Maybe but even in Intel's mouth they cannot quite meet and certainly not exceed the actual in situation battery life provided to the device.
You have to consider the whole package (CPU+GPU+mainboard) since most ARM solutions are SoC. Also there is the idle power draw.
Moreover ARM CPU have a better flexibility of implementation. i.e. you can make them do what you want and in the overall solution they tend to be used more efficiently.
The same reason the US army would won over the football team of brazil in a Deathmatch with no rules : you're comparing two things that should be compared.
ARM is an architecture developed by a consortium that licences it to manufacturers who can build CPU and then bundle them into very efficient SoC that provide an all in one solution. AMD Geode is a familly of x86 processors developed by AMD that can only be built and sold by AMD, where x86 is the architecture. It cannot be bundled as easily, nor does it have the scalability or flexibility of implementation of ARM.
That is impossible to prove and backed it with no arguments or example whatsoever and WE have to prove it's complete bullshit ?
I sense you are trying to mess with us but I can't find out why...
Oh wait I know : you're a troll !
I'll give you a counter example : MeeGo (with it's panel thingy)has awesome UI that is more innovative than iOS 4.
Another ? Notification system in Android is 10x better than the one in iOS (or the lack thereof)
Ever tried Gnome Shell ?
Ever heard of Qt ?
Ever tried to consider a argument with a fresh eye and stop being so blinded by your apparent ideological love for closed source software development.
I mean : it's important to have an opinion and to defend it, but you also have to work on it, to make it better, sharper and smarter as time goes by, otherwise why bother defending it you're not even making sure it's relevant or actually good.
It's not because slashdot.org is hosted in the USA and that its content is mainly focused on US news that its users have to be narrowminded and self centered, nor does it imply that the global smartphone market is equiovalent to the US smartphone market.
May I remind you the title of this thread ? "Symbian the biggest Mobile OS no one talks about"
the subject is exactly what I'm talking about : most americans feel like SYmbian doesn't exist but it runs 40% of the smartphones in the world.
This thread is about saying "Hello the world outside the USA exist and it way bigger".
But I understand this must be scary to find out you're so little.
Re:So you are taking Economist seriously.
on
Behind Cyberwar FUD
·
· Score: 1
Doesn't change the fact that they supported the RIAA and more generally speaking the whole music and film industry in what will probably be recalled in History as the stupidest and most reactionary suicide of all time by an industry.
And that's not (by far) their most disputable position.
Everyone is entitled to his own opinion and every publication is entitled to publish what it feels should be published, and to cover the news with the angle it sees fit.
but afterwards you have to either take responsibility for the stupid positions you took or to revise them. You can't just say "Hey it was our opinion so we printed it all over the world and try to convince people we were right when in fact we were just short sighted, old reactionary fossils who couldn't deal with the fact that the internet was going to change the world and we still are proud of it so now let us be."
At some point associated with the various powers that are entitled to each of us come certain responsibilities that (supposedly) are in relation with the amount of power that we were given. For a Newspaper this power would be the freedom to print whatever they feel should be printed combined with the potential audience they can reach and the power of persuasion they have upon this audience.
You fail to understand what free means.
Free =/= In the hands of a few very powerful corporation who will hide it (since it represents a capital competitive advantage over the smaller, less connected companies)
That would actually be the opposite of free.
Secondly Free doesn't really Apply on data, it applies on people. For the same reason what you call information cannot WANT to be "free". People want to access information, that's very different.
Now if you think on a systemic scale : two very strong forces oppose those who want to share the information, which mean to share the power we have on information (i.e. everybody controls its own and shares the amount he wants) and those who want to OWN the information (meaning not free anymore) in order then to monetize it and sell it to those who will pay the most (BigCo) and that would be Facebook and the likes.
Finally I just wanted to underline that you, probably on purpose, mistake information and personal information.
As Tim Berners Lee and others have been advocating for quite a long time, it is critical that we share more DATA, make it more accessible to everyone. That data he was talking about is not personal data, it is anonymous statistical data that should be available to anyone who wants to study it and make something out of it. Our governments for instance sit on piles of data that they are incapable of analysing because they don't have the time or money to do it, but they wont share it for stupid reasons.
