Then why wouldn't you simply buy something from another company?
Seems odd to pay the premium for the Apple hardware/software combo if you don't care about the software.
That screams "I paid too much just to I could put Windows on it". But, maybe I'm missing something.
Because they liked the MBA?
It's a very attractive machine for a pretty decent price, and it will run whatever OS you choose. The thing you're "missing" is personal preference and that in the end, a minor price delta if you use the thing all the time will be quickly forgotten if you get something that really works for you.
A computer is not a toaster. It can't be. It's inherently programmable. That's what it's for. A computer is not an appliance, it's a toolbox.
That's not elitism. That's just the nature of the beast.
It doesn't have to be though, just because it can be.
There are many different types of cars that are good at different tasks, so why can't there be many different computers for the same sort of purpose?
Why not a computer that works like an appliance? If John Doe wants to talk to his kids on skype or surf the web why should he have to worry about more than simply pressing the "on" button?
Slashdot nerds seem to think that anyone who suggests such a thing must believe that *all* computers must be that way, though. That's obviously absurd, yet we hear the same arguments in thread after thread about it. "PCs are inherently complex, there's no way to change that".
If you think that summary *isn't* a blatant swing at Apple, written to make Charlie's completely non-Apple-related NFC hacking look like something to do with Apple and the app store, then I have a bridge to sell you.
If we're jumping to conclusions about what this means for Apple when two of the three sentences specifically mention Apple and his link to them and the "ban" from the App Store for violating his dev agreement. If Apple, the App Store and iOS have nothing to with this then why is 66% of the summary dedicated to it?
The salient point appears to be that he will show something related to NFC hacking at a conference using a "smartphone". Interesting how the particular model of smartphone or the OS it runs is not mentioned, yet the other 66% of the summary heavily mentions Apple. Mmm. Seems legit.
Either way, we know it's not an iPhone or iOS since the iPhone doesn't have any NFC hardware in it, unless he managed to get his hands on the rumoured iPhone 5 prototype that might have it included but no one knows yet.
There is no NFC hardware in the iPhone at present.
As to being "idiots", I'm not sure how you arrive at that conclusion. Charlie has a flair for the dramatic and a clear skill at finding holes, sure, but he also antagonises those who (presumably) he is trying to impress (assuming his aim is to be financially rewarded for his work, which I don't think it is).
There are better ways than very publicly violating the terms of your developer agreement and then expecting to get hired. If Apple *did* hire him after that, what does that say for the credibility of their developer agreements? Who would be the "blind idiot" then?
Sorry I didn't get to this sooner, I meant to reply a couple of days ago.
In my opinion, with the exception of a couple of big misses, most of Apple's revamped product line have been key products for them. In the wake of the redesigned iMac, the whole computing line changed to be much more like it and the sales began to soar. The titanium design for the Powerbook was good, but had issues, and the refining of it into the aluminium design really set the stage for Apple's laptops to take off.
The Mac Mini, again, was a fantastic product for them. It doesn't sell nearly as well as their laptops (nothing in the desktop arena does, even the iMac) but it put them in the right place for a whole new market of people looking for something simple and elegant to replace an old PC.
The Xserve was a big bust for them. It simply never sold in enough numbers to be taken seriously. So was the Xserve RAID. Even though it was cheaper than many other fibre channel-equipped storage setups, it simply did not attract the attention it needed. Those two flops, I think, convinced Apple more than anything that they're really good at consumer hardware and software and to leave the heavy lifting of the server market to other people, beyond a small token offering of "server biased" hardware like the Mac Mini Server for small businesses etc.
On the portable front, the iPod really set them up as the people to beat for music, and every single iPod with the exception of the tiny square one with the touchscreen have been enormous hits. The original iPod wasn't a revolutionary product in itself, but it did have something that nothing else at the time could match - the interface was easy and intuitive and the software integration was really smooth. You could give it to a pure technophobe and they would be up and running in no time, ripping CDs and making playlists and then being able to listen to them on the iPod. Other players had better sound (at the time - iPods got better), more capacity, bigger batteries, etc but the whole experience with an iPod was second to none and it was this ease of use that really made it shine. At the point where technology becomes effortless, you know you have a winning product. In the same way that most people can pick up a tin opener and use it without really thinking about it, that simplicity was brought to the while process of ripping your CDs to disk and then putting them on a portable player that was similarly easy to use itself. It wasn't the first to do that, but it was the easiest and most intuitive.
