Hairy, it's because of idiots like you that think all corporations are the same that the US is in such a pitiful state.
Here let me help you: ALL CORPORATIONS ARE NOT THE SAME!
Some corporations try to maintain a good image in the public and align their interests to the majority of their users' interests so that when they make money, the users also benefit. Other corporations like Microsoft cannot do that. When Microsoft makes a lot of money, their users inevitably get screwed over. Get that into your think skull!
Stop trying to repeat the same old shit that Google is only in it to make money. No fucking shit. Every corporation is the same but that is not the fucking point.
I apologize for all the invective to others but this is the only way I can get a point across to someone like hairy.
It was further alleged that this restricted the market for competing web browsers (such as Netscape Navigator or Opera) that were slow to download over a modem or had to be purchased at a store.
Why hello there bonch or overly critical guy or whatever you are calling yourself these days
Their share in that space is even larger than Microsoft's in the desktop computer space.
No it's not. This is a bald-faced lie which makes the rest of your argument irrelevant.
You don't need to keep replying to inactive discussions. We both know you won't change my mind and I won't change yours. May as well just go back to the natural order of things where you anonymously reply to my first posts using your puppet accounts and accuse me of being a random succession of people. You strengthen my posts and draw more moderation points like a sponge.
Unlike you I don't care about moderation points because I don't have an agenda to drive. I just want to make the record clear for posterity what an idiot you - bonch - are and how your employer is paying to bash Google and promote Apple.
You're 100% wrong. Google's advertising market share is nowhere close to Microsoft's desktop OS market share. They're not a monopoly.
If their market share gets high enough, being a monopoly is not bad in and of itself. Abusing the monopoly is (which Microsoft did) but Google doesn't make it hard to switch advertisers. So you're full of it as usual.
No they didn't. I can't decide if you're ignorant, stupid or paid to do this.
Microsoft got into trouble because they made it almost impossible to use the alternatives. They're still trying to do this with Bing.
Do we need more confirmation you are a Microsoft shill? Microsoft did not receive a cent from any of the Android manufacturers (prove me wrong by providing a link to an article that is not speculating about the amount exchanged.) No terms have been made public. Microsoft is paying everyone to actually generate such positive press.
The device manufacturers probably laughed in their face when Microsoft went to them pan in hand.
Serious give it a rest. You are clearly and idiot and a Microsoft shill (but I repeat myself).
Idiots like you are making slashdot unreadable these days first by not letting all articles get to the front page using your alternate accounts and the by your top posting with your anti-Google and pro-Microsoft agenda. It's getting fucking annoying.
This idiot is the same guy that also owns all the other shill accounts like cmdrpony, insignin140bytes and interestingfella. The other accounts got karma bombed to oblivion so I guess they are no longer posting in tech articles so they can regain their karma and start shilling again.
I did not imply that planned obsolescence follows from closed source. If *you* find my previous statements ambiguous then by all means clarify by asking me what I meant.
I've repeatedly clarified what I meant yet you still attack the wrong interpretation which makes your final sentence a little ironic.
Slashdot is full of idiots that can't read apparently.
Can you point to the place where I said Apple's planned obsolescence follows logically from their closed source model? Oh what's that? I did not say that? You don't say...
How about you go back and read my post a little more carefully before trying to refute my arguments? I said Android's open source model leads logically to a lack of planned obsolescence whereas you can't be sure of that with Apple's closed source model. That's it. I didn't claim anything else followed anything else logically.
For all your crying about M$/Appl shills (you're not the only one looking at people's post histories), you're making yourself look like an Android/Google shill with each and every post here.
You know that would make a lot of sense only if all these idiots (not that you are one) don't willfully misinterpret my posts and then post arguments refuting that misinterpreted statements. If from my post history you deduced that I like open source software, you're probably smart. But your accusations make me wonder about your motives as well.
btw you should probably lookup false dichotomy when you get a chance.
Are you equating fairies to the very real possibility of planned obsolescence from Apple?
Also I tend to use common sense a lot. So if the source code is available (for Android specifically and Linux in general), I review some parts of it and I trust the community to review other parts. I also use this concept called Logic - you should try it out sometime because here is an example of something amazing that it could do - prove that I don't have to worry about Android source. Are you ready? Here we go: Logically if there is malicious code in Android, since it is open source there's a real and finite possibility that it will be found by some one at which point there will be a tremendous backlash for Google resulting in them losing a lot. So (again logically speaking) Google would probably not add any malicious code.
