Ideas are easy, implementation is hard. MS allegedly has some pieces of paper that say "we thought of this first! you can't use my idea!" Google has an actual piece of software that works pretty well.
I'd say MS has implementations of those ideas too, it's not like they're saying 'we thought of Android first'. The issue with patents is that they only work if everyone plays the game and cross-licenses those patents. Of course some ideas genuinely should be patentable, but realistically they should not be able to be patented without a working prototype. The USPTO needs to get it together and throw out existing and 'obvious' ideas.
You should amend that to when they make a modern version with a UI that doesn't suck.
I didn't mind the N900's Hildon desktop UI, the problem for me was the resistive touchscreen (and the device could get pretty laggy). I think that UI on a decent 4" capacitive touchscreen would be great.
So after you get called out on that statement you resort to name-calling instead of addressing the argument, real mature. There is no such thing as 'special browsing' that's a term you just invented for your argument.
"Public perception" is not a phrase I've used so I don't feel inclined to defend it. "Market perception" is more like it.
Well you did of course say - regarding a barrier to entry - what 'people' would say. But ok, what's your idea of 'market perception' and how does that apply to the definition of a monopoly? And of course show a case where an entity has been shown to have a monopoly defined by 'market perception'.
And I would say that if Microsoftstill has a monopoly with Windows then it is fading, but they definitely still did 10 years ago. It took the alternatives (many of which failed, such as OS/2, NeXT, Solaris, etc.) a long time to gain a foothold.
But it's not like there was ever no alternative, nor the idea that any alternative would fail. And NeXT didn't exactly fail, that product (along with Mac OS) became the very successful OSX.
I think you fail to realise you just said that having no doubt they were testing embedded browsers and not safari or chrome 'doesn't matter' wrt to what they were testing. And if you're testing embedded browsers you don't have to test web apps any more than if you weren't testing embedded browsers.
Relax, you're getting a little worked up there buddy, it's ok i can explain it to you if it's not clear. i just linked you to the post - that you failed to read - that indicated i read it backwards, of course you don't seem to have read that in the context of the comment thread so 'reading comprehension fail' all round;)
There's no need to get so worked up, it's just an online forum post;P
It's quite clear, in the original text, that they weren't testing safari so if you only read the headline and didn't read the text before drawing a conclusion then that's your own fault. But of course you probably don't want to admit that so instead you'll blame them for your reading comprehension failure.
It's quite clear in the original text (if you dig a little deeper) - but lets ignore that it is not clear in the article linked in the submission or in any of the other mainstream media reports because they kept talking about "the browsers".
But even so it is clear to you and me I seriously doubt is was clear to them - why else would they be so defensive? And that is the fucking point. They tested embedded browsers, but didn't even knew that there was a difference, and thought they were testing the actual browser apps.
It doesn't matter, after reading the test article there is no doubt they were testing embedded browsers and not Safari or Chrome.
Economics is all about perception. A stranglehold on a market can only be maintained while people believe that it is maintained.
No, there are facts and numbers to support it, such as marketshare. Show me where a case regarding monopoly behavior that defined the monopoly based on the "public perception", there is no way that can be done.
And I still think that the tablet computer market is far too immature to make a call as to whether there is a monopoly. In some ways it isn't fair to even call it a market yet, it's just too new.
Yes many people didn't realise there was a tablet market before the ipad.
One of the characteristics of a monopoly is that there is a barrier to entry. If that were true, people would be saying that there's no point in Google releasing a tablet version of Android because it's doomed to fail and be crushed by the iOS juggernaut.
Rubbish, MS has a monopoly with Windows yet Linux and OSX are out there without people saying there's no point in developing Linux or saying the OSX is doomed to fail.
well given that your basis for determining whether a company has a monopoly in a market is simply the public perception of alternatives that would be a fact that you are indeed wrong.
I'm not sure why you're directing so much ire my direction. I can only reply to what people are posting, not what they should be posting. If they are making claims that Safari on the iPhone 4 is slower than Chrome on the Nexus S (or not realizing specific distinctions, or whatever), this isn't my fault.
Then wouldn't you correct them instead of saying 'the test is flawed'? I mean just about any test is flawed if you look at the results in the wrong context.
Your problem with me seems to be that I'm blaming the testers instead of the posters (who are getting their info from those relaying the story, who are getting their story from the site itself). Fair enough. I don't think the blame you are trying to assign is as clearcut as you are making it out to be.