The iPad, and iOS itself is almost secondary to this. While they are key products now, the momentum was really set by the resurgence of Apple in the early iMac/iBook and iPod era. The story of the iPhone is one that I really consider to be a continuation of the iPod story - a product that was near-universally panned by those "in the know" at the top of tech (Palm's CEO, Microsoft's CEO, Blackberry, tech journalists etc) only to completely defy all expectations for a giant flop and instead sell like hot cakes because it did to smartphones what the iPod did to portable music players. You think they'd realise the third time around, but again - the same was said of the iPad and far from being a flop it reinvented the tablet market.
Really was hoping the new MBP had better specifications because I want to have a machine that can do development on OSX,Windows and Linux but I cannot justify the price and lower specifications.
In terms of GPU performance, yes.
It has a 650M driving (effectively) a gigantic display. There is a price to pay for that sort of setup. If Apple could put in a more powerful card more suited to drive something with that many pixels at higher frame rates then they would have, but in the march to make it thinner (so much so that they dropped the built in ethernet port because it was too tall) they had to limit the heat output and battery drain - that left them with the 650M and it's just about powerful enough but don't expect 40+ fps screen redraw at retina resolution on high-motion stuff.
It's really more of a technology showcase for the retina screen. If you want a machine for multi platform development in the same approximate size and weight range, then the normal 15" MBP is the one you want - more ports, more expandability, better GPU performance (albeit at non-retina sizes), and similar price. You still get a 650M, but it's only driving half the pixels and is much more in its comfort zone.
Put up a high res desktop with a webpage on the rMBP, record the framerate. Scroll the page quickly, record the framerate. Do the same at the equivalent "non-retina" resolution. Record the framerate.
This has been done, and the 650M is capable of driving all the pixels on the display, but it doesn't mean it's going to be able to do it really smoothly at high frame rates. Don't get me wrong, it looks great, but it does take a performance hit over the equivalent 650M-powered non-retina version of the MBP.
The fact that AMD Eyefinity and Nvidia Optimus can drive 5 displays "3 years ago" means absolutely nothing when you put a mobile GPU into a very thin case and clock it to avoid overheating. Sure, they may still be capable of driving three displays at that res, but with a performance penalty.
Ford's GT40 can do 160 mph "many years ago" so surely that means my Ford station wagon can also do 160?
The large amounts of energy it takes to keep my high vac lines at vacuum in the back of my fume cupboard suggest otherwise.
The volume of my Shlenck line is pretty small in comparison, and you can keep an isolated vessel under pretty high vac for a long time, even if you shut off the pump. As soon as you want to interact with it though (let's say, to put something in or take it out) you really need that pump on.
Maintaining a vacuum that you can move things to and from (from an environment at atmospheric pressure) is an energy intensive process.
If a thief breaks into your house with an armed security system that the criminal just presses the off button without entering in an unlock code, is the alarm company ALSO at fault for providing a false sense of security (and possible liability)?
Presumably, yes, but that's not what Safari does. It had an exploitable hole (like, an easy to bypass alarm system, for example), and Google exploited it. It's not the first piece of software with security holes, it won't be the last.
Actually, the GPU in the Retina MBP is not all that awesome - the huge pixel density is pushing the Nvidia 650M in the retina Macbook Pro to its limits, causing some performance issues compared to the equivalent desktop on the non-retina version. Examples include rapid scrolling on webpages and so on.
Actually yes, I use it all the time. I have Safari and Chrome as my two main browsers (used to be Safari and Firefox).
Yes, it ships on OS X and I know a fair few Mac users who don't use it (and they all seem to universally use Chrome instead), but Safari is actually not a terrible browser (on the Mac - I cannot speak to the Windows version), so people who use it tend to see no reason to change.
Yeah, in much the same way the dodgy Sony battery story was all Apple's fault, with tales of Macbook Pros as "potential time bombs" were so well handled in an objective and calm manner. Or the story about the "flaming" iPod, caused by a DIY repair puncturing the battery.
I think it was obvious from the start that the damage involved here was caused by something other than the phone.
Put your phone in a zip-lock bag and pour a load of rice in with it. Seal the bag and leave it for a couple of days. Alternatively, if you're a nerd like me, slip in four or five silica gel pouches you've hidden away.
I'd probably use calcium carbonate and then put it in a large schlenk vessel and put it under high vac in the back of my fumehood for a couple of days, but the principle is the same.