Aside from providing an upgrade path, is Apple also suppose to hold back features that highlight their new models in an effort to prevent performance issues in older models
Not at all. I was just responding to the OPs point that Apple's latest OS versions runs fine on two and a half year old hardware as opposed to Android. He is wrong because it doesn't.
How do I know that Apple isn't intentionally making ios 4 run slowly on the 3GS so they'll make people upgrade? With Android I would know for sure - because the source code is available.
A friend of mine took his 3GS to the apple store because the power button was acting up - it works only when pressed in a certain angle. The apple store people refused to fix it and asked him to upgrade to iPhone 4.
What does Google have to do with this
I hate to break this to you but the last time I checked Google develops Android.
I don't care about seeing Google bashed for legitimate reasons. In fact I would like to see that happen. But you're spreading misinformation here and I would like to see that stopped.
Apple is the worst offender in the planned obsolescence scam. They are known to deprecate perfectly working hardware/software so they can sell their new shiny toys. Android is so much better because Cyanogen mod is always there.
ios 5 is horrible on the 3gs from what I have heard (http://www.gottabemobile.com/2011/12/12/ios-5-on-iphone-3gs-things-have-been-getting-worse/).
It's funny how your comments read exactly like those from bonch - another low paid marketing drone who likes to lurk slashdot waiting to get first posts so he can bash Google. If I didn't know better I would think you two are the same person posting with different accounts.
Yes I did consider that. Did you read the post history of the person I was replying to? His posts are 90% lies. I doubt if a true Microsoft fan would do that. This person sounds like he's doing it for money.
"When an account is suspended for violating the Google+ common name standards, access to Gmail or other products that don't require a Google+ profile are not removed," he said.
Can you source any of the "many reports" you said that indicate otherwise?
DMCA is designed to make it easy for content owners and make it difficult for YouTube to have oversight.
Do you know how many people Google has to hire to police the insane false requests of content owners? Exactly. It's not feasible.
Idiots like you blaming the wrong people are not helping. If you are really concerned, go talk to your representative and change the law.
I've said it before and I'll say it again - You are a stupid fucking idiot and a Microsoft shill. I'm surprised you still have enough karma in your sockpuppet accounts to upmod your comments.
You are directly contradicting your top comment.
I'm surprised that Microsoft would employ such an idiot as you for their marketing purposes. It's a new low for Microsoft. Oh well...
Slashdot Mirror
Give me a fucking break!
Here let me help you: ALL CORPORATIONS ARE NOT THE SAME!
Some corporations try to maintain a good image in the public and align their interests to the majority of their users' interests so that when they make money, the users also benefit. Other corporations like Microsoft cannot do that. When Microsoft makes a lot of money, their users inevitably get screwed over. Get that into your think skull!
Stop trying to repeat the same old shit that Google is only in it to make money. No fucking shit. Every corporation is the same but that is not the fucking point.
I apologize for all the invective to others but this is the only way I can get a point across to someone like hairy.
It was further alleged that this restricted the market for competing web browsers (such as Netscape Navigator or Opera) that were slow to download over a modem or had to be purchased at a store.
Source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_v._Microsoft
Why are you describing yourself in the third person?
Sigh...hi, again NicknameOne.
Why hello there bonch or overly critical guy or whatever you are calling yourself these days
Their share in that space is even larger than Microsoft's in the desktop computer space.
No it's not. This is a bald-faced lie which makes the rest of your argument irrelevant.
You don't need to keep replying to inactive discussions. We both know you won't change my mind and I won't change yours. May as well just go back to the natural order of things where you anonymously reply to my first posts using your puppet accounts and accuse me of being a random succession of people. You strengthen my posts and draw more moderation points like a sponge.
Unlike you I don't care about moderation points because I don't have an agenda to drive. I just want to make the record clear for posterity what an idiot you - bonch - are and how your employer is paying to bash Google and promote Apple.
If their market share gets high enough, being a monopoly is not bad in and of itself. Abusing the monopoly is (which Microsoft did) but Google doesn't make it hard to switch advertisers. So you're full of it as usual.
Why don't you ask the same question to SharkLaser?
No they didn't. I can't decide if you're ignorant, stupid or paid to do this. Microsoft got into trouble because they made it almost impossible to use the alternatives. They're still trying to do this with Bing.
Then the name would be more fitting.
Do we need more confirmation you are a Microsoft shill? Microsoft did not receive a cent from any of the Android manufacturers (prove me wrong by providing a link to an article that is not speculating about the amount exchanged.) No terms have been made public. Microsoft is paying everyone to actually generate such positive press.
The device manufacturers probably laughed in their face when Microsoft went to them pan in hand.
