They build an open source operating system. When they refuse to release Honeycomb, people start claiming they're going back on the open source commitment. They release ICS and JB source code less than a week after the official announcement. They literally give Android away for free - http://twitter.com/Arubin/status/27808662429
Yet they get far more criticism than Microsoft and Apple running increasingly closed ecosystems. They get blamed for Android fragmentation. Now, when they decide to do something about fragmentation, they get blamed again. It's pretty simple isn't it, you join OHA and you maintain compatibility with Android. Or you don't, like Amazon, and take the source code for free and whatever the hell you want with it. Is that really so onerous for Acer?
When Android OEMs get sued with crap patents, Google gets blamed. Even when it's Samsung, a far bigger company who is making the majority of profits off Android (Google isn't making nearly as much), Google is somehow supposed to show up and save the day for them. When Google registers patents of their own, every time there's a Slashdot story about the pot calling the kettle black although Google have NEVER used patents to sue anyone except in retaliation, not their search patents, not their Hadoop, Mapreduce, etc. patents.
If you're an Android device used, you should be glad Google is doing this. The last thing we need is another Amazon. Try playing with a Kindle Fire - Amazon completely skinned Amazon and made it incompatible with normal Android apps. I have tried putting many in through apks, most install but almost none work properly. Despite coming with a powerful dual core processor, the devices are terribly slow and laggy. The browser is awful compared to Chrome or Safari on mobile devices. They could have gone with a completely skinned version of compatible Android, with their own skin but retain compatibility with apps. Instead, we get different versions of Android apps for the Kindle Fire. I am not sure this even works in Amazon's favour, they could still have sold all the content and made proper tablets offering real tablet functionality, not glorified content consumption devices with terribly proprietary software.
Here's the kicker: You don't have to pay Google a cent to retain Android compatibility. Amazon could do exactly what they are doing now: run their own app store instead of using Google Play, use Nokia maps, use Bing as the default search engine, put their own browser in that tracks all websites you visit. Google's own Motorola branded handset, the RAZR M ships with the Amazon app store installed. I don't know why Google let this happen, it makes no business sense. But it's good for us consumers, you don't even have to be tied to the Google Play store.
Figuring 'something' out from WiFi works only in dense urban environments, and even then isn't good enough for turn by turn navigation, which Apple claims is supported by the iPod Touch and iPad,
No one can be 'banished' from Android. You can take open source Android, modify it, set up your own app store, and make money off it without paying a cent to Google (as Barnes & Noble and Amazon have done, among others). Google may have told Acer that they can't be part of the Google Android program, which involves licensing the Google Play Store and the Google closed source apps (Gmail, Maps, Chrome, Talk, Google+ etc.), and at the same time tie up with Alibaba on an Android clone OS that runs Android apps. They *may* have, it's pure speculation, though I really cannot see why they would. Even if they have, it's hardly evil. Google give away the damn OS, and Amazon are able to use it and make millions off it without paying Google anything. Call me when Microsoft or Apple do anything similar.
You want a photo to NOT be shared around the internet, so obviously the logical thing to do is to upload it to Facebook?
No, the logical thing to do is to not share it, rather than trusting it to a poor cousin of DRM when pretty much all DRM schemes have been cracked within days.
Security companies are becoming pathetic cash grabbing monsters. The contracting PC industry is hurting them because they can't peddle more and more antivirus licenses. Microsoft security essentials, windows firewall, and tools like Malwarebytes are hurting them because they are free and work better than their bloated expensive 'security' programs.
Seriously. Enough troll headlines about X company patenting Y. Let us know when Google or any other company aggressively uses patent trolling to stymie a competitor. Or when any of these evil privacy invading money grabbing kitten torturing patents actually end up being implemented. Companies patent anything and everything now, it doesn't mean your most FUD imagination of its worst scariest implementation will come true tomorrow. When it does, let us know. Until then, give it a rest.