If your phone ever gets wet like that, find a friendly chemist:p
By "one of the biggest companies in tech" I presume you mean "the largest publicly-traded company in the world"
Yes, I did mean that, but I didn't want to put it, since I was sure some Apple hater would take umbrage with it, or derail the thread on a rant about how market cap and stock price don't mean anything because Apple is now at the top. My point still works without using the definite article.
I didn't think it needed pointing out since it's common sense, but rounded rectangular shapes are *one* part of the design brief. Well done for pointing that out.
There are many other phones with the same design features that are fine, as has been discussed on Slashdot before. It's the combination of design features that make up a product, so the presence of more than a few cause a "copying" product to infringe.
For the record: strongly disagree with this lawsuit.
There are limits to even your fanboi mental defect, eh?
It's one of the consequences of actually being a real person, not a caricature created by frothy Apple-hating slashdot users who have no other way to define themselves.
You're missing a few major criticisms - the Cube had a touch sensitive button that would put it to sleep instantly if you even brushed your hand near the case (say, if you accidentally went near it while putting a CD in the drive), the Mighty Mouse had that terrible trackball that was too tiny and gunked up really quickly with no ability to take it apart to clean it. The PowerPC architecture hung around for far too long - Apple should have seen the writing on the wall and moved to Intel much sooner, especially since they could see that laptops were their future. Speaking on laptops, the barrel connector on the Powerbook and early Macbook power supplies was a terrible design compounded by weak construction and an insufficient strain relief.
There are plenty of others, but the presence of mistakes is inevitable in a large company making consumer products - no one gets it right all the time.
You also said "Apple didn't design the iMac" which I find very strange, since it was the beginning of the Jony Ive era and his subsequent meteoric rise to the upper echelons of Apple and the special treatment and almost reverence by Steve Jobs himself. At the time, Apple was floundering and Jony was a relatively unknown designer working away on this quirky prototype (the candy iMac) in a back office somewhere. Jobs saw it and immediately decided it was going to be a hit (even if he did want to call it the "MacMac" or something else equally crazy until he was finally convinced to drop that idea).
They did make a fortune on "the iPad and it's infrastructure" but it was already well up into hyper success before the iPad came out - it was the device that everyone on slashdot and everywhere else in the tech world was howling with laughter over about just how much of a massive flop it was going to be and that "this would be their fall". There's no doubt Apple has made a lot with iOS, but their computer hardware division is no slouch either - one of the few PC vendors actually growing marketshare year on year in a stagnant industry.
Like I said originally, attributing their success totally to luck and a rabid fan base is missing the point, and is a major reason why other companies can't seem to emulate the same success. It doesn't mean Apple doesn't have its share of flops though.
Sorry, "but he did it too!" wasn't a valid argument when you were 3, and it's not valid now.
--Jeremy
Yes, indeed. So it's interesting how no one seems to call people out on it when the topic is skype/MS, yet there are a hundred comments when someone mentions Google's Moto Mobility purchase in anything but a positive light, eh?
So, they never actually lost a developer then. You just got uppity about their application process. I'm sure they're crying in the halls at Cupertino over "losing" a developer who has demonstrated even before joining them that you have an enormously confrontational attitude over small things. A drama llama in other words.
People seem to forget that Motorola AKA Google's mobile division has threaten to sue people over patents that they agreed to license under FRAND.
You're just not going to stop trying to force the "AKA Google's mobile division" misinformation down our throats, are you? No matter how much we know it's wrong?
It doesn't seem to be an issue when a story about Skype is brought up and any decisions made by them "are obviously MS' doing" despite the deal being nowhere near at the time.
Slashdot Mirror
Then why wouldn't you simply buy something from another company?
Seems odd to pay the premium for the Apple hardware/software combo if you don't care about the software.
That screams "I paid too much just to I could put Windows on it". But, maybe I'm missing something.
Because they liked the MBA?
It's a very attractive machine for a pretty decent price, and it will run whatever OS you choose. The thing you're "missing" is personal preference and that in the end, a minor price delta if you use the thing all the time will be quickly forgotten if you get something that really works for you.
That do what? Email? That's it.
Run Ubuntu, in my case.
But yeah, you're right, that's shit. I should just throw it out.
A computer is not a toaster. It can't be. It's inherently programmable. That's what it's for. A computer is not an appliance, it's a toolbox.
That's not elitism. That's just the nature of the beast.
It doesn't have to be though, just because it can be.
