With Google, you pay by giving up your information and privacy.
You don't even have to login to use google. Google does not even know who you are, unless you want Google to know.
Yes, google uses you search information to display innocuous ads by the side of the page, so what?
Google may not deserve to be worshiped as a paragon of virtue; but I don't see Google filing dozens of bogus lawsuits, using total junk patents, like Apple and Microsoft routinely do. I don't see Google being an abusive monopoly, like Microsoft. I don't see Google trying to prevent the use of competitor's technology by forcing proprietary standards like OOXML, and Silverlight. I don't see where Google has been caught red-handed astroturfing, or hiring shills on message boards. I don't see a US federal judge accusing Google of using "Tonya Harding tactics." I don't see google hiring shill companies to do fake TCO studies, or benchmark studies. I don't see Google caught red-handed outright lying to the US DoJ. I don't see Google caught red-handed bribing OSI officials.
The "privacy violations" stuff is mostly just Microsoft plant stories to smear Google. Microsoft's best buddy, Facebook, is 100 times worse when it comes to real privacy violations. Google may know that one thousand people left your website to go to Amazon; but google does not know who those people are. Huge difference between that Facebook. Facebook knows exactly who you are.
The story is grossly misleading. Anything that Google is doing with Chrome, can also be done with any other web browser. Dart is open source and compiles to javascript, HTML5, etc. can by used by any browser.
Since nothing that Google is doing is proprietary, what's the great panic?
Now compare that to Microsoft with Silverlight, and OOXML.
Microsoft was also funding scox before Baystar. I think both Microsoft, and Sun, bought a millions of dollars worth scox licenses, right after scox filed the lawsuits.
Why would MS and Sun suddenly buy millions of licenses worth of licenses that did not need? Both MS, and Sun, already have UNIX licenses.
After the Baystar, there was another mysterious PIPE loan.
Nice try. But the facts are against you. This is indeed a Microsoft scam, Microsoft financed the entire thing since day one. Now why do you thing Microsoft would do that?
They see it as Mac vs. Windows all over again, and guess who won last time?
Actually, Apple was suing a lot of companies, including Microsoft. I think Apple won several of the lawsuits they filed. I think Apple put GEM out of business.
As I posted before, I can tell the difference between the apple product, and the so-called samsung ripoff with my eyes closed. I can do it easily, With my eyes open, I can the difference in a fraction of a second.
Furthermore, wouldn't that be a trademark issue, and not a patent issue?
To extend the car analogy, if ford acted like apple, ford would be suing other car makers who put the steering wheel on the right, or had four wheels on their car. In fact, those would be ford patents.
If you doubt that, then look at the laughably silly "inventions" that apple is claiming.
Let them sue each other. They'll figure it out. Doesn't affect me as a user in the slightest.
Sure about that? If you live in CA it might mean that you will not be able to buy an Apple competitor. Even in don't live in CA, who know where Apple will file a lawsuit next? Especially if Apple wins.
Simply pointing to a piece of prior art doesn't actually get you there. It's like pointing to the existence of a dead body to say that therefore, a defendant is guilty of murder.
Weak analogy. If prior art existed, it does indeed prove that Apple was not the first to "invent" it.
I'm talking about the straight up Samsung copied the iPhone 3G suit
Exactly what, in the suit, is an actual Apple invention? Can you specify something that nobody did before Apple? How about something that took a load of R&D dollars?
I think Apple's MO is relevant to the discussion. Apple is constantly filing junk patents, and filing bogus lawsuits. It's just the sort of company Apple is.
Please name some that is an actual, non-obvious, Apple invention.
Name something that - irrefutably - Apple was the very first to implement. An Idea that absolutely did exist before Apple. Something that Apple spent a huge amount of money developing.
Do you really expect anybody to believe that rounded corners, or voice commands, are Apple "inventions?"
Especially if it's something that cost Apple a huge amount of R&D. And especially, especially, if it pertains to the flood of lawsuits coming from Apple these days.
OTOH, again, that is not the way Apple is using their junk patents. Apple is acting as if Apple invented the idea of voice commands, and suing anybody that creates a device that uses voice commands. I do not see Apple suing over a specific implementation.
Slashdot Mirror
From what I have heard: faster boot speed. I guess that's about it.
N/A.
With Google, you pay by giving up your information and privacy.
You don't even have to login to use google. Google does not even know who you are, unless you want Google to know.
Yes, google uses you search information to display innocuous ads by the side of the page, so what?
Google may not deserve to be worshiped as a paragon of virtue; but I don't see Google filing dozens of bogus lawsuits, using total junk patents, like Apple and Microsoft routinely do. I don't see Google being an abusive monopoly, like Microsoft. I don't see Google trying to prevent the use of competitor's technology by forcing proprietary standards like OOXML, and Silverlight. I don't see where Google has been caught red-handed astroturfing, or hiring shills on message boards. I don't see a US federal judge accusing Google of using "Tonya Harding tactics." I don't see google hiring shill companies to do fake TCO studies, or benchmark studies. I don't see Google caught red-handed outright lying to the US DoJ. I don't see Google caught red-handed bribing OSI officials.
Huge difference between google, and facebook: you do not have to log on to use Google.