People who stand all day at work tend to develop varicose veins. And I have seen it in people in their early twenties - it's not pretty. Sit when you need to, walk around to think, have swordfights while your code compiles (http://xkcd.com/303/), don't take lunch at your desk, take breaks, invest in those highly expensive chairs. All elementary precautions really. I don't know how standing for nine hours will be anything but tortuous.
They care when they run out of space, when their non replaceable batteries die, when their fragile iPhone glass shatters, when their unrepairable Macbooks die just after the warranty expires. But they're still eagerly waiting for the next iPhone, if they can afford it, and some who cannot.
You're again looking at the purchase of gadgets as a rational decision, techies just can't bring themselves to think like other people. Even after numerous experiences of people asking you for advice on buying tech stuff, and then going and buying something completely different and overpriced 'because it's pretty'.
Eh? No one is Apple. That doesn't mean you need to have your own component manufacturing business to be a successful smartphone company, which is what you are suggesting.
Lol really? That's your example? First of all, the people who hang out on bargain sites looking for gadgets to get cheaper are by definition geeks. Gadget geeks aren't necessarily technical, they're just people for whom gadgets hold great importance, and will be concerned about stuff like MicroSD and unlocked bootloaders and Cyanogen support, stuff the vast majority of consumers don't care about. People who don't just visit bargain sites but actually comment on them are even more likely to belong to that category. Ask any of your friends who're waiting for the iPhone 5 (I am sure you have a few) how badly they want it to have a MicroSD slot. In fact, they don't even know what they want in an iPhone 5. They just want an iPhone 5 because it's the new iPhone and some features Apple can throw at them to dazzle them.
Sorry, this is yet another example of why the tastes of slashdot readers are basically irrelevant for any manufacturer today. Users don't care about MicroSD slots, the lack of one does not hurt sales and most people who have MicroSD slots in their phones have no idea what to do with them. Yes you can get cheap 64GB SDXC cards for $60 or so, and it's criminally stupid to not have MicroSD slots (or just offer large storage at a reasonable cost). But users don't care. Google realized that, so did Nokia.
How does that matter? Apple manages to make the lion's share of industry profits without manufacturing anything. Even's Samsung's recent jump in profits has been thanks to growth in their smartphone division, not the component division. Nokia seem to have retained their capacity for making cutting edge designs like Apple have. That's vital in the age of standardized software. Apple devices no longer sell because they have the best OS. They sell because of their brilliant designs and the fact that the first mover advantage and standardization has given them a huge advantage in their app ecosystem and user friendliness.
Nokia doesn't need to manufacture anything themselves to be successful again.
Repeated exhortations of how WP8 and the Lumia 920 were developed in conjunction. Wheeling out top Microsoft execs for every Lumia launch. Does any other WP8 really have a chance? Why do they even bother? There are several problems with Android, but Google has always gone to extreme lengths to make sure they didn't appear to favour an OEM, releasing flagship NExus devices with Motorola (when they were independent), Samsung, HTC, and Asus. That may of course change with Googorola. But right now, it seems Microsoft seems to feel that it won't hurt them at all if Nokia drives other OEMs out of the WP8 market. And you know what, I think they're right. With their insipid design and terrible software, I don't see Samsung and HTC competing with Nokia anyway. Maybe at the low end of the market. But when was the last time either of them released something as distinctive as the Nokia Lumia 920? Never.