There are many different types of cars that are good at different tasks, so why can't there be many different computers for the same sort of purpose?
Why not a computer that works like an appliance? If John Doe wants to talk to his kids on skype or surf the web why should he have to worry about more than simply pressing the "on" button?
Slashdot nerds seem to think that anyone who suggests such a thing must believe that *all* computers must be that way, though. That's obviously absurd, yet we hear the same arguments in thread after thread about it. "PCs are inherently complex, there's no way to change that".
If you think that summary *isn't* a blatant swing at Apple, written to make Charlie's completely non-Apple-related NFC hacking look like something to do with Apple and the app store, then I have a bridge to sell you.
If we're jumping to conclusions about what this means for Apple when two of the three sentences specifically mention Apple and his link to them and the "ban" from the App Store for violating his dev agreement. If Apple, the App Store and iOS have nothing to with this then why is 66% of the summary dedicated to it?
The salient point appears to be that he will show something related to NFC hacking at a conference using a "smartphone". Interesting how the particular model of smartphone or the OS it runs is not mentioned, yet the other 66% of the summary heavily mentions Apple. Mmm. Seems legit.
Either way, we know it's not an iPhone or iOS since the iPhone doesn't have any NFC hardware in it, unless he managed to get his hands on the rumoured iPhone 5 prototype that might have it included but no one knows yet.
What hack is that exactly?
There is no NFC hardware in the iPhone at present.
As to being "idiots", I'm not sure how you arrive at that conclusion. Charlie has a flair for the dramatic and a clear skill at finding holes, sure, but he also antagonises those who (presumably) he is trying to impress (assuming his aim is to be financially rewarded for his work, which I don't think it is).
There are better ways than very publicly violating the terms of your developer agreement and then expecting to get hired. If Apple *did* hire him after that, what does that say for the credibility of their developer agreements? Who would be the "blind idiot" then?
Sorry I didn't get to this sooner, I meant to reply a couple of days ago.
In my opinion, with the exception of a couple of big misses, most of Apple's revamped product line have been key products for them. In the wake of the redesigned iMac, the whole computing line changed to be much more like it and the sales began to soar. The titanium design for the Powerbook was good, but had issues, and the refining of it into the aluminium design really set the stage for Apple's laptops to take off.
The Mac Mini, again, was a fantastic product for them. It doesn't sell nearly as well as their laptops (nothing in the desktop arena does, even the iMac) but it put them in the right place for a whole new market of people looking for something simple and elegant to replace an old PC.
The Xserve was a big bust for them. It simply never sold in enough numbers to be taken seriously. So was the Xserve RAID. Even though it was cheaper than many other fibre channel-equipped storage setups, it simply did not attract the attention it needed. Those two flops, I think, convinced Apple more than anything that they're really good at consumer hardware and software and to leave the heavy lifting of the server market to other people, beyond a small token offering of "server biased" hardware like the Mac Mini Server for small businesses etc.
On the portable front, the iPod really set them up as the people to beat for music, and every single iPod with the exception of the tiny square one with the touchscreen have been enormous hits. The original iPod wasn't a revolutionary product in itself, but it did have something that nothing else at the time could match - the interface was easy and intuitive and the software integration was really smooth. You could give it to a pure technophobe and they would be up and running in no time, ripping CDs and making playlists and then being able to listen to them on the iPod. Other players had better sound (at the time - iPods got better), more capacity, bigger batteries, etc but the whole experience with an iPod was second to none and it was this ease of use that really made it shine. At the point where technology becomes effortless, you know you have a winning product. In the same way that most people can pick up a tin opener and use it without really thinking about it, that simplicity was brought to the while process of ripping your CDs to disk and then putting them on a portable player that was similarly easy to use itself. It wasn't the first to do that, but it was the easiest and most intuitive.
The iPad, and iOS itself is almost secondary to this. While they are key products now, the momentum was really set by the resurgence of Apple in the early iMac/iBook and iPod era. The story of the iPhone is one that I really consider to be a continuation of the iPod story - a product that was near-universally panned by those "in the know" at the top of tech (Palm's CEO, Microsoft's CEO, Blackberry, tech journalists etc) only to completely defy all expectations for a giant flop and instead sell like hot cakes because it did to smartphones what the iPod did to portable music players. You think they'd realise the third time around, but again - the same was said of the iPad and far from being a flop it reinvented the tablet market.
So the new MBP is comparable to a station wagon ?
