Read his post again, did he say that Android copied Apple anywhere?
Correct, as was the rest of what you wrote, but it seems my +5 posts all have been modbombed down to +1 in the span of a few hours, apparently because I posted technical facts about Android.
Now, I know Slashdot tends to be heavily pro-Android, but this is completely ridiculous. Some people are outright ignoring and censoring historical facts because they've picked a side in a tribalist war of smartphone operating systems.
I'm confused because you don't explain why "Stores Card Data In Plain Text" is a stupid headline. The statement you apparently cited as evidence restates that the data is stored in plain text and therefore may be vulnerable to social engineering attacks. Are you suggesting the headline is somehow contradictory to that? I mean, they both say that the data is stored in plain text, so what exactly is stupid about the headline?
That was one of many factors. Increasing Google Checkout penetration will help guarantee payment options for users, but it doesn't address the other concerns developers had, such as fragmentation and lack of software vetting in the store. Eric Schmidt's comments didn't specifically address payment options but were about general marketshare, with the belief that sheer maketshare would drive developers to Android (a very Microsoft-ian proposition). The problem is that Android is practically a bunch of operating system versions running on hardware of varying capabilities, and it only amplifies the other problems.
Nothing you wrote disputes anything I wrote, and in fact, you further support my points. Android was intended to compete with what was then the most popular smartphone, the Blackberry. Hardware-accelerated, touchscreen-driven interfaces weren't yet the norm, and everything was CPU-driven. Just check out what the Android simulator looked like. These are the technical foundations on which Android is based, in contrast to iOS which is driven entirely by GPU-accelerated layers.
All you did was restate what I wrote but more angrily and with a random accusation that I claimed Google copying Apple, which I didn't write and have in fact never written. You come off like one of those guys who doesn't want to see any criticism of Android, and if anyone even remotely says something negative, they must fit some stereotype you have in your head, and you accuse them of being that stereotype in an attempt to dismiss their points.
I don't care all that much about smartphone operating systems or which one "wins." I just use what I like and couldn't care less what you like.
The short reason is that Android was first conceived as a Blackberry competitor, with most input coming from a keyboard. High-priority interface responsiveness wasn't as much a concern in that environment. The Android simulator used to look like this. The iPhone came out and blew everyone away, made touchscreens all the rage, and Android changed to compete. The fact 2011 Android interface responsiveness is not competitive with the 2007 iPhone is something of an embarrassment, in my opinion, but the technical foundation was just not designed to deliver that kind of experience, while iOS was designed from the ground up to support it (every interface element is backed by a GPU-accelerated Core Animation layer).
It's interesting watching the moderation on your post. Slashdot is heavily pro-Android and pro-Google, but the fact is that even developers agree with the points you made, according to the study cited in the article. We all saw the result of constant fragmentation and configurability when it came to Linux on the desktop--it never arrived. Now, the same is happening with Android, and it's leading to what is practically a bunch of different Android operating systems all getting lumped together to trumpet a marketshare figure but not really compatible with each other. Developers are the ones most aware of this because they see the hardware and software at a low level.
As for the corporate sector, I actually think Microsoft may make headway there due to historical relations with the enterprise and a willingness to cater to them. But certainly Apple has a chance as well.
Do you really want to play the game of stupid stereotypes? Here goes. Android users are bitter neckbeards with Asperger's Syndrome who have nothing better to do but spend six hours configuring things and pretending they're freedom fighters leading a revolution, even as the world doesn't care.
There's one thing you forget...Sooner or later, the persistent man will finally eat your lunch. At this rate, I do not see Apple being more than a niche player. That's why you saw the lawsuits in earlier months from Apple.
Stay tuned.
I forgot to respond to this doozy. I don't know what the reasons are for your tribalist attachment to one smartphone operating system over another (surely an important thing to fret over in life), nor do I know why you're referring to me as if I represent Apple. You seem to have some kind of chip on your shoulder against a segment of the population, and frankly, you represent a type of annoying Android fan that has arisen in the last twelve months to become even more annoying than the stereotypical Apple fan.
As dramatic and dire as your prediction is, I can't help but point out that if the persistent man isn't making any money, it doesn't matter how long they stick around. Microsoft has proven this with countless floundering projects, from Bing to Windows Phone. Companies that make money last regardless of marketshare and even influence their industries, such as Nintendo.
You're seeing lawsuits from Apple because a large part of Samsung's business model relies on copying popular hardware and software designs to exploit customer confusion, as is obvious from a cursory glance between products, and low-quality products being confused with Apple products can end up damaging their brand in the long run. I'm not surprised at all that they'd file lawsuits--any reasonable company would.
I'll go ahead and let you "stay tuned," worrying about these things, while I just use what I like and get on with the business of living.
Where did you get this statement from, or are you just trolling? Did you forget those folks like me who treasure freedom to do as I please [with my gadget], not as some pundit at Apple thinks I should do?
Pretty sure I included you when I mentioned the hardcore techies. Folks like you are the only ones who "treasure freedom" and lash out angrily at Apple for daring to put constraints on your beloved software tweaking habits. You represent a minority of Android's demographic, with the rest coming from budget smartphone buyers.
