And it's rather patchwork of them. Droid from Star Wars, Majel from Star Trek. I'm surprised they don't have something called a "basestar". Maybe they could rename their cloud, or make some sort of wireless hub unit or something.
The very name takes the wind out of the fan boys that will want to proclaim 'apple invented this, it was their idea'. Clever
No one thinks Apple invented the idea of a talking computer, or talking to a computer, except for these imaginary fanboys you're talking about. Apple usually aren't first to begin implementation of an idea, but they usually are first to implement it in a way compelling to most people.
And, as is often the case with these sorts of things, Apple has been working on this far longer than most geeks like yourself even realize. The very first Macintosh could speak, and voice recognition has been built into the Mac for at least a couple of decades now. The difference here is that Siri actually provides a full solution. You could talk to a Mac, but there really wasn't much to say, and it could talk back, but there really wasn't much for it to say to you. Siri begins to fill in these missing pieces.
Do you have an example of something Siri does that is not precise? And on some other "precise" system, wouldn't it just error?
I do find it amusing that you'd compare being more human with "like talking to an Alzheimer's patient". Just on its own it's pretty funny (and, I wonder, if there's some insight to it, like those afflicted with Asperger's feel somewhat like they are surrounded by those with Alzheimer's, and I'm not being snarky here, it's interesting to ponder), and in the context of you preferring a system which actually *is* more like an Alzheimer's patient (one lacking in memory, context, flexibility in interaction, etc.) as opposed to one which knows you, what you are talking about, etc.
Many of the insider remarks on this project are talking about how it's intended to be like the Star Trek computer, even addressing it as "computer." Often times, I think Google is way too engineering-driven and quite simply doesn't get humans.
I don't need a hammer that gets me. I need one I can accurately use. Natural language is very imprecise, a set list of commands makes things more precise.
It only makes the user have to be more precise, and it makes the tool less accurate (accuracy and precision are different things--funny, for someone trying to make the claim that he wants more precision in his tools). You say you don't want a hammer that gets you, but that's *exactly* what you do want. A hammer that fits in your hand. A hammer designed for a human hand used in a natural way, allowing for a range of variability among different people.
What you don't want is a hammer that requires you to learn a specific and unnatural way of using it. What good is a hammer if you forget the exact finger orientation for hitting a nail into plywood if you haven't done that for a long time (ask it to reply to a text) when you normally hit nails into 2x4s (asking for driving directions).
What kind of nonsense is it to think a voice recognition system should require a specific syntax? "I don't want it to know that 'show me driving directions to X' is the same request as 'take me to X', 'how do I get to X from here', 'what's the way to X', and instead require me to learn the one, and only one, magical phrase to get the results I want."
From what I've heard about Siri, it trades accuracy for sophistication of ability and it isn't a good trade off.
All voice recognition systems get around 90%, Siri and Google included. You're only remembering "what you heard" that fits "what your biases confirm". One thing that is very accurate about Siri is when it comes to things on your phone. It will get words that I wouldn't expect any speech recognition system to get (like Dragon), because it gets context. So, for example, if you are talking about music, it will know you said something otherwise non-sequitur, like "Asteroids Galaxy Tour" or "Rush Fly By Night".
I don't know how well Android or MS does with this. From what I've seen on the web, not good at all, but I'm not going to put forth hearsay anecdotes as fact without significant corroboration, even if it does fit what I already believe to be true.
Matching a search with useful information is kind of what google does best. For voice recognition, they've been doing voice-search on Android for a long time, plus their now defunct goog-411 and that's a lot of voice recognition experience.
Siri/Majel is really just a UI layer on top of those two things.
Siri is much more than voice recognition and search. And it wouldn't be surprising in the least if Apple has already had more Siri voice data than Google by now. People actually use Siri on a daily basis.
Google may be behind in the integration, but they're probably way ahead in those two things.
Might be ahead on one, and the other, search, is something Apple doesn't even do. For that, they use... Google (and others). But interestingly, general web search is the least interesting thing Siri does.
Isn't competition what drives innovation? Where's the innovation if everyone just does what everyone else is doing?
Who's going to be able to innovate if they're being forced to waste their time looking for ways to work around stupid patents instead?
Apple went through the trouble coming up with it in the first place. What's so wrong with expecting others to do the same? Are Apple somehow more capable than the rest of the industry combined or something? That doesn't seem likely.
