Maybe, but then you can get much better phones than the old iPhone 3GS for free on contract. Also you forget the pre-paid market. A cheap no-contract Android make sense pre-paid. The iPhone 3GS is sold for $375 out of contract in Canada. That's more expensive than the $250 Galaxy W or even the $350 the Nexus S.
As I said in a previous discussion, Android reduces fragmentation.
The main fragmentation that interest developers is the one between platforms, not within a platform. If Apple and RIM both switched to Android, it would be much easier to develop for mobile devices. They add a lot of fragmentation by continuing to push their proprietary platform. Google actually removes fragmentation by giving away for free an OS that anyone can use. There would be much more fragmentation in the mobile world if HTC, Motorola, Sony, Samsung and LG all pushed their own OS like Apple and RIM are doing.
By proprietary platform, in this case, I meant single-vendor platform. WP7 is proprietary too but everyone can buy it. There would be a lot less fragmentation if everyone switched to WP7. This has nothing to do with the APIs or the quality of the documentation. You can have very little fragmentation but still have very poor APIs for developers.
Of course I didn't really suggest that Apple should switch to Android. I was just showing how that whole Android fragmentation debate make no sense if you use or support an OS that can only be used by a single vendor. HTC can't switch to iOS. Apple, however, could reduce fragmentation by switching to Android (even if iOS was released before Android).
Competition is good. You don't have competition without some fragmentation.
The main fragmentation that interest developers is the one between platforms, not within a platform. If Apple and RIM both switched to Android, it would be much easier to develop for mobile devices. They add a lot of fragmentation by continuing to push their proprietary platform. Google actually removes fragmentation by giving away for free an OS that anyone can use. There would be much more fragmentation in the mobile world if HTC, Motorola, Sony, Samsung and LG all pushed their own OS like Apple and RIM are doing.
But you don't need to "jailbreak" an Android device to install out of market apps, which is 99% of what "jailbreakers" want to do with their phone. On Android, it's just a check box, and it's free.
Many Android phones, such as those from Samsung, are also "rootable" (the other 1% of the jailbreak) without any hacks.
You can have a walled garden in Android too, if you choose too. Just don't check the option to allow the installation of APKs from the outside of the Android market. It is also off by default.
SD card is formatted using FAT32, which isn't great. That can be changed of course but then the user will lose everything on it. Also, some users would be stupid enough to remove their SD card and to then complain that the phone isn't booting any more.
With or without the keyboard, it is currently ahead of the curve. Other tablets are almost one year old, so unless you can get them for very cheap they are not worth it.
You might not remember, but there were touch screen only phones before the iPhone just like there were MP3 players before the iPod.
Also I have never met someone who said being locked into iTunes was a good thing. Some people don't care. Some people like iTunes and would use it even if they were not forced to. But someone who think it's a good thing to be locked? Really?
I'm pretty sure the iPhone was the first smart phone that was exclusively touch screen.
No, it wasn't.
It also had other new features that other phones didn't have, like iTunes,
You are right. The iPhone is the first phone to be locked into iTunes. Other phones/mp3 players can use any PC media software, including but not limited to, iTunes.
the requirement that any carrier that offered the iPhone must offer unlimited data
Facetime is a proprietary standard. iMessage is too. The iPhone visual voicemail. The iPod dock connector. Airplay. Should I really go on? No company pushes proprietary stuff as much as Apple. Other times they uses non-proprietary standards that aren't used by anybody else. Think about mini-DVI and mini display port, micro SIM cards.
This time it is to be taken literally too. Warm water of a data center won't change the temperature of the ocean at all. But any way, what is the other option? The heat has to go somewhere. Warming the air (that will then warm the ocean)?
As long as you go deep enough and that the water is circulating in that fjord, there is no negative environmental impact.
For most ISPs, peak time is in the evening. They would actually save money if they raised everyone's speed to the max during the rest of the day, since large torrent downloads would have the time to finish.
And those who don't still can use SSL under IMAP and SMTP to acheive the same level of security. However between servers, emails are still sent in clear text.
The only thing worse than a world dominated by Android would be a world dominated by iOS. A single vendor controlling all the market from hardware to software, and making 30% of all mobile apps sold in the world, without any way to avoid that fee (jailbreak doesn't count). Every thing would be vendor-locked to death.
The states are bound by the US constitution, therefore are not sovereign (they can't change the constitution on their own). The USA, as a whole, is sovereign since there is no law above it.
The UK is a single country by the most internationally accepted definition. It just happens to divides itself into what it confusingly calls "countries", although almost no one outside the UK will consider Northern Ireland as a country.
To add to the confusion, the UK refer to overseas territories such as Bermuda as not being part of the UK, even if they really are according to international law.
So there are basically two different definitions of "UK" and "country" used here. By mixing them both we can say that the UK is a country which includes the UK (4 different countries) and many oversea territories.
Slashdot Mirror
Maybe, but then you can get much better phones than the old iPhone 3GS for free on contract.
Also you forget the pre-paid market. A cheap no-contract Android make sense pre-paid. The iPhone 3GS is sold for $375 out of contract in Canada. That's more expensive than the $250 Galaxy W or even the $350 the Nexus S.
As I said in a previous discussion, Android reduces fragmentation.