Seriously? Code on an iPad? Why on earth would you want to do that? This tablet fad is getting beyond ridiculous. Is the convenience of holding and carrying of a tablet device so vital that people are willing to trade absolutely everything else for it? This is the age of stupid hybrid OS like Windows 8 coupled to a hybrid device that has a much smaller screen than a standard laptop in a ridiculous 16:9 ratio at a much higher price than a comparably specced laptop just so you can use it as a tablet? Who in their sane mind would want to code on a tablet, I sit here on a 1080p 15.6 screen thinking I really need to pick up a 24"/27" as soon as possible to do real work. What will the next trend be? Cooking everything in a tiny saucepan over a tiny camping stove because you can carry it everywhere, and we can mock the chefs with their gigantic pans and woks and ovens, who needs those. Abandoning bicycles for unicycles that fit in a suitcase for portability? Wildlife and sports photography with an iPhone, because who needs those SLRs and gigantic 300mm F2.8 lens? Writing and editing books and articles, manuscripts spanning hundreds of pages with a long list of references to be checked, all written on an iPad, because who the hell needs multiple windows open and visible at the same time on the screen, and as for typing, just blindly poke your fingers and autocorrect will seamlessly convert it to beautifully worded text.
Really? Even accepting the premise that he can make money through object recognition on a video of his genitals, when has Google sued someone over a software patent except in retaliation? Does he plan to sue them over a slide to unlock patent?
You can patent anything these days. It's slightly less worrying to see Google patenting stuff because they have only used patents defensively. I am sure these days Google patents absolutely anything they can think of.
Host it yourself. Why are you uploading it to Youtube then? And if the data is public, do you realize anyone can crawl through it, not just Google? The patent says nothing about monetizing it, and if the video is viewable, anyone can run such algorithms and get data off it, not just the hosting website.
Private data cannot be public. Keep it private. If you make something public, expect it to be stored for eternity even if you try to delete it, have all your pictures and videos crawled through by algorithms with face and object recognition.
Amazon sold the Kindle Fire at zero profit or a small loss according to most accounts, they get their money from you purchasing apps and content from Amazon, they want to know your habits just as much as Google does. Also remember, Google owns Motorola Mobility now, they are a hardware company too.
Also there is an unfair underlying implication in all this that just because Google is an advertising company it makes it more likely that they will violate their policies than other companies. That's not necessarily true. There's nothing to suggest that your private data is safer with one big company than another. If it will be lucrative for Google at some point to consider selling personal data about you, you can be damn sure Apple will have the same incentive to share the data it gathers from Apple maps and Siri and your contact list and iCloud and everything else. The only effective remedy is legal safeguards to keep all companies on their toes about privacy knowing there will be hell to pay if they screw up, rather than some vague idea notion that if you don't use Google services you'll be safer.
Privacy concerns with current technologies isn't just a Google issue. Raising alarm over a vague patent application is just stupid with so many real things to worry about, like TrapWire and INDECT.
What exactly are the new privacy implications of this system? Governments in western democracies are deploying facial recognition systems at street corners and license plate recognition systems to track vehicle movement, what does this bring that makes things significantly worse?
That last link is particularly egregious. It points to Chromebooks as a device that is dependent completely on Google services. How about also mentioning devices that already do the same, except that they have about a 100 times more users - iPhones and iPads. And even Windows devices are going the same way. What on earth does with ave to do with this patent, and how about mentioning that this isn't specific to Google. I am tired of this FUD implication that Google can steal all your data while others can't? What Google could do theoretically all other 'cloud' providers could do too, theoretically. How about comparing their actual records? Has Google turned on face recognition without your consent? Has Google changed your email contacts and personal email address on your profile and wiped your phone contacts? Do you really think Apple can't access the same stuff in theory from your iPhone the way Google can from their devices? Or the Facebook app that installs with just about every permission available?