It looks like Apple's victory is relatively minor. They lost claims on all patents except for one, and HTC/Google can work on implementing similar functionality in a non-infringing way.
It seems like this is exactly what Apple wants, other companies coming up with their own solutions. This should also be want Slashdot wants. Isn't competition what drives innovation? Where's the innovation if everyone just does what everyone else is doing?
You may consider this to be a niche market, but anyone who has to travel and walk around a lot while carrying their computer will appreciate the netbooks for their weight.
Yes, that's a niche market, and one that the big PC makers are running away from in droves. They are now trying to court it with the "ultrabook", which demonstrates that people don't want a shit notebook. They'll put up with it if they have to, which is why they were so popular two years ago.
Your post would be interesting if someone had claimed that stores don't carry netbooks, or some such nonsense. But no one did. Stores also carry lots of shit no one buys. Just look at the various Android tablets at your local Best Buy.
The inescapable fact is that the netbook, which was the nerd darling of 2009 and 2010, was eclipsed by the iPad. There are still people who will buy netbooks, but the role all the nerds thought it was going to fill is far better filled by the iPad.
Given that you can't even spell iPad, I think your irrational bias speaks for itself.
Otherwise we wouldn't be seeing Acer continue with their Aspire One line either. They'd be just focusing on their Iconia tablet line.
The iPad completely killed the mass netbook market. Now it's little more than a niche. Acer is a discount computer maker, so they'll continue to make discount computers, but people won't be buying netbooks anywhere near the level they once were. And this is all thanks to the iPad.
As for the Iconia, you're missing a key point. The *iPad* killed the netbook, not the tablet. Nobody wants Iconia tablets, they want iPads, and maybe Fires (it'll be very interesting to see how the Fire plays out over the next year).
On the OtherOS front, we have over a year of Sony saying, "OtherOS is here to stay" and "we will not remove functionality"
[citation needed]
On the flip side is knowingly installing rootkits on folks computers, lying about, then saying it's people's own faults because, "Most people don't even know what a rootkit is!"
A third-party tool that was horrible, to be sure, but again, where's your citation that they blamed the users and ever said what you put in quotes? Seems to me you're the one lying here...
So, your best examples are unsupported claims, lies, and complaining about something that happened almost a decade ago? Honestly, you don't really make much of a compelling case against Sony, and I don't really like the company itself all that much, so you wouldn't have to try very hard to convince me. Just some actual facts and something fairly recent. From what I've seen more recently, they got hacked and took a long time to get it resolved, but they did get it resolved, and gave everyone some games and other things for their trouble.
That's not going to win them any medals or anything, but it's definitely reasonable and hard to find a reason to complain about.
What's the advantage of running homebrew on a PSVita over running homebrew on an Android device such as an Xperia Play or a Galaxy Player (called Galaxy S Wi-Fi in some markets)?
Does there have to be some particular advantage? Why not just because they want to?
Then where are all the other lawsuits? Why are they only saying the Tab is a copy, and not any of the other tablets, all of which have their own styles, and therefore aren't copies?
Sure Samsung's design may be similar (It's actually slightly bigger and lighter than the ipad), but that is just the excuse Apple needed in order to try and get those injunctions.
"slightly bigger and lighter", yeah, that's *soooo* different! They aren't saying they copied the dimensions or the weight down to the minutiae, but the distinctive look they have for the iPad (and iPhone).
This isn't an "excuse" to sue. They have been very up front and open about their intentions. They aren't trying to stop anyone from making tablets, just from making tablets that are too similar to the ones Apple makes.
And we all know now they are being over turned.
What has been overturned? I think one ruling in eastern europe has. Australia's injunction has expired, and in the US, the court decided that the Galaxy Tab would not impact Apple's sales. Those examples really don't support your assertions.
it's about a unique collection of attributes that is immediately recognizable as an iPad.
Which is to say, a combination of a black rectangle with round corners?
Nope, it's not to say that at all. There are dozens of tablets that have those combinations, and they are all clearly distinguishable from an iPad and a Galaxy Tab without having to take a second look.
It's absurd to claim Apple copied Samsung. Do you think, when they were working on the iPhone, they saw that picture frame and thought, "we need to make our phone look like that, it's so popular, it will spill over and people will buy our phones!"?