I suggest you try to get more informed on what the EU commission is investigating.
what's problematic is flawed competition and malpractices that lead to it.
this is the ONLY thing that the EU is worried about.
The best example I could think of is the couple iPod/itunes store.
I would gladly mod you as troll but : A. you would instantly get moded back up by any Apple fanboy cruising and B. It's so much more fun to respond.
So, young one, what part of this article did you not understand (i.e. read) ?
Because NOBODY ever said anything about the formats or software projects that Apple USES to implement its crazy shit closed business model.
The fact that Apple relies heavily on FLOSS as core elements of its software solutions, or that it uses and supports formats that can be used by others if they pay (that's apparently what Open means to you...) is agreed upon by everybody. And By the way were Apple using only closed proprietary software the EU commission couldn't do SHIT about it because that's a perfectly valid and legal business decision.
What the EU can do is kick Apple's ass for LOCKING customers into an eco system where competition is flawed by malpractice like what we called Vente liée (I never could find the correct translation for this sorry)
Basically, it's OK to use whatever components you see fit in your product, but it is not OK to build a business model which is primarily about getting people into your eco system with very attractive products and then squezzing every last drop of blood from them with crap.
There are laws that protects customers from that in the EU and in the US, and when the US governement has dealt with their other concernes (i.e. never) and when they grow the ball to go after a major company that has so much public support (i.e. again NEVER) maybe you'll see this happenning.
What's great about the EU Commission is it's not a government, so they don't care about public support, they are about the law and protecting the consumer and competition
what sucks about the EU is we don't have a government so we don't have fiscal, monetary or economic federal governance, and when we are in deep shit nobody is here with all the powers to make the good choices but that's another debate.
It is not OK for to use their advantage in any given market to flaw the competition they have with other companies on another market.
Form the exact same reasons that Microsoft had to get rid of IE.
Connecting to the internet =/= surfing the web
Your ISP connects you to the internet. You surf the Web. See the difference ?
Of course your ISP connects you following directions that are given by the FCC (in the USA) or in France the ACERP.
Connecting under the radar is illegal yes. It would be like connecting yourself on the electrical network yourself and no pay anyone.
If it was so identical it wouldn't be much more efficient which it is.
h.264 is 7 years old ! And its development started more than 10 years ago.
VP8 is like a freaking Newborn compared to this.
On a Side Note I wait for this court rule that will make VP8 unusable...
The Texas court crap will take several years on its own, enough time for Youtube (Google owned) to turn to full HTML5+VP8 and once that's done there is not turning back.
So Even on the brute strengh I highly doubt that the MPEG-LA and Apple can kick Google and all those behind VP8 or WebM.
But let's be even crazier, let's dream about a world where justice works as it is supposed to be : the kind of patents the MPEG-LA hold are totally abusive and counter productive, they ruined the Video codec competition for too long and might get overturned in a court.
I mean if this legal battle ever happens it is going to be big. Like Supreme court.
Last but not least, these patents are not going to last forever.
yeah..
The only difference between the two being one is full of FUD (Evo Battery life is one hour ? come on even Engadget which is pretty much Apple PR said it was good for a full day of use with no problems)
But yeah they are equally funny, just not for the same reasons.
The fact that Apple is trying to impose a proprietary codec it owns partially (h.264) as the de facto standard video codec for the next 10 years is NOT consubstantial to HTML5.
HTML 5 is an open source open standard, and the fact that some companies(and by some I of course mean Apple) are trying to impose their solution as an inherent part of the open solution that is HTML 5 is just BULLSHIT.
HTML 5 is NOT h.264. and HTML 5 is NOT responsible for the codec war that mozilla Google and Apple are waging.
A war that has by the way turned to Apple versus the rest a the world since Google provided an Open-source codec (VP8) that Mozilla has supported.
Don't try to put this on HTML 5 it's Jobs and Jobs alone that is at the origin of this non sense.
If Flash was any good, and by good I mean if it achieved a higher standard of quality and quality management that would make Adobe look a tiny little bit more like a professional, commercial enterprise dedicated to the improvement of its products instead of a bunch of morons who try to keep the abusive monopoly they got from the lack of real competitors using methods that are counterproductive for the end user, then perhaps some would consider the fact that HTML 5 is Open not enough to counterbalance the technical superiority of Flash.