And again, what does any of it have to do with this patent. If you upload a video to youtube for the whole world to see, is it really a big deal that Google knows that you use a Macbook?
the article says "Google's own vision for the future of computing is a Chromebook/Chromebox that's completely dependent on their own services for everything". Really? What's Apple's vision of computing? Amazon - ever used a Kindle Fire? In fact, Google sells very few Chromebooks, and most Google affiliated devices sold are Google Android devices, which offer far more freedom. You can use it with non Google accounts. You can disable and remove Google services, and Google allows apps that compete with Google services (Apple bans those - reproduce the functionality of an Apple service or app and you get banned). Amazon is equally restricted if you've ever used a Kindle Fire. And there are several unlocked Android phones and devices where you can install Google free versions of Android like Cyanogen, and do whatever the hell you want without the privacy implications. How about raising awareness of those for people who are really concerned about privacy instead of spreading all this 'Google will steal all ur dataz oh noez' FUD. That ship bolted, the horse has sailed etc. ALL current device makers do that or are moving towards that model. Go to all the trouble of using and informing about Linux or De-Googled Android devices, or shut up and talk about real disasters when they happen like Facebook's several privacy booboos or the Google Wave fiasco. Not this FUD.
She bats for freedom an innovation. As odd as it may sound, it's true. Right after the Oracle Google verdict, there was a case between Oracle and a patent troll, where she supported the stand Oracle took, and remarked on the fact that it depends on the case who the bad guy is. She's consistent with her views and her stance in this case is perfectly consistent with the stands she's taken for many years, if you had bothered to go back a bit. Very different from FOSSPatents who picks a side, and when inconvenient news hits, he just ignores it.
You haven't been reading how the judge has treated the case so far. Remember it's the same judge who handed out preliminary injunctions against Samsung products before the trial even took place. The verdict will stand. For now.
It's just lazy reporting. Plus the fact that the mainstream media still doesn't see these issues as global issues threatening freedom and innovation, but merely obscure technology issues. So it's not given the same rigorous attention as say the war in Syria.
Slashdot Mirror
They build an open source operating system. When they refuse to release Honeycomb, people start claiming they're going back on the open source commitment. They release ICS and JB source code less than a week after the official announcement. They literally give Android away for free - http://twitter.com/Arubin/status/27808662429
Yet they get far more criticism than Microsoft and Apple running increasingly closed ecosystems. They get blamed for Android fragmentation. Now, when they decide to do something about fragmentation, they get blamed again. It's pretty simple isn't it, you join OHA and you maintain compatibility with Android. Or you don't, like Amazon, and take the source code for free and whatever the hell you want with it. Is that really so onerous for Acer?
When Android OEMs get sued with crap patents, Google gets blamed. Even when it's Samsung, a far bigger company who is making the majority of profits off Android (Google isn't making nearly as much), Google is somehow supposed to show up and save the day for them. When Google registers patents of their own, every time there's a Slashdot story about the pot calling the kettle black although Google have NEVER used patents to sue anyone except in retaliation, not their search patents, not their Hadoop, Mapreduce, etc. patents.
If you're an Android device used, you should be glad Google is doing this. The last thing we need is another Amazon. Try playing with a Kindle Fire - Amazon completely skinned Amazon and made it incompatible with normal Android apps. I have tried putting many in through apks, most install but almost none work properly. Despite coming with a powerful dual core processor, the devices are terribly slow and laggy. The browser is awful compared to Chrome or Safari on mobile devices. They could have gone with a completely skinned version of compatible Android, with their own skin but retain compatibility with apps. Instead, we get different versions of Android apps for the Kindle Fire. I am not sure this even works in Amazon's favour, they could still have sold all the content and made proper tablets offering real tablet functionality, not glorified content consumption devices with terribly proprietary software.
Here's the kicker:
You don't have to pay Google a cent to retain Android compatibility. Amazon could do exactly what they are doing now: run their own app store instead of using Google Play, use Nokia maps, use Bing as the default search engine, put their own browser in that tracks all websites you visit. Google's own Motorola branded handset, the RAZR M ships with the Amazon app store installed. I don't know why Google let this happen, it makes no business sense. But it's good for us consumers, you don't even have to be tied to the Google Play store.
The 3GS was being sold by Apple until two days ago.
The iPad 1 was the only iPad you could buy until March last year.
It's not about Android vs iOS..
I don't think I'm a serious reporter :) And so I don't get paid for writing this, and don't have time to pretti-fy it for you.