As for aspect ratio, that's not all that important, it's just tweaking dimensions a bit. Did you know the iPad and iPad 2 have different aspect ratios? The thing is that the Galaxy Tab looks almost exactly like an iPad. Look at the picture from Samsung's ad in Australia. It looks exactly like an iPad. The only noticeable difference is the contents of the screen, not the decoration around it.
In that regard, flat, rectangular, and rounded corners are all functional, which is why Apple was denied the injunction they sought against Samsung in the U.S.
And "flat, rectangular, and rounded corners" is not the scope of the Apple patent. There are literally dozens of "flat, rectangular, and rounded cornered" tablets on the market. The Galaxy Tab looks pretty much exactly like an iPad. Even Samsung's lawyers couldn't tell them apart at a reasonable distance.
And by the way, the appearance of the iPad from the front is a near-clone of a Samsung digital picture frame released in 2006. Be careful who you accuse of copying whom.
It's pretty absurd to claim Apple was copying Samsung.
It's interesting, to be sure, but it's not a tablet, wasn't covered by patents, and quite notably, it's extremely clear that Apple was not trying to get people to think they were buying a Samsung picture frame, the same cannot be said about the Tab compared with the iPad.
Also of significant note, that picture frame lacks some key aspects of Apple's patent, including having a large "SAMSUNG" on the bezel.
Nope. Samsung used somebody's else's operating system (Android) and put it in a form factor which: a) Had been done before Apple did it b) Is pretty obvious - the only real variation possible is the roundness of the corners, everything else follows function (it's a screen!)
It's not the form factor that Apple is suing over, it's the industrial design of a specific implementation of that form factor. Apple has not sued, threatened to sue, or otherwise made any sort of huff about the dozens of other tablets that have been around both before and after the iPad, just those that bear a striking resemblance to the iPad.
The Galaxy Tab is a near clone. Apple is right to sue over it if they hold their own design to be distinctive (which it is). This isn't about a rectangle, rounded corners, or black borders, it's about a unique collection of attributes that is immediately recognizable as an iPad.
Except the metric that shows that Android runs on more phones than iOS. If people hated it, that wouldn't be the case.
That metric doesn't measure what they like, prefer, or are satisfied with. It measures what they bought, and in the cell phone market, there are significant extrinsic factors that play into handset choices.
I'm referring to things like satisfaction surveys, return rates, future purchase surveys, etc., which all directly measure those things.
And I never said people hate Android, just that they tend to like iOS more.
The charger you linked to was some home-brew hacked up piece of shit. Just for testing sake, I plugged my iPhone into my Jawbone USB charger, and it works just fine. I've never plugged my iPhone into any charger where it complained. And I've used plenty. It works on PCs. Do you think Dell pays Apple to make their USB ports work?
And I said it's not a money-scheme, not that it doesn't generate revenue. They aren't charging specifically for the money, but as a means of acting as a mechanism to weed out amateur hour cheap chinese crap, and to cover the costs of the program. Apple reports their financials, and the Made for iPod program is irrelevant to their bottom line in terms of revenue.
What it does do, however, is makes the whole iPod/iPhone/iPad ecosystem work fantastically well.
Just to provide counterpoint, my opinion is precisely the opposite of yours.
That's not how it works. It's fine that you are sharing your opinion, and I'm definitely not going to say it's wrong, but opinions aren't supposed to balance each other out.
If you look at market numbers, every metric that deals with what people like, prefer, or are satisfied with, iOS beats Android handily. And just to be clear, that in no way invalidates your opinion, plenty of people prefer Android. It's no slouch.
But if we're going to get into an opinion pissing match, Android is not the winner. Fortunately, opinion pissing matches really don't mean anything. Other than a waste of time, unfortunately.
You didn't even think to post this load of crap AC? Man I hope you never get any karma, because you have exactly no idea what you're talking about but sure love talking about it.
It's funny you should mention that if someone is going to post a bunch of shit, they should do so as an AC, AC...
Anyway, all he did was gave his opinion. Why so offended?
Slashdot Mirror
And it's rather patchwork of them. Droid from Star Wars, Majel from Star Trek. I'm surprised they don't have something called a "basestar". Maybe they could rename their cloud, or make some sort of wireless hub unit or something.
How exactly?
"It was Apple's idea!"
Now, show me one actual person on this entire planet that has ever said that this was Apple's idea.
You're reacting to people that only exist in your mind.