The people who disseminate disinformation by coming to conclusions without actually looking at the source just make it even more difficult for everyone to understand what's going on.
Saying "we weren't comparing safari" after getting caught but still talking about "browser performance" when you don't actually compare the browsers seems pretty accurate to you? And that they now pretend that they always made it clear they tested the embedded browsers, even so "embedded" doesn't appear once in the original text?
Only if you were too daft to bother to read the original text and see that by 'browsers' they weren't talking about Safari at all and that it's just that some other websites - and you it seems - have not actually read it but jumped to conclusions. Its more a case of saying "we weren't comparing safari, and if you'd actually looked at the text you would know that".
Suuuuuuure. Even so they kept talking about "browsers", they actually meant "embedded browsers" but never actually said it because obviously everybody would know what they were talking about - or they didn't know what the hell they were talking. Looking at their claims in both their little blurbs, I still think its #2.
It's quite clear, in the original text, that they weren't testing safari so if you only read the headline and didn't read the text before drawing a conclusion then that's your own fault. But of course you probably don't want to admit that so instead you'll blame them for your reading comprehension failure.
The idea with HTML5 seems to be that once browsers implement all these fancy proposed features, the resulting subset will be hammered into an actual standard.
At which point everyone's already implemented those features in their way so wtf do we even need the standard for?
So? I can add inline functions to my interfaces to whatever library i want and there's no problem with that.
And, by doing so, it's no longer just an interface, it's also an implementation of some of those interfaces.
And that doesn't matter, except in some very specific circumstances.
If somebody adds an inline function to a GPLed header, that code could be considered GPLed, and using it could be considered using GPLed code and producing a "derived work" of that GPLed code. If the header were LGPLed - just as glibc is LGPLed - that might be a different matter.
Not only is there plenty of 'could be considered to be', it depends on what the code is, how it's licensed, if it's cross-licensed, how it's used, etc... So unless you want to put up a specific example there is no reason to think they've done anything wrong. There are plenty of ways you can do that right and plenty of ways you can do that wrong, that doesn't mean they've done the wrong thing.
The tests are flawed as a way to measure web performance between iOS and Android
No, they are flawed as a way to measure performance between Safari and Chrome. But - and if you read the test it's pretty obvious - that isn't what they were doing.
which is what all the stories and commenters are relating this as.
those who comment before bothering to read.
Even the site itself makes the unsupported claim that mobile Safari won't be much faster than the UIWebView that apps use.
I don't agree with that and obviously they don't supply data to support that but the fact that they explicitly say that makes it obvious that they weren't testing safari at all.
But even with your minor correction, you aren't addressing the actual problem, just shifting the blame.
to those who drew conclusions without looking at the test, yes.
No, that's exactly what they are saying. They updated their article to explicitly make this claim.
you seem to be thinking that 'web browsing' on the iphone is wholly limited to safari, it is not.
Google should know very well by this point that you can't just copy GPL code and change the license on it.
That's not what they are doing. They have provided clean header files (interfaces) to link with the associated libraries. Same as you writing your own function declarations for a library that doesn't provide headers.
Nothing in your link supports this. Their update basically admits that they ran a flawed test, and blames Apple for optimizing its browser.
No it doesn't, read it again. Apple claims their test is flawed, they claim people are misinterpreting the results, which, given they weren't comparing safari, seems pretty accurate..
Saying "we weren't comparing safari" after getting caught but still talking about "browser performance" when you don't actually compare the browsers seems pretty accurate to you? And that they now pretend that they always made it clear they tested the embedded browsers, even so "embedded" doesn't appear once in the original text?
Only if you were too daft to bother to read the original text and see that by 'browsers' they weren't talking about Safari at all and that it's just that some other websites - and you it seems - have not actually read it but jumped to conclusions. Its more a case of saying "we weren't comparing safari, and if you'd actually looked at the text you would know that".
A PS3 is an order of magnitude less expensive than a Cell Accelerator Board ($7000).
Yes i quite clearly said that, but that wasn't a requirement of your post. The PCIe card means you get warranty, you get less failure points, you get support, you don't have to mod it just to make it work, etc...
Plus I already have a PS3 and it does other nifty stuff like play Pandora through my stereo.