The iPods are not iOS devices?? Apple says they are iOS devices: http://www.apple.com/ios/whats-new/
Figuring 'something' out from WiFi works only in dense urban environments, and even then isn't good enough for turn by turn navigation, which Apple claims is supported by the iPod Touch and iPad,
No one can be 'banished' from Android. You can take open source Android, modify it, set up your own app store, and make money off it without paying a cent to Google (as Barnes & Noble and Amazon have done, among others).
Google may have told Acer that they can't be part of the Google Android program, which involves licensing the Google Play Store and the Google closed source apps (Gmail, Maps, Chrome, Talk, Google+ etc.), and at the same time tie up with Alibaba on an Android clone OS that runs Android apps. They *may* have, it's pure speculation, though I really cannot see why they would. Even if they have, it's hardly evil. Google give away the damn OS, and Amazon are able to use it and make millions off it without paying Google anything. Call me when Microsoft or Apple do anything similar.
You want a photo to NOT be shared around the internet, so obviously the logical thing to do is to upload it to Facebook?
No, the logical thing to do is to not share it, rather than trusting it to a poor cousin of DRM when pretty much all DRM schemes have been cracked within days.
This one? Took someone a few minutes: http://it.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=3113117&cid=41320371
Security companies are becoming pathetic cash grabbing monsters. The contracting PC industry is hurting them because they can't peddle more and more antivirus licenses. Microsoft security essentials, windows firewall, and tools like Malwarebytes are hurting them because they are free and work better than their bloated expensive 'security' programs.
So now they're using weird FUD to try and break new markets, releasing 'antivirus' apps for mobile operating systems that do absolutely nothing: http://crave.cnet.co.uk/mobiles/android-security-apps-are-mostly-useless-says-report-50007252/
And now this bullshit...
Mod parent up please.
I get the point about gloves, but a quick swipe to turn the page really isn't that hard, especially with a capacitive touch screen.
E-ink screens don't get smudged because they aren't covered with the glossy glassy stuff found on LCD screens.
Seriously. Enough troll headlines about X company patenting Y. Let us know when Google or any other company aggressively uses patent trolling to stymie a competitor. Or when any of these evil privacy invading money grabbing kitten torturing patents actually end up being implemented. Companies patent anything and everything now, it doesn't mean your most FUD imagination of its worst scariest implementation will come true tomorrow. When it does, let us know. Until then, give it a rest.
People who stand all day at work tend to develop varicose veins. And I have seen it in people in their early twenties - it's not pretty. Sit when you need to, walk around to think, have swordfights while your code compiles (http://xkcd.com/303/), don't take lunch at your desk, take breaks, invest in those highly expensive chairs. All elementary precautions really. I don't know how standing for nine hours will be anything but tortuous.
They care when they run out of space, when their non replaceable batteries die, when their fragile iPhone glass shatters, when their unrepairable Macbooks die just after the warranty expires. But they're still eagerly waiting for the next iPhone, if they can afford it, and some who cannot.
You're again looking at the purchase of gadgets as a rational decision, techies just can't bring themselves to think like other people. Even after numerous experiences of people asking you for advice on buying tech stuff, and then going and buying something completely different and overpriced 'because it's pretty'.
Eh? No one is Apple. That doesn't mean you need to have your own component manufacturing business to be a successful smartphone company, which is what you are suggesting.
Lol really? That's your example?
First of all, the people who hang out on bargain sites looking for gadgets to get cheaper are by definition geeks. Gadget geeks aren't necessarily technical, they're just people for whom gadgets hold great importance, and will be concerned about stuff like MicroSD and unlocked bootloaders and Cyanogen support, stuff the vast majority of consumers don't care about.
People who don't just visit bargain sites but actually comment on them are even more likely to belong to that category.