Here we go again...Do products like Chrome or Gmail make Google any cash? Why do [uninformed] people like you always think Google must make cash from Android in a particular way like Apple does from its iOS?
Because that's how a business works?
Has Google ever put a number on how much it makes from its advertising?
Of course. Google shares those figures annually. Advertising is about 97% of their revenue, which is over $8 billion.
From Android, Google makes cash indirectly...through advertising and its doing quite well. In fact better than iOS.
No, Google makes relatively little money from Android, and that's according to Google. I have no where you're getting the idea that they're making more money than Apple is from iOS, because that contradicts every hard number available.
It's not flamebait. It's based on a study by Flurry Analytics showing that Android developer share has declined by more than one-third in the last year. Apparently, refuting the Eric Schmidt with hard numbers is now "flamebait" because happens to be negative news about Android.
You can state that not everyone developing apps depends on that revenue stream, but the fact that, according to Flurry Analytics, Android developer share has actually declined over the course of the year suggests most do.
It's not surprising why app developers are betting on iOS over Android. According to the Flurry Analytics study, they make four times as much money on iOS. Developers are also concerned about fragmentation, the lack of store curation, and lower penetration of Google Checkout among Android users compared to iOS users, who are always payment enabled through their iTunes accounts.
Android's target demographic is hardcore techies combined with budget buyers unconcerned with smartphone quality. It actually makes very little money for Google, while iOS is generating obscene profits for Apple. Slashdot still fetishes marketshare as if it's the only metric that matters, but Android is actually like a whole bunch of operating systems with different capabilities.
Slashdot's reaction to this will be interesting. On the one hand, it's a patent, and we know how much Slashdot hates patents, especially when a company tries to fast-track one in a clandestine manner. On the other hand, Johnny Cab.
Not only do you claim people are forcing you to read and watch things, but you act as if the fact you refuse to pay for something means you're owed it for free. What a strange position to take.
When you use terminology like "MAFIAA" or tell them to go fuck themselves, whatever point you were trying to make just sounds ridiculous. That said, I don't really get the mentality that you want to support artists, but in order to punish content cartels that artists willingly signed up with to distribute their work globally, you refuse to pay for the artists' work. That doesn't hurt the publishers; it just means the artist sells less records, which makes publishers less likely to take risks on edgier acts that don't guarantee a return on their investment. You only hurt the artists in that equation.
Watching the flamewar at Demonoid was actually pretty funny. Predictably, there were several people claiming they bought it but were torrenting it anyway to "save bandwidth." Regardless, Louis CK is an established artist with a devoted following, so it's not really like he wasn't going to make any money.
Slashdot Mirror
Again and again, Google proves that it's beholden to the big content publishers and does everything they ask. "Don't be evil," indeed.
The headline merely says the data is stored in plain text, which is true. There is no further implication made.
Believe me, you're left out.
Correct, as was the rest of what you wrote, but it seems my +5 posts all have been modbombed down to +1 in the span of a few hours, apparently because I posted technical facts about Android.
Now, I know Slashdot tends to be heavily pro-Android, but this is completely ridiculous. Some people are outright ignoring and censoring historical facts because they've picked a side in a tribalist war of smartphone operating systems.
What does my sig about Samsung have to do with claiming Google copied Apple?
I'm confused because you don't explain why "Stores Card Data In Plain Text" is a stupid headline. The statement you apparently cited as evidence restates that the data is stored in plain text and therefore may be vulnerable to social engineering attacks. Are you suggesting the headline is somehow contradictory to that? I mean, they both say that the data is stored in plain text, so what exactly is stupid about the headline?
Geez, way to spin it.
That was one of many factors. Increasing Google Checkout penetration will help guarantee payment options for users, but it doesn't address the other concerns developers had, such as fragmentation and lack of software vetting in the store. Eric Schmidt's comments didn't specifically address payment options but were about general marketshare, with the belief that sheer maketshare would drive developers to Android (a very Microsoft-ian proposition). The problem is that Android is practically a bunch of operating system versions running on hardware of varying capabilities, and it only amplifies the other problems.
Nothing you wrote disputes anything I wrote, and in fact, you further support my points. Android was intended to compete with what was then the most popular smartphone, the Blackberry. Hardware-accelerated, touchscreen-driven interfaces weren't yet the norm, and everything was CPU-driven. Just check out what the Android simulator looked like. These are the technical foundations on which Android is based, in contrast to iOS which is driven entirely by GPU-accelerated layers.
All you did was restate what I wrote but more angrily and with a random accusation that I claimed Google copying Apple, which I didn't write and have in fact never written. You come off like one of those guys who doesn't want to see any criticism of Android, and if anyone even remotely says something negative, they must fit some stereotype you have in your head, and you accuse them of being that stereotype in an attempt to dismiss their points.
I don't care all that much about smartphone operating systems or which one "wins." I just use what I like and couldn't care less what you like.