So? You asked about an alternative to the PS3 for Cell BE development.
If you are building a cluster, an order of magnitude difference starts to seem quite large.
If you are building a cluster you get volume pricing from Mercury (which is a massive discount) and if you're building a cluster you're unlikely to be happy with modding an overpriced pc clone just to get your nodes working. Most people would go for an IBM QS2x rackmount.
There were quite a few people who built large computing clusters using the PS3. They chose the PS3 because it was cheap and because Sony was projecting a 10 year lifecycle (ie replacements would be available for a long time). At the time, nobody could have predicted that Sony would start dropping features from the PS3, including OtherOS support.
Which seems to be why the post you originally replied to explicitly mentioned modding an overpriced pc clone.
I'm not saying one is better, just that there are - as you asked - alternatives. And i doubt you'll see anyone scrambling to build PS3 clusters nowadays.
He is incorrect in his use of 'requires' but in fact it is a guideline designed to trick the user into thinking the app has loaded when it actually hasn't. You should know this if you've really got an app (unless you didn't read the guidelines i suppose).
I have anapp in the App Store and it has NO STARTUP SCREEN.
What app is that?
In fact, since it is version 1.0, it is inefficient in loading up (blank screen before ready!). Apple passed it into the store NO PROBLEM.
Fair enough, but given Apples fairly arbitrary approval process it is generally wise to stick to their guidelines.
Slashdot Mirror
Those who can, do and sue. Those who can't be bothered, just sue.
FTFY.
Because those who can, do. Those who can't, litigate.
That's a nice idea but I think you'll find those who 'do' actually litigate just as much as the others to 'protect' their investment in r&d.
Ideas are easy, implementation is hard. MS allegedly has some pieces of paper that say "we thought of this first! you can't use my idea!" Google has an actual piece of software that works pretty well.
I'd say MS has implementations of those ideas too, it's not like they're saying 'we thought of Android first'. The issue with patents is that they only work if everyone plays the game and cross-licenses those patents. Of course some ideas genuinely should be patentable, but realistically they should not be able to be patented without a working prototype. The USPTO needs to get it together and throw out existing and 'obvious' ideas.
You should amend that to when they make a modern version with a UI that doesn't suck.
I didn't mind the N900's Hildon desktop UI, the problem for me was the resistive touchscreen (and the device could get pretty laggy). I think that UI on a decent 4" capacitive touchscreen would be great.
no, i didn't 'blame you' for anything.
So after you get called out on that statement you resort to name-calling instead of addressing the argument, real mature. There is no such thing as 'special browsing' that's a term you just invented for your argument.
"Public perception" is not a phrase I've used so I don't feel inclined to defend it. "Market perception" is more like it.
Well you did of course say - regarding a barrier to entry - what 'people' would say. But ok, what's your idea of 'market perception' and how does that apply to the definition of a monopoly? And of course show a case where an entity has been shown to have a monopoly defined by 'market perception'.
And I would say that if Microsoftstill has a monopoly with Windows then it is fading, but they definitely still did 10 years ago. It took the alternatives (many of which failed, such as OS/2, NeXT, Solaris, etc.) a long time to gain a foothold.
But it's not like there was ever no alternative, nor the idea that any alternative would fail. And NeXT didn't exactly fail, that product (along with Mac OS) became the very successful OSX.
I think you fail to realise you just said that having no doubt they were testing embedded browsers and not safari or chrome 'doesn't matter' wrt to what they were testing. And if you're testing embedded browsers you don't have to test web apps any more than if you weren't testing embedded browsers.
Relax, you're getting a little worked up there buddy, it's ok i can explain it to you if it's not clear. i just linked you to the post - that you failed to read - that indicated i read it backwards, of course you don't seem to have read that in the context of the comment thread so 'reading comprehension fail' all round ;) ;P
There's no need to get so worked up, it's just an online forum post
It's quite clear, in the original text, that they weren't testing safari so if you only read the headline and didn't read the text before drawing a conclusion then that's your own fault. But of course you probably don't want to admit that so instead you'll blame them for your reading comprehension failure.
It's quite clear in the original text (if you dig a little deeper) - but lets ignore that it is not clear in the article linked in the submission or in any of the other mainstream media reports because they kept talking about "the browsers".
But even so it is clear to you and me I seriously doubt is was clear to them - why else would they be so defensive? And that is the fucking point. They tested embedded browsers, but didn't even knew that there was a difference, and thought they were testing the actual browser apps.