Ask any of your friends who're waiting for the iPhone 5 (I am sure you have a few) how badly they want it to have a MicroSD slot. In fact, they don't even know what they want in an iPhone 5. They just want an iPhone 5 because it's the new iPhone and some features Apple can throw at them to dazzle them.
Sorry, this is yet another example of why the tastes of slashdot readers are basically irrelevant for any manufacturer today. Users don't care about MicroSD slots, the lack of one does not hurt sales and most people who have MicroSD slots in their phones have no idea what to do with them. Yes you can get cheap 64GB SDXC cards for $60 or so, and it's criminally stupid to not have MicroSD slots (or just offer large storage at a reasonable cost). But users don't care. Google realized that, so did Nokia.
How does that matter? Apple manages to make the lion's share of industry profits without manufacturing anything. Even's Samsung's recent jump in profits has been thanks to growth in their smartphone division, not the component division. Nokia seem to have retained their capacity for making cutting edge designs like Apple have. That's vital in the age of standardized software. Apple devices no longer sell because they have the best OS. They sell because of their brilliant designs and the fact that the first mover advantage and standardization has given them a huge advantage in their app ecosystem and user friendliness.
Nokia doesn't need to manufacture anything themselves to be successful again.
Repeated exhortations of how WP8 and the Lumia 920 were developed in conjunction. Wheeling out top Microsoft execs for every Lumia launch. Does any other WP8 really have a chance? Why do they even bother? There are several problems with Android, but Google has always gone to extreme lengths to make sure they didn't appear to favour an OEM, releasing flagship NExus devices with Motorola (when they were independent), Samsung, HTC, and Asus. That may of course change with Googorola. But right now, it seems Microsoft seems to feel that it won't hurt them at all if Nokia drives other OEMs out of the WP8 market. And you know what, I think they're right. With their insipid design and terrible software, I don't see Samsung and HTC competing with Nokia anyway. Maybe at the low end of the market. But when was the last time either of them released something as distinctive as the Nokia Lumia 920? Never.
Seriously? Code on an iPad? Why on earth would you want to do that? This tablet fad is getting beyond ridiculous. Is the convenience of holding and carrying of a tablet device so vital that people are willing to trade absolutely everything else for it? This is the age of stupid hybrid OS like Windows 8 coupled to a hybrid device that has a much smaller screen than a standard laptop in a ridiculous 16:9 ratio at a much higher price than a comparably specced laptop just so you can use it as a tablet? Who in their sane mind would want to code on a tablet, I sit here on a 1080p 15.6 screen thinking I really need to pick up a 24"/27" as soon as possible to do real work.
What will the next trend be? Cooking everything in a tiny saucepan over a tiny camping stove because you can carry it everywhere, and we can mock the chefs with their gigantic pans and woks and ovens, who needs those. Abandoning bicycles for unicycles that fit in a suitcase for portability? Wildlife and sports photography with an iPhone, because who needs those SLRs and gigantic 300mm F2.8 lens? Writing and editing books and articles, manuscripts spanning hundreds of pages with a long list of references to be checked, all written on an iPad, because who the hell needs multiple windows open and visible at the same time on the screen, and as for typing, just blindly poke your fingers and autocorrect will seamlessly convert it to beautifully worded text.
Really? Even accepting the premise that he can make money through object recognition on a video of his genitals, when has Google sued someone over a software patent except in retaliation? Does he plan to sue them over a slide to unlock patent?
You can patent anything these days. It's slightly less worrying to see Google patenting stuff because they have only used patents defensively. I am sure these days Google patents absolutely anything they can think of.
Host it yourself. Why are you uploading it to Youtube then? And if the data is public, do you realize anyone can crawl through it, not just Google? The patent says nothing about monetizing it, and if the video is viewable, anyone can run such algorithms and get data off it, not just the hosting website.
Private data cannot be public. Keep it private. If you make something public, expect it to be stored for eternity even if you try to delete it, have all your pictures and videos crawled through by algorithms with face and object recognition.