The short reason is that Android was first conceived as a Blackberry competitor, with most input coming from a keyboard. High-priority interface responsiveness wasn't as much a concern in that environment. The Android simulator used to look like this. The iPhone came out and blew everyone away, made touchscreens all the rage, and Android changed to compete. The fact 2011 Android interface responsiveness is not competitive with the 2007 iPhone is something of an embarrassment, in my opinion, but the technical foundation was just not designed to deliver that kind of experience, while iOS was designed from the ground up to support it (every interface element is backed by a GPU-accelerated Core Animation layer).
It's interesting watching the moderation on your post. Slashdot is heavily pro-Android and pro-Google, but the fact is that even developers agree with the points you made, according to the study cited in the article. We all saw the result of constant fragmentation and configurability when it came to Linux on the desktop--it never arrived. Now, the same is happening with Android, and it's leading to what is practically a bunch of different Android operating systems all getting lumped together to trumpet a marketshare figure but not really compatible with each other. Developers are the ones most aware of this because they see the hardware and software at a low level.
As for the corporate sector, I actually think Microsoft may make headway there due to historical relations with the enterprise and a willingness to cater to them. But certainly Apple has a chance as well.
Do you really want to play the game of stupid stereotypes? Here goes. Android users are bitter neckbeards with Asperger's Syndrome who have nothing better to do but spend six hours configuring things and pretending they're freedom fighters leading a revolution, even as the world doesn't care.
I forgot to respond to this doozy. I don't know what the reasons are for your tribalist attachment to one smartphone operating system over another (surely an important thing to fret over in life), nor do I know why you're referring to me as if I represent Apple. You seem to have some kind of chip on your shoulder against a segment of the population, and frankly, you represent a type of annoying Android fan that has arisen in the last twelve months to become even more annoying than the stereotypical Apple fan.
As dramatic and dire as your prediction is, I can't help but point out that if the persistent man isn't making any money, it doesn't matter how long they stick around. Microsoft has proven this with countless floundering projects, from Bing to Windows Phone. Companies that make money last regardless of marketshare and even influence their industries, such as Nintendo.
You're seeing lawsuits from Apple because a large part of Samsung's business model relies on copying popular hardware and software designs to exploit customer confusion, as is obvious from a cursory glance between products, and low-quality products being confused with Apple products can end up damaging their brand in the long run. I'm not surprised at all that they'd file lawsuits--any reasonable company would.
I'll go ahead and let you "stay tuned," worrying about these things, while I just use what I like and get on with the business of living.
Pretty sure I included you when I mentioned the hardcore techies. Folks like you are the only ones who "treasure freedom" and lash out angrily at Apple for daring to put constraints on your beloved software tweaking habits. You represent a minority of Android's demographic, with the rest coming from budget smartphone buyers.
Because that's how a business works?
Of course. Google shares those figures annually. Advertising is about 97% of their revenue, which is over $8 billion.
No, Google makes relatively little money from Android, and that's according to Google. I have no where you're getting the idea that they're making more money than Apple is from iOS, because that contradicts every hard number available.
It's not flamebait. It's based on a study by Flurry Analytics showing that Android developer share has declined by more than one-third in the last year. Apparently, refuting the Eric Schmidt with hard numbers is now "flamebait" because happens to be negative news about Android.
You can state that not everyone developing apps depends on that revenue stream, but the fact that, according to Flurry Analytics, Android developer share has actually declined over the course of the year suggests most do.
It's not surprising why app developers are betting on iOS over Android. According to the Flurry Analytics study, they make four times as much money on iOS. Developers are also concerned about fragmentation, the lack of store curation, and lower penetration of Google Checkout among Android users compared to iOS users, who are always payment enabled through their iTunes accounts.
Android's target demographic is hardcore techies combined with budget buyers unconcerned with smartphone quality. It actually makes very little money for Google, while iOS is generating obscene profits for Apple. Slashdot still fetishes marketshare as if it's the only metric that matters, but Android is actually like a whole bunch of operating systems with different capabilities.
A toaster at 2500 degrees would melt. Sorry, little anonymous coward.
Why, it's almost as if it's an invalid patent!
So the question becomes...are you paying your licensing fee whenever you make toast?
Slashdot's reaction to this will be interesting. On the one hand, it's a patent, and we know how much Slashdot hates patents, especially when a company tries to fast-track one in a clandestine manner. On the other hand, Johnny Cab.
Not only do you claim people are forcing you to read and watch things, but you act as if the fact you refuse to pay for something means you're owed it for free. What a strange position to take.
When you use terminology like "MAFIAA" or tell them to go fuck themselves, whatever point you were trying to make just sounds ridiculous. That said, I don't really get the mentality that you want to support artists, but in order to punish content cartels that artists willingly signed up with to distribute their work globally, you refuse to pay for the artists' work. That doesn't hurt the publishers; it just means the artist sells less records, which makes publishers less likely to take risks on edgier acts that don't guarantee a return on their investment. You only hurt the artists in that equation.
Watching the flamewar at Demonoid was actually pretty funny. Predictably, there were several people claiming they bought it but were torrenting it anyway to "save bandwidth." Regardless, Louis CK is an established artist with a devoted following, so it's not really like he wasn't going to make any money.
Great. If only it was 20 years ago and the Internet didn't exist.