Really was hoping the new MBP had better specifications because I want to have a machine that can do development on OSX,Windows and Linux but I cannot justify the price and lower specifications.
In terms of GPU performance, yes.
It has a 650M driving (effectively) a gigantic display. There is a price to pay for that sort of setup. If Apple could put in a more powerful card more suited to drive something with that many pixels at higher frame rates then they would have, but in the march to make it thinner (so much so that they dropped the built in ethernet port because it was too tall) they had to limit the heat output and battery drain - that left them with the 650M and it's just about powerful enough but don't expect 40+ fps screen redraw at retina resolution on high-motion stuff.
It's really more of a technology showcase for the retina screen. If you want a machine for multi platform development in the same approximate size and weight range, then the normal 15" MBP is the one you want - more ports, more expandability, better GPU performance (albeit at non-retina sizes), and similar price. You still get a 650M, but it's only driving half the pixels and is much more in its comfort zone.
Going to take karma hit but here we go.
Really you are full of shit, it has nothing to do with the precious MBP display
AMD Eyeinfinity and Nvidia Optimus can drive 5 displays at 1920 × 1080 and the technology is 3 years old already.
The graphics cards have no fucking issue driving the pixel desity that the MBP.
Also here is the specs on the 650M http://www.nvidia.in/object/geforce-gt-650m-in.html#pdpContent=2 .
See the max resolutions are higher the MBP display.
Shit fucking look at the story from yesterday http://games.slashdot.org/story/12/07/10/2349230/a-fresh-look-at-multi-screen-pc-gaming .
Put up a high res desktop with a webpage on the rMBP, record the framerate. Scroll the page quickly, record the framerate. Do the same at the equivalent "non-retina" resolution. Record the framerate.
This has been done, and the 650M is capable of driving all the pixels on the display, but it doesn't mean it's going to be able to do it really smoothly at high frame rates. Don't get me wrong, it looks great, but it does take a performance hit over the equivalent 650M-powered non-retina version of the MBP.
The fact that AMD Eyefinity and Nvidia Optimus can drive 5 displays "3 years ago" means absolutely nothing when you put a mobile GPU into a very thin case and clock it to avoid overheating. Sure, they may still be capable of driving three displays at that res, but with a performance penalty.
Ford's GT40 can do 160 mph "many years ago" so surely that means my Ford station wagon can also do 160?
The large amounts of energy it takes to keep my high vac lines at vacuum in the back of my fume cupboard suggest otherwise.
The volume of my Shlenck line is pretty small in comparison, and you can keep an isolated vessel under pretty high vac for a long time, even if you shut off the pump. As soon as you want to interact with it though (let's say, to put something in or take it out) you really need that pump on.
Maintaining a vacuum that you can move things to and from (from an environment at atmospheric pressure) is an energy intensive process.
I wonder if anybody dreamed it would be this successful.
Well, given that the turnover seems to be about 6 years, a very slow but successful one?
How often do people turn over their primary machines anyway?
If a thief breaks into your house with an armed security system that the criminal just presses the off button without entering in an unlock code, is the alarm company ALSO at fault for providing a false sense of security (and possible liability)?
Presumably, yes, but that's not what Safari does. It had an exploitable hole (like, an easy to bypass alarm system, for example), and Google exploited it. It's not the first piece of software with security holes, it won't be the last.
First Post because my graphics card is awesome!
Actually, the GPU in the Retina MBP is not all that awesome - the huge pixel density is pushing the Nvidia 650M in the retina Macbook Pro to its limits, causing some performance issues compared to the equivalent desktop on the non-retina version. Examples include rapid scrolling on webpages and so on.
If a thief breaks into your house should you be fined because your door was too easy to open?
The attempts to justify Google's actions on slashdot over this whole affair have been staggering.
They did something they weren't supposed to, and are now facing the consequences. Sometimes that happens
Actually yes, I use it all the time. I have Safari and Chrome as my two main browsers (used to be Safari and Firefox).
Yes, it ships on OS X and I know a fair few Mac users who don't use it (and they all seem to universally use Chrome instead), but Safari is actually not a terrible browser (on the Mac - I cannot speak to the Windows version), so people who use it tend to see no reason to change.
How brave of you to log in and stand behind your arguments! Oh wait, the other thing.
You're in no position to be critiquing anyone, kid. Learn to log in first, then we'll talk.