Google may know that x number of people visited y wedsite, but google does not know who those people are. Facebook knows who you are.
Google's technologies' are open for adoption by anyone and they have the habit of improving the Internet, not subverting it.
Wish I had mod points. At least somebody on slashdot is thinking straight.
The "privacy violations" stuff is mostly just Microsoft plant stories to smear Google. Microsoft's best buddy, Facebook, is 100 times worse when it comes to real privacy violations. Google may know that one thousand people left your website to go to Amazon; but google does not know who those people are. Huge difference between that Facebook. Facebook knows exactly who you are.
The story is grossly misleading. Anything that Google is doing with Chrome, can also be done with any other web browser. Dart is open source and compiles to javascript, HTML5, etc. can by used by any browser.
Since nothing that Google is doing is proprietary, what's the great panic?
Now compare that to Microsoft with Silverlight, and OOXML.
From some dope at Microsoft friendly infoworld.
1) ChromeOS can run on any common platform.
2) Dart is going to be opensource. Anybody can incorporate Dart into their browser.
3) Dart can be compiled to JavaScript.
4) HTML5 etc. are also free to be used by anybody
Add it up: Google Chrome will be no more a web platform than any other browser.
Microsoft was also funding scox before Baystar. I think both Microsoft, and Sun, bought a millions of dollars worth scox licenses, right after scox filed the lawsuits.
Why would MS and Sun suddenly buy millions of licenses worth of licenses that did not need? Both MS, and Sun, already have UNIX licenses.
After the Baystar, there was another mysterious PIPE loan.
Nice try. But the facts are against you. This is indeed a Microsoft scam, Microsoft financed the entire thing since day one. Now why do you thing Microsoft would do that?
They see it as Mac vs. Windows all over again, and guess who won last time?
Actually, Apple was suing a lot of companies, including Microsoft. I think Apple won several of the lawsuits they filed. I think Apple put GEM out of business.
At the least, the slide bar should at the top, not the bottom. This would make it easier for one handed unlocking.
Damn, now that I posted that, Apple will probably steal the idea and sue me.
You called me a hypocrite because I'm not either a) unfailingly 100% critical of Apple or b) unfailingly 100% positive.
Nice straw man attempt. But that is not why I called you hypocrite, and you know it. I call you a hypocrite because you posted:
DISCLAIMER: I think patent lawsuits are stupid.
Yet you support Apple's patent lawsuits up and down. Again hypocrisy much?
A lot of cars do look a lot alike.
As I posted before, I can tell the difference between the apple product, and the so-called samsung ripoff with my eyes closed. I can do it easily, With my eyes open, I can the difference in a fraction of a second.
Furthermore, wouldn't that be a trademark issue, and not a patent issue?
To extend the car analogy, if ford acted like apple, ford would be suing other car makers who put the steering wheel on the right, or had four wheels on their car. In fact, those would be ford patents.
If you doubt that, then look at the laughably silly "inventions" that apple is claiming.
Clearly, Apple did not invent slide to open, or rounded corners. Such things are junk patents anyway.
So what did Apple spend so much money inventing, that Samsung copied?
Name something of Apple's that was copied by Samsung, other than an obvious junk patent.
Let them sue each other. They'll figure it out. Doesn't affect me as a user in the slightest.
Sure about that? If you live in CA it might mean that you will not be able to buy an Apple competitor. Even in don't live in CA, who know where Apple will file a lawsuit next? Especially if Apple wins.
Apple's original lawsuit over the design of Samsung's copy of the iPhone 3G was legitimate - the thing was pretty much Xeroxed and shipped.
You mean like Apple "Xeroxed" the JooJoo/Crunchpad?
Name me anything that you think Apple copied, that had not been done before. Name an actual Apple invention that you think Samsung ripped off.
Simply pointing to a piece of prior art doesn't actually get you there. It's like pointing to the existence of a dead body to say that therefore, a defendant is guilty of murder.
Weak analogy. If prior art existed, it does indeed prove that Apple was not the first to "invent" it.
Nice try.
I directly addressed your points. Yes, I read them, and understood them.
I'm talking about the straight up Samsung copied the iPhone 3G suit
Exactly what, in the suit, is an actual Apple invention? Can you specify something that nobody did before Apple? How about something that took a load of R&D dollars?
I think Apple's MO is relevant to the discussion. Apple is constantly filing junk patents, and filing bogus lawsuits. It's just the sort of company Apple is.
Please name some that is an actual, non-obvious, Apple invention.
Name something that - irrefutably - Apple was the very first to implement. An Idea that absolutely did exist before Apple. Something that Apple spent a huge amount of money developing.
Do you really expect anybody to believe that rounded corners, or voice commands, are Apple "inventions?"
Especially if it's something that cost Apple a huge amount of R&D. And especially, especially, if it pertains to the flood of lawsuits coming from Apple these days.
It's really just part of the broken patent system.
No, Apple chose to file all these junk patents, and Apple chose to file all the bogus lawsuits.
OTOH, again, that is not the way Apple is using their junk patents. Apple is acting as if Apple invented the idea of voice commands, and suing anybody that creates a device that uses voice commands. I do not see Apple suing over a specific implementation.