Amazon sold the Kindle Fire at zero profit or a small loss according to most accounts, they get their money from you purchasing apps and content from Amazon, they want to know your habits just as much as Google does. Also remember, Google owns Motorola Mobility now, they are a hardware company too.
Also there is an unfair underlying implication in all this that just because Google is an advertising company it makes it more likely that they will violate their policies than other companies. That's not necessarily true. There's nothing to suggest that your private data is safer with one big company than another. If it will be lucrative for Google at some point to consider selling personal data about you, you can be damn sure Apple will have the same incentive to share the data it gathers from Apple maps and Siri and your contact list and iCloud and everything else. The only effective remedy is legal safeguards to keep all companies on their toes about privacy knowing there will be hell to pay if they screw up, rather than some vague idea notion that if you don't use Google services you'll be safer.
Privacy concerns with current technologies isn't just a Google issue. Raising alarm over a vague patent application is just stupid with so many real things to worry about, like TrapWire and INDECT.
What exactly are the new privacy implications of this system? Governments in western democracies are deploying facial recognition systems at street corners and license plate recognition systems to track vehicle movement, what does this bring that makes things significantly worse?
That last link is particularly egregious. It points to Chromebooks as a device that is dependent completely on Google services. How about also mentioning devices that already do the same, except that they have about a 100 times more users - iPhones and iPads. And even Windows devices are going the same way. What on earth does with ave to do with this patent, and how about mentioning that this isn't specific to Google. I am tired of this FUD implication that Google can steal all your data while others can't? What Google could do theoretically all other 'cloud' providers could do too, theoretically. How about comparing their actual records? Has Google turned on face recognition without your consent? Has Google changed your email contacts and personal email address on your profile and wiped your phone contacts? Do you really think Apple can't access the same stuff in theory from your iPhone the way Google can from their devices? Or the Facebook app that installs with just about every permission available?
And again, what does any of it have to do with this patent. If you upload a video to youtube for the whole world to see, is it really a big deal that Google knows that you use a Macbook?
the article says "Google's own vision for the future of computing is a Chromebook/Chromebox that's completely dependent on their own services for everything". Really? What's Apple's vision of computing? Amazon - ever used a Kindle Fire? In fact, Google sells very few Chromebooks, and most Google affiliated devices sold are Google Android devices, which offer far more freedom. You can use it with non Google accounts. You can disable and remove Google services, and Google allows apps that compete with Google services (Apple bans those - reproduce the functionality of an Apple service or app and you get banned). Amazon is equally restricted if you've ever used a Kindle Fire.
And there are several unlocked Android phones and devices where you can install Google free versions of Android like Cyanogen, and do whatever the hell you want without the privacy implications. How about raising awareness of those for people who are really concerned about privacy instead of spreading all this 'Google will steal all ur dataz oh noez' FUD. That ship bolted, the horse has sailed etc. ALL current device makers do that or are moving towards that model. Go to all the trouble of using and informing about Linux or De-Googled Android devices, or shut up and talk about real disasters when they happen like Facebook's several privacy booboos or the Google Wave fiasco. Not this FUD.
She bats for freedom an innovation. As odd as it may sound, it's true. Right after the Oracle Google verdict, there was a case between Oracle and a patent troll, where she supported the stand Oracle took, and remarked on the fact that it depends on the case who the bad guy is. She's consistent with her views and her stance in this case is perfectly consistent with the stands she's taken for many years, if you had bothered to go back a bit. Very different from FOSSPatents who picks a side, and when inconvenient news hits, he just ignores it.
You haven't been reading how the judge has treated the case so far. Remember it's the same judge who handed out preliminary injunctions against Samsung products before the trial even took place. The verdict will stand. For now.
It's just lazy reporting. Plus the fact that the mainstream media still doesn't see these issues as global issues threatening freedom and innovation, but merely obscure technology issues. So it's not given the same rigorous attention as say the war in Syria.