on Windows does not create a derivative work.
Go back and reread my earlier post. I didn't ignore that at all. First you argue with my premise, then when your own comments demonstrate my premise is valid, you assert I'm ignoring something I stated in my premise.
Here's what you said:
If it had a good, usable, UI standard, but an OEM felt they had a way to improve it, they would be free to do so to differentiate their product.
It doesn't take a genius to figure out that if OEMs change the UI then it becomes non-standard.
Google owns the Android trademark. They can place restrictions on it's use as they see fit. That they haven't restricted it as I suggested is part of the problem.
They cannot stop an OEM from stating that their device runs Android, that's not how trademarks work, there is no legal method for them to do such a thing.
But ignores the fact that OEMs need to differentiate, and do so by changing the UI if they can, but you could be right and maybe when the source for ICS is released HTC will drop its 'Sense' UI and Samsung will drop whatever it uses, time will tell.
Also did you have any source for the ability to place restrictions on usage of the Android name?
That's what they do, and that's part of what causes the problem. HTC's Android isn't the same as Samsung's Android even though there is a standard UI on vanilla Android. OEMs want - or rather need - to differentiate so of course they will make changes if the OS is free software.
Clearly, they don't, or they wouldn't have the problems they have.
Except the fact is they do, the OEMs could use vanilla android, but they overlay their own UI to differentiate.
Android phones are outselling iPhone, actually. By a large margin. That's not an apples to oranges comparison; the iPhone outsells any given Android phone.
Which makes sense, if i have a Galaxy and want to keep everything i've bought from the marketplace when i upgrade my phone i don't necessarily have to get the new Galaxy, i could get any Android phone. If i have an iPhone and want to do the same thing the only option i have is the new iPhone, can't get any other kind of phone.
Actually, Android can to all of that, and still allow customization. If it had a good, usable, UI standard, but an OEM felt they had a way to improve it, they would be free to do so to differentiate their product.
That's what they do, and that's part of what causes the problem. HTC's Android isn't the same as Samsung's Android even though there is a standard UI on vanilla Android. OEMs want - or rather need - to differentiate so of course they will make changes if the OS is free software.
One of the things the license gives you access to is the use of the Android name. Licenses can impose restrictions, even on OSS.
You can restrict them from using the name of a FOSS project in the product under their license? I know they have restrictions on the Google branding, but i haven't seen anything for the Android name.
Google could add restrictions that state: If an OEM customizes it, they have to be able to meet/exceed those same standards (which could include performance, responsiveness, and compatibility benchmarks) in order to use the Android name.
Pretty sure they have some kind of system like that for their Google branding, but obviously not all manufacturers bother with that.
If they don't meet those, they can either use the OS, but they can't claim Android compatibility. That gives OEMs a strong incentive to meet the specifications, but they're free to forego them if they think it's worth the trade-off, and Android as a platform isn't harmed by that OEM's choice.
I don't think they can put that restriction on it, the OS is Android and can be marketed as such whether there are specifications that are met or not.
Android needs more standardization. A standard UI, a minimum resolution, and a minimum hardware set.
But you can't do that without it being a non-free platform. Google can't know the minimum requirements when the OEMs are free to modify the software and add more stuff.
The great thing about the current smartphone market is that the logical 3 approaches are being taken by different companies. Android is free and lets the OEMs do whatever they want and customize the software to put on any device of any specs. WP7 mandates that licensees preserve the user experience, which in turn almost eliminates OEM software customization outside of OEM-specific apps but allows for hardware customization. iOS goes almost to appliance levels of software/hardware tie in, good for user experience but bad if the hardware doesn't suit your needs (e.g. screen size).
No it's because iPhones are marketed like wine. The people who buy them are going to love them at least somewhat based upon owning something of "quality". Something that's exclusive.
Are you sure you're talking about the iPhone? The most common smartphone in the world? It's pretty much the most anti-exclusive phone there is. If you want exclusive you'd choose a Palm Pre, or a Windows Phone, or it's starting to look like a Blackberry too. That said, their marketing is second to none and for the most part it's honest marketing too.
Oh grow up, pointing out that Secureboot is a UEFI feature and not a Windows feature is hardly pedantic.
Secureboot is in no way a Windows thing, it can be used for securely booting any OS. Whether MS uses it in their product is irrelevant, they don't have control over the feature unlike kernel-mode driver signing.
SecureBoot is just a Windows thing too. If you just build you own computer from scratch you aren't hamstrung by SecureBoot.
Did you read the article? Or even the summary? Or the comment thread? Secureboot is a component of UEFI, the concern has been that for some unspecified reason motherboard manufacturers or OEMs would prevent Secureboot from being turned off and would therefore only boot an OS corresponding to the embedded keys.
But that's just a Windows thing, if you choose not to run Windows you aren't hamstrung by kernel mode code signing. The issue here is that if - for some unspecified reason - secureboot could not be turned off there would be no alternative OS, but of course if OEMs or motherboard manufacturers wanted to lock people in to windows there's no reason they couldn't have done it before.
Where it is illegal to listen to your own music or watch your own movies?
I'm not sure you understand the DMCA, i'm no advocate of it but i know it hasn't prevented me from legally watching my own movies or listening to my own music.
But Secureboot is only required for Windows, not for any other operating system. Do you really expect that motherboard manufacturers will - for some reason - disallow disabling of it and effectively allow only Windows to be installed on systems built with their peripherals? There's no reason they couldn't have done this before if they wanted to.
Gaming consoles for starters. Used to be you could mod the unholy crap out of 'em, mod others' boxes, and nobody would care.
Do it now and you're screwed for most online uses of the device. Pass it around, and you're under arrest.
Yeah but was never something you could just flip a documented switch to turn on/off, unlike Secureboot or any other BIOS features.
>There's never been any real reason to believe that locking down of this feature would happen, apart from FUD.
This is untrue. An OEM can control whether or not the purchaser can control the keys and trust list on the hardware they sell. There is nothing about secure boot that forces the OEM to take one action or another. Locking down of the feature might well happen on some platforms. Check before you buy.
An OEM can completely lock you out of the BIOS too, this is no different.