Yeah, in much the same way the dodgy Sony battery story was all Apple's fault, with tales of Macbook Pros as "potential time bombs" were so well handled in an objective and calm manner. Or the story about the "flaming" iPod, caused by a DIY repair puncturing the battery.
I think it was obvious from the start that the damage involved here was caused by something other than the phone.
Put your phone in a zip-lock bag and pour a load of rice in with it. Seal the bag and leave it for a couple of days. Alternatively, if you're a nerd like me, slip in four or five silica gel pouches you've hidden away.
I'd probably use calcium carbonate and then put it in a large schlenk vessel and put it under high vac in the back of my fumehood for a couple of days, but the principle is the same.
If your phone ever gets wet like that, find a friendly chemist :p
By "one of the biggest companies in tech" I presume you mean "the largest publicly-traded company in the world"
Yes, I did mean that, but I didn't want to put it, since I was sure some Apple hater would take umbrage with it, or derail the thread on a rant about how market cap and stock price don't mean anything because Apple is now at the top. My point still works without using the definite article.
Great idea, because they've totally mastered predicting the weather here on earth...
Since they haven't mastered it, it's the perfect time to just quit, right?
I didn't think it needed pointing out since it's common sense, but rounded rectangular shapes are *one* part of the design brief. Well done for pointing that out.
There are many other phones with the same design features that are fine, as has been discussed on Slashdot before. It's the combination of design features that make up a product, so the presence of more than a few cause a "copying" product to infringe.
For the record: strongly disagree with this lawsuit.
There are limits to even your fanboi mental defect, eh?
It's one of the consequences of actually being a real person, not a caricature created by frothy Apple-hating slashdot users who have no other way to define themselves.
When you grow up, you'll understand.
You're missing a few major criticisms - the Cube had a touch sensitive button that would put it to sleep instantly if you even brushed your hand near the case (say, if you accidentally went near it while putting a CD in the drive), the Mighty Mouse had that terrible trackball that was too tiny and gunked up really quickly with no ability to take it apart to clean it. The PowerPC architecture hung around for far too long - Apple should have seen the writing on the wall and moved to Intel much sooner, especially since they could see that laptops were their future. Speaking on laptops, the barrel connector on the Powerbook and early Macbook power supplies was a terrible design compounded by weak construction and an insufficient strain relief.
There are plenty of others, but the presence of mistakes is inevitable in a large company making consumer products - no one gets it right all the time.
You also said "Apple didn't design the iMac" which I find very strange, since it was the beginning of the Jony Ive era and his subsequent meteoric rise to the upper echelons of Apple and the special treatment and almost reverence by Steve Jobs himself. At the time, Apple was floundering and Jony was a relatively unknown designer working away on this quirky prototype (the candy iMac) in a back office somewhere. Jobs saw it and immediately decided it was going to be a hit (even if he did want to call it the "MacMac" or something else equally crazy until he was finally convinced to drop that idea).
They did make a fortune on "the iPad and it's infrastructure" but it was already well up into hyper success before the iPad came out - it was the device that everyone on slashdot and everywhere else in the tech world was howling with laughter over about just how much of a massive flop it was going to be and that "this would be their fall". There's no doubt Apple has made a lot with iOS, but their computer hardware division is no slouch either - one of the few PC vendors actually growing marketshare year on year in a stagnant industry.
Like I said originally, attributing their success totally to luck and a rabid fan base is missing the point, and is a major reason why other companies can't seem to emulate the same success. It doesn't mean Apple doesn't have its share of flops though.
Sorry, "but he did it too!" wasn't a valid argument when you were 3, and it's not valid now.
--Jeremy
Yes, indeed. So it's interesting how no one seems to call people out on it when the topic is skype/MS, yet there are a hundred comments when someone mentions Google's Moto Mobility purchase in anything but a positive light, eh?
So, they never actually lost a developer then. You just got uppity about their application process. I'm sure they're crying in the halls at Cupertino over "losing" a developer who has demonstrated even before joining them that you have an enormously confrontational attitude over small things. A drama llama in other words.
People seem to forget that Motorola AKA Google's mobile division has threaten to sue people over patents that they agreed to license under FRAND.
You're just not going to stop trying to force the "AKA Google's mobile division" misinformation down our throats, are you? No matter how much we know it's wrong?
It doesn't seem to be an issue when a story about Skype is brought up and any decisions made by them "are obviously MS' doing" despite the deal being nowhere near at the time.
What's good for the goose...