The very name takes the wind out of the fan boys that will want to proclaim 'apple invented this, it was their idea'. Clever
No one thinks Apple invented the idea of a talking computer, or talking to a computer, except for these imaginary fanboys you're talking about. Apple usually aren't first to begin implementation of an idea, but they usually are first to implement it in a way compelling to most people.
And, as is often the case with these sorts of things, Apple has been working on this far longer than most geeks like yourself even realize. The very first Macintosh could speak, and voice recognition has been built into the Mac for at least a couple of decades now. The difference here is that Siri actually provides a full solution. You could talk to a Mac, but there really wasn't much to say, and it could talk back, but there really wasn't much for it to say to you. Siri begins to fill in these missing pieces.
Do you have an example of something Siri does that is not precise? And on some other "precise" system, wouldn't it just error?
I do find it amusing that you'd compare being more human with "like talking to an Alzheimer's patient". Just on its own it's pretty funny (and, I wonder, if there's some insight to it, like those afflicted with Asperger's feel somewhat like they are surrounded by those with Alzheimer's, and I'm not being snarky here, it's interesting to ponder), and in the context of you preferring a system which actually *is* more like an Alzheimer's patient (one lacking in memory, context, flexibility in interaction, etc.) as opposed to one which knows you, what you are talking about, etc.
Many of the insider remarks on this project are talking about how it's intended to be like the Star Trek computer, even addressing it as "computer." Often times, I think Google is way too engineering-driven and quite simply doesn't get humans.
I don't need a hammer that gets me. I need one I can accurately use. Natural language is very imprecise, a set list of commands makes things more precise.
It only makes the user have to be more precise, and it makes the tool less accurate (accuracy and precision are different things--funny, for someone trying to make the claim that he wants more precision in his tools). You say you don't want a hammer that gets you, but that's *exactly* what you do want. A hammer that fits in your hand. A hammer designed for a human hand used in a natural way, allowing for a range of variability among different people.
What you don't want is a hammer that requires you to learn a specific and unnatural way of using it. What good is a hammer if you forget the exact finger orientation for hitting a nail into plywood if you haven't done that for a long time (ask it to reply to a text) when you normally hit nails into 2x4s (asking for driving directions).
What kind of nonsense is it to think a voice recognition system should require a specific syntax? "I don't want it to know that 'show me driving directions to X' is the same request as 'take me to X', 'how do I get to X from here', 'what's the way to X', and instead require me to learn the one, and only one, magical phrase to get the results I want."
Really? Really?
From what I've heard about Siri, it trades accuracy for sophistication of ability and it isn't a good trade off.
All voice recognition systems get around 90%, Siri and Google included. You're only remembering "what you heard" that fits "what your biases confirm". One thing that is very accurate about Siri is when it comes to things on your phone. It will get words that I wouldn't expect any speech recognition system to get (like Dragon), because it gets context. So, for example, if you are talking about music, it will know you said something otherwise non-sequitur, like "Asteroids Galaxy Tour" or "Rush Fly By Night".
I don't know how well Android or MS does with this. From what I've seen on the web, not good at all, but I'm not going to put forth hearsay anecdotes as fact without significant corroboration, even if it does fit what I already believe to be true.
Google has less real world usage?
Matching a search with useful information is kind of what google does best. For voice recognition, they've been doing voice-search on Android for a long time, plus their now defunct goog-411 and that's a lot of voice recognition experience.
Siri/Majel is really just a UI layer on top of those two things.
Siri is much more than voice recognition and search. And it wouldn't be surprising in the least if Apple has already had more Siri voice data than Google by now. People actually use Siri on a daily basis.
Google may be behind in the integration, but they're probably way ahead in those two things.
Might be ahead on one, and the other, search, is something Apple doesn't even do. For that, they use... Google (and others). But interestingly, general web search is the least interesting thing Siri does.
Isn't competition what drives innovation? Where's the innovation if everyone just does what everyone else is doing?
Who's going to be able to innovate if they're being forced to waste their time looking for ways to work around stupid patents instead?
Apple went through the trouble coming up with it in the first place. What's so wrong with expecting others to do the same? Are Apple somehow more capable than the rest of the industry combined or something? That doesn't seem likely.
This should also be want Slashdot wants.
I like diversity in Slashdot opinions. If all Slashdot readers were Apple fanboys like you, it would be boring around here.
Yeah, I must be a fanboy because my opinion is different than yours...
Isn't competition what drives innovation? Where's the innovation if everyone just does what everyone else is doing?