The main fragmentation that interest developers is the one between platforms, not within a platform. If Apple and RIM both switched to Android, it would be much easier to develop for mobile devices. They add a lot of fragmentation by continuing to push their proprietary platform. Google actually removes fragmentation by giving away for free an OS that anyone can use. There would be much more fragmentation in the mobile world if HTC, Motorola, Sony, Samsung and LG all pushed their own OS like Apple and RIM are doing.
I never had a virus nor ever met anyone who had a virus on its mobile phone.
These companies are just trying to profit from uneducated users.
Intel means Intel.
IA-32 isn't really used. We call this x86.
By proprietary platform, in this case, I meant single-vendor platform. WP7 is proprietary too but everyone can buy it. There would be a lot less fragmentation if everyone switched to WP7. This has nothing to do with the APIs or the quality of the documentation. You can have very little fragmentation but still have very poor APIs for developers.
Of course I didn't really suggest that Apple should switch to Android. I was just showing how that whole Android fragmentation debate make no sense if you use or support an OS that can only be used by a single vendor. HTC can't switch to iOS. Apple, however, could reduce fragmentation by switching to Android (even if iOS was released before Android).
Competition is good. You don't have competition without some fragmentation.
The main fragmentation that interest developers is the one between platforms, not within a platform. If Apple and RIM both switched to Android, it would be much easier to develop for mobile devices. They add a lot of fragmentation by continuing to push their proprietary platform. Google actually removes fragmentation by giving away for free an OS that anyone can use. There would be much more fragmentation in the mobile world if HTC, Motorola, Sony, Samsung and LG all pushed their own OS like Apple and RIM are doing.
But you don't need to "jailbreak" an Android device to install out of market apps, which is 99% of what "jailbreakers" want to do with their phone.
On Android, it's just a check box, and it's free.
Many Android phones, such as those from Samsung, are also "rootable" (the other 1% of the jailbreak) without any hacks.
You can have a walled garden in Android too, if you choose too. Just don't check the option to allow the installation of APKs from the outside of the Android market. It is also off by default.
SD card is formatted using FAT32, which isn't great. That can be changed of course but then the user will lose everything on it. Also, some users would be stupid enough to remove their SD card and to then complain that the phone isn't booting any more.
They listened to the stupid people who thinks that plastic devices suck because they do not "look" expensive or "feel" durable.
With or without the keyboard, it is currently ahead of the curve.
Other tablets are almost one year old, so unless you can get them for very cheap they are not worth it.
Storage space, mainly. The Nexus One only have 512MB. Installing on SD card wouldn't be convenient.
You might not remember, but there were touch screen only phones before the iPhone just like there were MP3 players before the iPod.
Also I have never met someone who said being locked into iTunes was a good thing. Some people don't care. Some people like iTunes and would use it even if they were not forced to. But someone who think it's a good thing to be locked? Really?
I'm pretty sure the iPhone was the first smart phone that was exclusively touch screen.
No, it wasn't.
It also had other new features that other phones didn't have, like iTunes,
You are right. The iPhone is the first phone to be locked into iTunes. Other phones/mp3 players can use any PC media software, including but not limited to, iTunes.
the requirement that any carrier that offered the iPhone must offer unlimited data
No unlimited data in Canada with iPhone carriers.
Facetime is a proprietary standard. iMessage is too. The iPhone visual voicemail. The iPod dock connector. Airplay. Should I really go on? No company pushes proprietary stuff as much as Apple.
Other times they uses non-proprietary standards that aren't used by anybody else. Think about mini-DVI and mini display port, micro SIM cards.
Ever heard the expression "drop in the ocean"?
This time it is to be taken literally too. Warm water of a data center won't change the temperature of the ocean at all.
But any way, what is the other option? The heat has to go somewhere. Warming the air (that will then warm the ocean)?
As long as you go deep enough and that the water is circulating in that fjord, there is no negative environmental impact.
For most ISPs, peak time is in the evening. They would actually save money if they raised everyone's speed to the max during the rest of the day, since large torrent downloads would have the time to finish.
And those who don't still can use SSL under IMAP and SMTP to acheive the same level of security.
However between servers, emails are still sent in clear text.
The latency is too high in UMTS. VoIP isn't reliable enough, yet.
The only thing worse than a world dominated by Android would be a world dominated by iOS. A single vendor controlling all the market from hardware to software, and making 30% of all mobile apps sold in the world, without any way to avoid that fee (jailbreak doesn't count). Every thing would be vendor-locked to death.
No thanks.
They already started, and it didn't change much.
Even if Google mandated Verizon to update their Android phones, they couldn't do it unless the manufacturer sent them the code.
The states are bound by the US constitution, therefore are not sovereign (they can't change the constitution on their own). The USA, as a whole, is sovereign since there is no law above it.
The UK is a single country by the most internationally accepted definition. It just happens to divides itself into what it confusingly calls "countries", although almost no one outside the UK will consider Northern Ireland as a country.
To add to the confusion, the UK refer to overseas territories such as Bermuda as not being part of the UK, even if they really are according to international law.
So there are basically two different definitions of "UK" and "country" used here. By mixing them both we can say that the UK is a country which includes the UK (4 different countries) and many oversea territories.