Serious give it a rest. You are clearly and idiot and a Microsoft shill (but I repeat myself).
Idiots like you are making slashdot unreadable these days first by not letting all articles get to the front page using your alternate accounts and the by your top posting with your anti-Google and pro-Microsoft agenda. It's getting fucking annoying.
This idiot is the same guy that also owns all the other shill accounts like cmdrpony, insignin140bytes and interestingfella. The other accounts got karma bombed to oblivion so I guess they are no longer posting in tech articles so they can regain their karma and start shilling again.
I did not imply that planned obsolescence follows from closed source. If *you* find my previous statements ambiguous then by all means clarify by asking me what I meant. I've repeatedly clarified what I meant yet you still attack the wrong interpretation which makes your final sentence a little ironic. Slashdot is full of idiots that can't read apparently.
Overly Critical Guy supporting bonch again
I'm shocked!
Can you point to the place where I said Apple's planned obsolescence follows logically from their closed source model? Oh what's that? I did not say that? You don't say...
How about you go back and read my post a little more carefully before trying to refute my arguments? I said Android's open source model leads logically to a lack of planned obsolescence whereas you can't be sure of that with Apple's closed source model. That's it. I didn't claim anything else followed anything else logically.
For all your crying about M$/Appl shills (you're not the only one looking at people's post histories), you're making yourself look like an Android/Google shill with each and every post here.
You know that would make a lot of sense only if all these idiots (not that you are one) don't willfully misinterpret my posts and then post arguments refuting that misinterpreted statements. If from my post history you deduced that I like open source software, you're probably smart. But your accusations make me wonder about your motives as well.
btw you should probably lookup false dichotomy when you get a chance.
I'm no expert, but is 'painting a picture' another one of those libel-dodging phrases like 'allegedly'?
I'm curious...what other word/phrase would you use in its place?
Are you equating fairies to the very real possibility of planned obsolescence from Apple?
Also I tend to use common sense a lot. So if the source code is available (for Android specifically and Linux in general), I review some parts of it and I trust the community to review other parts. I also use this concept called Logic - you should try it out sometime because here is an example of something amazing that it could do - prove that I don't have to worry about Android source. Are you ready? Here we go: Logically if there is malicious code in Android, since it is open source there's a real and finite possibility that it will be found by some one at which point there will be a tremendous backlash for Google resulting in them losing a lot. So (again logically speaking) Google would probably not add any malicious code.
No such guarantees from Apple unfortunately.
Aside from providing an upgrade path, is Apple also suppose to hold back features that highlight their new models in an effort to prevent performance issues in older models
Not at all. I was just responding to the OPs point that Apple's latest OS versions runs fine on two and a half year old hardware as opposed to Android. He is wrong because it doesn't.
What does Google have to do with this
I hate to break this to you but the last time I checked Google develops Android.
I don't care about seeing Google bashed for legitimate reasons. In fact I would like to see that happen. But you're spreading misinformation here and I would like to see that stopped.
Apple is the worst offender in the planned obsolescence scam. They are known to deprecate perfectly working hardware/software so they can sell their new shiny toys. Android is so much better because Cyanogen mod is always there.
ios 5 is horrible on the 3gs from what I have heard (http://www.gottabemobile.com/2011/12/12/ios-5-on-iphone-3gs-things-have-been-getting-worse/).
It's funny how your comments read exactly like those from bonch - another low paid marketing drone who likes to lurk slashdot waiting to get first posts so he can bash Google. If I didn't know better I would think you two are the same person posting with different accounts.
Yes I did consider that. Did you read the post history of the person I was replying to? His posts are 90% lies. I doubt if a true Microsoft fan would do that. This person sounds like he's doing it for money.
"When an account is suspended for violating the Google+ common name standards, access to Gmail or other products that don't require a Google+ profile are not removed," he said.
Can you source any of the "many reports" you said that indicate otherwise?
Didn't you have anything to say that bashes Google in this thread? I'm afraid you won't be getting your 99 cents this week. -- Your boss
DMCA is designed to make it easy for content owners and make it difficult for YouTube to have oversight. Do you know how many people Google has to hire to police the insane false requests of content owners? Exactly. It's not feasible. Idiots like you blaming the wrong people are not helping. If you are really concerned, go talk to your representative and change the law.
I've said it before and I'll say it again - You are a stupid fucking idiot and a Microsoft shill. I'm surprised you still have enough karma in your sockpuppet accounts to upmod your comments.
You are directly contradicting your top comment. I'm surprised that Microsoft would employ such an idiot as you for their marketing purposes. It's a new low for Microsoft. Oh well...