But Flash sucks. It sucks badly, it's unstable it uses too much memory, it doesn't provide must have features that nobody else can provide. It sucks.
And it has been sucking for EVER !
I mean I more or less discovered the internet in 2000 and for the last 10 years I've been reading people complaining about flash.
I think no product has had more commercial success with such a disappointing product. (it's worse than windows..)
It would be very interesting to survey just how many of Adobe customer are "satisfied" with Flash, and then compare this to the market share of Flash.
It is widely approved that what made the cretins des Alpes such dwarfed deformed idiots was the lack of salt due to the highly isolated nature of the region. (high moutains + far from the sea = no salt for you)
The logistic problem has been solved since then, still Swiss found in certains valleys keep being such xenophobic morons (probably because the isolation problem wasn't fixed)
What I meant in my post and I'm willing to acknowledge it wasn't very clear was : Nokia has been saying they would do:
High end => MeeGo
Low-mid end => Symbian^3 (and then of course Symbian^4)
for months ! Why not just believe the guys when they officially state their development policy ?
DARPA (which I'm sure you know doesn't have the same kind of budget) has a project about a radar-equipped solar-propelled blimp that would float @ 10,000 meters and include a battery to stock the solar energy of they day for the night.
They expect is to cruise at 60mph with top speed at 100mph. It is supposed to be operational in 2013
This project could totally be adapted, with extra funding like the one they would get by crossing the Channel, with a bigger structure and a battery, to run day and night.
I accept you premises, I reject your conclusion.
you fail to understand the idea of proof of concept.
Obviously next step is crossing the Atlantic and then touring around the world.
Slashdot Mirror
Blah blah blah... see you in 5 years to talk about that...
Maybe but even in Intel's mouth they cannot quite meet and certainly not exceed the actual in situation battery life provided to the device.
You have to consider the whole package (CPU+GPU+mainboard) since most ARM solutions are SoC. Also there is the idle power draw.
Moreover ARM CPU have a better flexibility of implementation. i.e. you can make them do what you want and in the overall solution they tend to be used more efficiently.
ehhh should => Shouldn't.
The same reason the US army would won over the football team of brazil in a Deathmatch with no rules : you're comparing two things that should be compared.
ARM is an architecture developed by a consortium that licences it to manufacturers who can build CPU and then bundle them into very efficient SoC that provide an all in one solution. AMD Geode is a familly of x86 processors developed by AMD that can only be built and sold by AMD, where x86 is the architecture. It cannot be bundled as easily, nor does it have the scalability or flexibility of implementation of ARM.
I stated that OSS projects build shitty UIs.
That is impossible to prove and backed it with no arguments or example whatsoever and WE have to prove it's complete bullshit ? ...
I sense you are trying to mess with us but I can't find out why
Oh wait I know : you're a troll !
I'll give you a counter example : MeeGo (with it's panel thingy)has awesome UI that is more innovative than iOS 4.
Another ? Notification system in Android is 10x better than the one in iOS (or the lack thereof)
Ever tried Gnome Shell ?
Ever heard of Qt ?
Ever tried to consider a argument with a fresh eye and stop being so blinded by your apparent ideological love for closed source software development.
I mean : it's important to have an opinion and to defend it, but you also have to work on it, to make it better, sharper and smarter as time goes by, otherwise why bother defending it you're not even making sure it's relevant or actually good.
It's not because slashdot.org is hosted in the USA and that its content is mainly focused on US news that its users have to be narrowminded and self centered, nor does it imply that the global smartphone market is equiovalent to the US smartphone market.
May I remind you the title of this thread ? "Symbian the biggest Mobile OS no one talks about"
the subject is exactly what I'm talking about : most americans feel like SYmbian doesn't exist but it runs 40% of the smartphones in the world.
This thread is about saying "Hello the world outside the USA exist and it way bigger".
But I understand this must be scary to find out you're so little.
Because Symbian runs of 5 times the number of devices iOS runs on ?