It's ironic that you chose the word "competition" to describe forcing people out of a space via an effective monopoly.
Not sure what you mean here. Where is Apple trying to force anyone out of a market?
It looks like Apple's victory is relatively minor. They lost claims on all patents except for one, and HTC/Google can work on implementing similar functionality in a non-infringing way.
It seems like this is exactly what Apple wants, other companies coming up with their own solutions. This should also be want Slashdot wants. Isn't competition what drives innovation? Where's the innovation if everyone just does what everyone else is doing?
You may consider this to be a niche market, but anyone who has to travel and walk around a lot while carrying their computer will appreciate the netbooks for their weight.
Yes, that's a niche market, and one that the big PC makers are running away from in droves. They are now trying to court it with the "ultrabook", which demonstrates that people don't want a shit notebook. They'll put up with it if they have to, which is why they were so popular two years ago.
Your post would be interesting if someone had claimed that stores don't carry netbooks, or some such nonsense. But no one did. Stores also carry lots of shit no one buys. Just look at the various Android tablets at your local Best Buy.
The inescapable fact is that the netbook, which was the nerd darling of 2009 and 2010, was eclipsed by the iPad. There are still people who will buy netbooks, but the role all the nerds thought it was going to fill is far better filled by the iPad.
Given that you can't even spell iPad, I think your irrational bias speaks for itself.
iPad killed the netbook market.
I doubt it.
Otherwise we wouldn't be seeing Acer continue with their Aspire One line either. They'd be just focusing on their Iconia tablet line.
The iPad completely killed the mass netbook market. Now it's little more than a niche. Acer is a discount computer maker, so they'll continue to make discount computers, but people won't be buying netbooks anywhere near the level they once were. And this is all thanks to the iPad.
As for the Iconia, you're missing a key point. The *iPad* killed the netbook, not the tablet. Nobody wants Iconia tablets, they want iPads, and maybe Fires (it'll be very interesting to see how the Fire plays out over the next year).
On the OtherOS front, we have over a year of Sony saying, "OtherOS is here to stay" and "we will not remove functionality"
[citation needed]
On the flip side is knowingly installing rootkits on folks computers, lying about, then saying it's people's own faults because, "Most people don't even know what a rootkit is!"
A third-party tool that was horrible, to be sure, but again, where's your citation that they blamed the users and ever said what you put in quotes? Seems to me you're the one lying here...
So, your best examples are unsupported claims, lies, and complaining about something that happened almost a decade ago? Honestly, you don't really make much of a compelling case against Sony, and I don't really like the company itself all that much, so you wouldn't have to try very hard to convince me. Just some actual facts and something fairly recent. From what I've seen more recently, they got hacked and took a long time to get it resolved, but they did get it resolved, and gave everyone some games and other things for their trouble.
That's not going to win them any medals or anything, but it's definitely reasonable and hard to find a reason to complain about.
What's the advantage of running homebrew on a PSVita over running homebrew on an Android device such as an Xperia Play or a Galaxy Player (called Galaxy S Wi-Fi in some markets)?
Does there have to be some particular advantage? Why not just because they want to?
Apple is suing in order to stifle competition.
Then where are all the other lawsuits? Why are they only saying the Tab is a copy, and not any of the other tablets, all of which have their own styles, and therefore aren't copies?
Sure Samsung's design may be similar (It's actually slightly bigger and lighter than the ipad), but that is just the excuse Apple needed in order to try and get those injunctions.
"slightly bigger and lighter", yeah, that's *soooo* different! They aren't saying they copied the dimensions or the weight down to the minutiae, but the distinctive look they have for the iPad (and iPhone).
This isn't an "excuse" to sue. They have been very up front and open about their intentions. They aren't trying to stop anyone from making tablets, just from making tablets that are too similar to the ones Apple makes.
And we all know now they are being over turned.
What has been overturned? I think one ruling in eastern europe has. Australia's injunction has expired, and in the US, the court decided that the Galaxy Tab would not impact Apple's sales. Those examples really don't support your assertions.
it's about a unique collection of attributes that is immediately recognizable as an iPad.
Which is to say, a combination of a black rectangle with round corners?
Nope, it's not to say that at all. There are dozens of tablets that have those combinations, and they are all clearly distinguishable from an iPad and a Galaxy Tab without having to take a second look.