It doesn't matter, after reading the test article there is no doubt they were testing embedded browsers and not Safari or Chrome.
Economics is all about perception. A stranglehold on a market can only be maintained while people believe that it is maintained.
No, there are facts and numbers to support it, such as marketshare. Show me where a case regarding monopoly behavior that defined the monopoly based on the "public perception", there is no way that can be done.
And I still think that the tablet computer market is far too immature to make a call as to whether there is a monopoly. In some ways it isn't fair to even call it a market yet, it's just too new.
Yes many people didn't realise there was a tablet market before the ipad.
One of the characteristics of a monopoly is that there is a barrier to entry. If that were true, people would be saying that there's no point in Google releasing a tablet version of Android because it's doomed to fail and be crushed by the iOS juggernaut.
Rubbish, MS has a monopoly with Windows yet Linux and OSX are out there without people saying there's no point in developing Linux or saying the OSX is doomed to fail.
These days much of the real value from standards is the process which creates them. The finished standard is almost just a diploma to put on the wall.
If we can find a superior way to get competitors working together, perhaps standards can just go away.
So the idea of 'standards compliance' is not relevant anymore then.
well given that your basis for determining whether a company has a monopoly in a market is simply the public perception of alternatives that would be a fact that you are indeed wrong.
I'm not sure why you're directing so much ire my direction. I can only reply to what people are posting, not what they should be posting. If they are making claims that Safari on the iPhone 4 is slower than Chrome on the Nexus S (or not realizing specific distinctions, or whatever), this isn't my fault.
Then wouldn't you correct them instead of saying 'the test is flawed'? I mean just about any test is flawed if you look at the results in the wrong context.
Your problem with me seems to be that I'm blaming the testers instead of the posters (who are getting their info from those relaying the story, who are getting their story from the site itself). Fair enough. I don't think the blame you are trying to assign is as clearcut as you are making it out to be.
The people who disseminate disinformation by coming to conclusions without actually looking at the source just make it even more difficult for everyone to understand what's going on.
You too.
Saying "we weren't comparing safari" after getting caught but still talking about "browser performance" when you don't actually compare the browsers seems pretty accurate to you? And that they now pretend that they always made it clear they tested the embedded browsers, even so "embedded" doesn't appear once in the original text?
Only if you were too daft to bother to read the original text and see that by 'browsers' they weren't talking about Safari at all and that it's just that some other websites - and you it seems - have not actually read it but jumped to conclusions. Its more a case of saying "we weren't comparing safari, and if you'd actually looked at the text you would know that".
Suuuuuuure. Even so they kept talking about "browsers", they actually meant "embedded browsers" but never actually said it because obviously everybody would know what they were talking about - or they didn't know what the hell they were talking. Looking at their claims in both their little blurbs, I still think its #2.
It's quite clear, in the original text, that they weren't testing safari so if you only read the headline and didn't read the text before drawing a conclusion then that's your own fault. But of course you probably don't want to admit that so instead you'll blame them for your reading comprehension failure.
The idea with HTML5 seems to be that once browsers implement all these fancy proposed features, the resulting subset will be hammered into an actual standard.
At which point everyone's already implemented those features in their way so wtf do we even need the standard for?
So? I can add inline functions to my interfaces to whatever library i want and there's no problem with that.
And, by doing so, it's no longer just an interface, it's also an implementation of some of those interfaces.
And that doesn't matter, except in some very specific circumstances.
If somebody adds an inline function to a GPLed header, that code could be considered GPLed, and using it could be considered using GPLed code and producing a "derived work" of that GPLed code. If the header were LGPLed - just as glibc is LGPLed - that might be a different matter.
Not only is there plenty of 'could be considered to be', it depends on what the code is, how it's licensed, if it's cross-licensed, how it's used, etc... So unless you want to put up a specific example there is no reason to think they've done anything wrong. There are plenty of ways you can do that right and plenty of ways you can do that wrong, that doesn't mean they've done the wrong thing.
The tests are flawed as a way to measure web performance between iOS and Android
No, they are flawed as a way to measure performance between Safari and Chrome. But - and if you read the test it's pretty obvious - that isn't what they were doing.
which is what all the stories and commenters are relating this as.
those who comment before bothering to read.