Typical american self centered point of view.
Doesn't change the fact that they supported the RIAA and more generally speaking the whole music and film industry in what will probably be recalled in History as the stupidest and most reactionary suicide of all time by an industry.
And that's not (by far) their most disputable position.
Everyone is entitled to his own opinion and every publication is entitled to publish what it feels should be published, and to cover the news with the angle it sees fit.
but afterwards you have to either take responsibility for the stupid positions you took or to revise them. You can't just say "Hey it was our opinion so we printed it all over the world and try to convince people we were right when in fact we were just short sighted, old reactionary fossils who couldn't deal with the fact that the internet was going to change the world and we still are proud of it so now let us be."
At some point associated with the various powers that are entitled to each of us come certain responsibilities that (supposedly) are in relation with the amount of power that we were given. For a Newspaper this power would be the freedom to print whatever they feel should be printed combined with the potential audience they can reach and the power of persuasion they have upon this audience.
The idea is to broadcast the part of your life you agree to, and not the rest.
You fail to understand what free means.
Free =/= In the hands of a few very powerful corporation who will hide it (since it represents a capital competitive advantage over the smaller, less connected companies)
That would actually be the opposite of free.
Secondly Free doesn't really Apply on data, it applies on people. For the same reason what you call information cannot WANT to be "free". People want to access information, that's very different.
Now if you think on a systemic scale : two very strong forces oppose those who want to share the information, which mean to share the power we have on information (i.e. everybody controls its own and shares the amount he wants) and those who want to OWN the information (meaning not free anymore) in order then to monetize it and sell it to those who will pay the most (BigCo) and that would be Facebook and the likes.
Finally I just wanted to underline that you, probably on purpose, mistake information and personal information.
As Tim Berners Lee and others have been advocating for quite a long time, it is critical that we share more DATA, make it more accessible to everyone. That data he was talking about is not personal data, it is anonymous statistical data that should be available to anyone who wants to study it and make something out of it.
Our governments for instance sit on piles of data that they are incapable of analysing because they don't have the time or money to do it, but they wont share it for stupid reasons.
I suggest you try to get more informed on what the EU commission is investigating.
what's problematic is flawed competition and malpractices that lead to it.
this is the ONLY thing that the EU is worried about.
The best example I could think of is the couple iPod/itunes store.
I would gladly mod you as troll but : A. you would instantly get moded back up by any Apple fanboy cruising and B. It's so much more fun to respond.
So, young one, what part of this article did you not understand (i.e. read) ?
Because NOBODY ever said anything about the formats or software projects that Apple USES to implement its crazy shit closed business model.
The fact that Apple relies heavily on FLOSS as core elements of its software solutions, or that it uses and supports formats that can be used by others if they pay (that's apparently what Open means to you...) is agreed upon by everybody. And By the way were Apple using only closed proprietary software the EU commission couldn't do SHIT about it because that's a perfectly valid and legal business decision.
What the EU can do is kick Apple's ass for LOCKING customers into an eco system where competition is flawed by malpractice like what we called Vente liée (I never could find the correct translation for this sorry)
Basically, it's OK to use whatever components you see fit in your product, but it is not OK to build a business model which is primarily about getting people into your eco system with very attractive products and then squezzing every last drop of blood from them with crap.
There are laws that protects customers from that in the EU and in the US, and when the US governement has dealt with their other concernes (i.e. never) and when they grow the ball to go after a major company that has so much public support (i.e. again NEVER) maybe you'll see this happenning.
What's great about the EU Commission is it's not a government, so they don't care about public support, they are about the law and protecting the consumer and competition
what sucks about the EU is we don't have a government so we don't have fiscal, monetary or economic federal governance, and when we are in deep shit nobody is here with all the powers to make the good choices but that's another debate.
It is not OK for to use their advantage in any given market to flaw the competition they have with other companies on another market. Form the exact same reasons that Microsoft had to get rid of IE.
Connecting to the internet =/= surfing the web
Your ISP connects you to the internet. You surf the Web. See the difference ?
Of course your ISP connects you following directions that are given by the FCC (in the USA) or in France the ACERP.