It's absurd to claim Apple copied Samsung. Do you think, when they were working on the iPhone, they saw that picture frame and thought, "we need to make our phone look like that, it's so popular, it will spill over and people will buy our phones!"?
As for aspect ratio, that's not all that important, it's just tweaking dimensions a bit. Did you know the iPad and iPad 2 have different aspect ratios? The thing is that the Galaxy Tab looks almost exactly like an iPad. Look at the picture from Samsung's ad in Australia. It looks exactly like an iPad. The only noticeable difference is the contents of the screen, not the decoration around it.
In that regard, flat, rectangular, and rounded corners are all functional, which is why Apple was denied the injunction they sought against Samsung in the U.S.
And "flat, rectangular, and rounded corners" is not the scope of the Apple patent. There are literally dozens of "flat, rectangular, and rounded cornered" tablets on the market. The Galaxy Tab looks pretty much exactly like an iPad. Even Samsung's lawyers couldn't tell them apart at a reasonable distance.
And by the way, the appearance of the iPad from the front is a near-clone of a Samsung digital picture frame released in 2006. Be careful who you accuse of copying whom.
It's pretty absurd to claim Apple was copying Samsung.
It's interesting, to be sure, but it's not a tablet, wasn't covered by patents, and quite notably, it's extremely clear that Apple was not trying to get people to think they were buying a Samsung picture frame, the same cannot be said about the Tab compared with the iPad.
Also of significant note, that picture frame lacks some key aspects of Apple's patent, including having a large "SAMSUNG" on the bezel.
And that display from 2001 would not infringe on the iPad.
Or put differently, even Samsung's lawyers wouldn't have had any trouble pointing out the 2001 device from an iPad or a Galaxy Tab.
Nope. Samsung used somebody's else's operating system (Android) and put it in a form factor which:
a) Had been done before Apple did it
b) Is pretty obvious - the only real variation possible is the roundness of the corners, everything else follows function (it's a screen!)
It's not the form factor that Apple is suing over, it's the industrial design of a specific implementation of that form factor. Apple has not sued, threatened to sue, or otherwise made any sort of huff about the dozens of other tablets that have been around both before and after the iPad, just those that bear a striking resemblance to the iPad.
The Galaxy Tab is a near clone. Apple is right to sue over it if they hold their own design to be distinctive (which it is). This isn't about a rectangle, rounded corners, or black borders, it's about a unique collection of attributes that is immediately recognizable as an iPad.
Except the metric that shows that Android runs on more phones than iOS. If people hated it, that wouldn't be the case.
That metric doesn't measure what they like, prefer, or are satisfied with. It measures what they bought, and in the cell phone market, there are significant extrinsic factors that play into handset choices.
I'm referring to things like satisfaction surveys, return rates, future purchase surveys, etc., which all directly measure those things.
And I never said people hate Android, just that they tend to like iOS more.
You really are dumber than a sack of bricks...
The charger you linked to was some home-brew hacked up piece of shit. Just for testing sake, I plugged my iPhone into my Jawbone USB charger, and it works just fine. I've never plugged my iPhone into any charger where it complained. And I've used plenty. It works on PCs. Do you think Dell pays Apple to make their USB ports work?
And I said it's not a money-scheme, not that it doesn't generate revenue. They aren't charging specifically for the money, but as a means of acting as a mechanism to weed out amateur hour cheap chinese crap, and to cover the costs of the program. Apple reports their financials, and the Made for iPod program is irrelevant to their bottom line in terms of revenue.
What it does do, however, is makes the whole iPod/iPhone/iPad ecosystem work fantastically well.
Like I said, you're a troll.
Just to provide counterpoint, my opinion is precisely the opposite of yours.
That's not how it works. It's fine that you are sharing your opinion, and I'm definitely not going to say it's wrong, but opinions aren't supposed to balance each other out.
If you look at market numbers, every metric that deals with what people like, prefer, or are satisfied with, iOS beats Android handily. And just to be clear, that in no way invalidates your opinion, plenty of people prefer Android. It's no slouch.
But if we're going to get into an opinion pissing match, Android is not the winner. Fortunately, opinion pissing matches really don't mean anything. Other than a waste of time, unfortunately.
You didn't even think to post this load of crap AC? Man I hope you never get any karma, because you have exactly no idea what you're talking about but sure love talking about it.
It's funny you should mention that if someone is going to post a bunch of shit, they should do so as an AC, AC...
Anyway, all he did was gave his opinion. Why so offended?