Even the site itself makes the unsupported claim that mobile Safari won't be much faster than the UIWebView that apps use.
I don't agree with that and obviously they don't supply data to support that but the fact that they explicitly say that makes it obvious that they weren't testing safari at all.
But even with your minor correction, you aren't addressing the actual problem, just shifting the blame.
to those who drew conclusions without looking at the test, yes.
No, that's exactly what they are saying. They updated their article to explicitly make this claim.
you seem to be thinking that 'web browsing' on the iphone is wholly limited to safari, it is not.
Google should know very well by this point that you can't just copy GPL code and change the license on it.
That's not what they are doing. They have provided clean header files (interfaces) to link with the associated libraries. Same as you writing your own function declarations for a library that doesn't provide headers.
They have, at least according to the README.TXT file for the Android build script that processes the Linux kernel header files to make headers for Bionic, provided header files that include "a couple static inline functions used for performance reason (e.g. optimized CPU-specific byte-swapping routines)". That's a bit more than "clean header files (interfaces)", as it includes some implementations.
So? I can add inline functions to my interfaces to whatever library i want and there's no problem with that.
Nothing in your link supports this. Their update basically admits that they ran a flawed test, and blames Apple for optimizing its browser.
No it doesn't, read it again. Apple claims their test is flawed, they claim people are misinterpreting the results, which, given they weren't comparing safari, seems pretty accurate..
Saying "we weren't comparing safari" after getting caught but still talking about "browser performance" when you don't actually compare the browsers seems pretty accurate to you? And that they now pretend that they always made it clear they tested the embedded browsers, even so "embedded" doesn't appear once in the original text?
Only if you were too daft to bother to read the original text and see that by 'browsers' they weren't talking about Safari at all and that it's just that some other websites - and you it seems - have not actually read it but jumped to conclusions. Its more a case of saying "we weren't comparing safari, and if you'd actually looked at the text you would know that".
A PS3 is an order of magnitude less expensive than a Cell Accelerator Board ($7000).
Yes i quite clearly said that, but that wasn't a requirement of your post. The PCIe card means you get warranty, you get less failure points, you get support, you don't have to mod it just to make it work, etc...
Plus I already have a PS3 and it does other nifty stuff like play Pandora through my stereo.
So? You asked about an alternative to the PS3 for Cell BE development.
If you are building a cluster, an order of magnitude difference starts to seem quite large.
If you are building a cluster you get volume pricing from Mercury (which is a massive discount) and if you're building a cluster you're unlikely to be happy with modding an overpriced pc clone just to get your nodes working. Most people would go for an IBM QS2x rackmount.
There were quite a few people who built large computing clusters using the PS3. They chose the PS3 because it was cheap and because Sony was projecting a 10 year lifecycle (ie replacements would be available for a long time). At the time, nobody could have predicted that Sony would start dropping features from the PS3, including OtherOS support.
Which seems to be why the post you originally replied to explicitly mentioned modding an overpriced pc clone .
I'm not saying one is better, just that there are - as you asked - alternatives. And i doubt you'll see anyone scrambling to build PS3 clusters nowadays.
You are misinformed or a liar.
He is incorrect in his use of 'requires' but in fact it is a guideline designed to trick the user into thinking the app has loaded when it actually hasn't. You should know this if you've really got an app (unless you didn't read the guidelines i suppose).
I have anapp in the App Store and it has NO STARTUP SCREEN.
What app is that?
In fact, since it is version 1.0, it is inefficient in loading up (blank screen before ready!). Apple passed it into the store NO PROBLEM.
Fair enough, but given Apples fairly arbitrary approval process it is generally wise to stick to their guidelines.
And 50% faster is spanked? We're talking about computers, not 100m dash times - I expect an order of magnitude difference.
Yeah come on apple, your dual core a5 is pathetic, we're talking about computers, i expect an order of magnitude difference.
Which given the iPhone and Android use different languages proves nothing.
It would prove that one language/runtime is faster in that instance.
It proves that they can code well for Android but might not be able to code well for iOS?
Or they can code well for both and one is just slower. Maybe the antenna on the iphone4 was fine and users were just holding it wrong.
Objective C is quite an alien world for the beginner. It's quite a departure from Java and C++ syntactically.
And if your syntax is wrong it won't build, if you're calling the wrong functions it won't work, what's your point?