Connecting under the radar is illegal yes. It would be like connecting yourself on the electrical network yourself and no pay anyone.
If it was so identical it wouldn't be much more efficient which it is. h.264 is 7 years old ! And its development started more than 10 years ago. VP8 is like a freaking Newborn compared to this.
On a Side Note I wait for this court rule that will make VP8 unusable... The Texas court crap will take several years on its own, enough time for Youtube (Google owned) to turn to full HTML5+VP8 and once that's done there is not turning back.
So Even on the brute strengh I highly doubt that the MPEG-LA and Apple can kick Google and all those behind VP8 or WebM.
But let's be even crazier, let's dream about a world where justice works as it is supposed to be : the kind of patents the MPEG-LA hold are totally abusive and counter productive, they ruined the Video codec competition for too long and might get overturned in a court.
I mean if this legal battle ever happens it is going to be big. Like Supreme court.
Last but not least, these patents are not going to last forever.
yeah..
The only difference between the two being one is full of FUD (Evo Battery life is one hour ? come on even Engadget which is pretty much Apple PR said it was good for a full day of use with no problems)
But yeah they are equally funny, just not for the same reasons.
The fact that Apple is trying to impose a proprietary codec it owns partially (h.264) as the de facto standard video codec for the next 10 years is NOT consubstantial to HTML5.
HTML 5 is an open source open standard, and the fact that some companies(and by some I of course mean Apple) are trying to impose their solution as an inherent part of the open solution that is HTML 5 is just BULLSHIT.
HTML 5 is NOT h.264. and HTML 5 is NOT responsible for the codec war that mozilla Google and Apple are waging.
A war that has by the way turned to Apple versus the rest a the world since Google provided an Open-source codec (VP8) that Mozilla has supported.
Don't try to put this on HTML 5 it's Jobs and Jobs alone that is at the origin of this non sense.
If Flash was any good, and by good I mean if it achieved a higher standard of quality and quality management that would make Adobe look a tiny little bit more like a professional, commercial enterprise dedicated to the improvement of its products instead of a bunch of morons who try to keep the abusive monopoly they got from the lack of real competitors using methods that are counterproductive for the end user, then perhaps some would consider the fact that HTML 5 is Open not enough to counterbalance the technical superiority of Flash.
But Flash sucks. It sucks badly, it's unstable it uses too much memory, it doesn't provide must have features that nobody else can provide. It sucks.
And it has been sucking for EVER !
I mean I more or less discovered the internet in 2000 and for the last 10 years I've been reading people complaining about flash.
I think no product has had more commercial success with such a disappointing product. (it's worse than windows..)
It would be very interesting to survey just how many of Adobe customer are "satisfied" with Flash, and then compare this to the market share of Flash.
It is widely approved that what made the cretins des Alpes such dwarfed deformed idiots was the lack of salt due to the highly isolated nature of the region. (high moutains + far from the sea = no salt for you)
The logistic problem has been solved since then, still Swiss found in certains valleys keep being such xenophobic morons (probably because the isolation problem wasn't fixed)
On a side note I think your signature would sound so much better like this : "Gods don't kill people, people kill people.... with Gods"
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xC03hmS1Brk
Damn it ! Why am I always the last one to be updated on such topics ?
Well bye bye Brazzers. I'll miss you.
I think the ultimate commercial application of this is fret not transportation of people (too slow)
What I meant in my post and I'm willing to acknowledge it wasn't very clear was : Nokia has been saying they would do :
High end => MeeGo
Low-mid end => Symbian^3 (and then of course Symbian^4)
for months ! Why not just believe the guys when they officially state their development policy ?
DARPA (which I'm sure you know doesn't have the same kind of budget) has a project about a radar-equipped solar-propelled blimp that would float @ 10,000 meters and include a battery to stock the solar energy of they day for the night.
They expect is to cruise at 60mph with top speed at 100mph. It is supposed to be operational in 2013
This project could totally be adapted, with extra funding like the one they would get by crossing the Channel, with a bigger structure and a battery, to run day and night.
I accept you premises, I reject your conclusion.
you fail to understand the idea of proof of concept.
Obviously next step is crossing the Atlantic and then touring around the world.