These are techniques using the building blocks of life, not some drug they have developed. If the patented technique is close to how a human life develops then effectively that company would have a patent on human development. That is why it would be unethical and wrong.
Have you noticed cars all have a similar interface, pedals, steering wheels and so on. There's a good reason for that, it works and people are familiar with it.
Except that programming for Android is only using Java style syntax. Many Java coders will look at Android, realise much of the standard packages are missing and then have to rewrite any code they have to work on it.
Users do care about how well things run, how long their battery lasts. Your phone's CPU will be working a lot harder with a compiled interpreted language.
What you're saying is it's better for companies to write poor, bland generic software quickly than write software that is good and takes advantage of the full capabilities of the device? I think end users care about that!
I don't get this inherent laziness in mobile software development, they are generally small applications that won't take many man hours to create.
Have a look at NanoStudio on iOS. That took many man hours and it is a brilliant example of a mobile music studio. If one guy can write that in native code then why can't big companies do similar? especially given many applications like Facebook are just calling webservices, so much of the complexity is on the server. It should be very trivial to write such apps.
It went wrong when people started to patent things they had no intention of putting into practice. Such patents are like laying land mines or snares and waiting for someone to set them off.
I think a patent should expire after 6 months if they haven't been utilised in a product.
Firstly Android development is not open, the code is developed in private and then published when done. Not open!
Secondly, you can't choose what language to develop in when creating Android, you have to use the Dalvik VM and use libraries for any native code. Not open!
Thirdly, if open source was so desirable we would all be using Linux now, OSX and Windows would be dead. The opposite is true.
It's a phone not a computer. A phone is something you depend on more than a computer. If your computer crashes so what, you reboot. If your phone crashes you can disconnect from a call.
Which of these two scenarios do you want:
1. Total and utter freedom to install anything on your phone. But miss a very important phone call due to a badly programmed application running down the battery or locking up the phone. Just think, that call could be a job offer, an ex-girlfriend wanting some fun or the news that someone is in trouble.
2. Less freedoms but a better experience, higher quality software, less chance of battery rundown or lock ups?
Did you ever own a Windows Mobile phone before WP7? every single one of them had a reset button and boy did you need it! Anything beyond a simple program stood the chance of locking up the phone completely. Sometimes you had to remove the battery as the reset didn't help.
If restrictions and licence fees weed out all the bad coders then it's a good thing.
People are already getting bored of Facebook. It's just there and taken for granted now.
What has been lost with Facebook is the spirit of social networking. It's more a site where you add all your friends or people you have met in real life. Other sites allowed you to make new connections with people you didn't know.
I put this down to Facebook's ability to enter all your details, name, address, phone number and so on. It was pretty obvious once your profile allows you to add some very specific information that is valuable for ID theft that people would then lock down their profiles and no longer be networking outside of their group of friends.
Indeed. A central point of failure is never a good thing.
Just like a biometric ID card is a bad idea too. Until you have on there is the risk that someone registers one in your name. Then you have a really hard time to prove that this person is not you.
Great, so you want another pile of suboptimal backward compatibility to win rather than a well engineered solution?
If you want your software to run on really cheap and nasty hardware you have to make some pretty unforgivable software compromises. At least Microsoft, Apple and others have standards.
7 inch screens are cheaper and less casing is cheaper too. Not to mention less batteries. The iPad is full of big batteries to get that long run time. Competitors will just skimp on the battery life and materials the wonder why their product isn't as well received.
What I didn't like was how organic and non-computer like the world inside the computer looks in the new film.
Even the spaceships had steam or smoke coming off them when they were taking off.
Also, the new costumes weren't as good, they looked too fashionable and swarve. The originals looked more "circuit" like and the original's hand tinting looks better. In the new film the glowing of the costume just looked like they had UV stripes on the costume and had UV lights aimed at the actors.
I disliked the lightcycles in the new film, they can jump, can do sweeping corners. Totally ruining the whole concept of the lightcycles.
Slashdot Mirror
Apple manages to run an application like GarageBand even on the original iPad 1 with 256MB.
Perhaps you should check out the 64K demo scene and see what people manage to cram into 64KB of memory, people who can seriously code.
These are techniques using the building blocks of life, not some drug they have developed. If the patented technique is close to how a human life develops then effectively that company would have a patent on human development. That is why it would be unethical and wrong.
But you don't own the software. The OS your device is loaded with is licenced to you.
QNX is not something many people have experience with and choosing that seemed odd, it's bound to make developing for this device a bit harder.
Didn't they learn from Microsoft Bob?
Have you noticed cars all have a similar interface, pedals, steering wheels and so on. There's a good reason for that, it works and people are familiar with it.
Except that programming for Android is only using Java style syntax. Many Java coders will look at Android, realise much of the standard packages are missing and then have to rewrite any code they have to work on it.
Users do care about how well things run, how long their battery lasts. Your phone's CPU will be working a lot harder with a compiled interpreted language.
What you're saying is it's better for companies to write poor, bland generic software quickly than write software that is good and takes advantage of the full capabilities of the device? I think end users care about that!
I don't get this inherent laziness in mobile software development, they are generally small applications that won't take many man hours to create.
Have a look at NanoStudio on iOS. That took many man hours and it is a brilliant example of a mobile music studio. If one guy can write that in native code then why can't big companies do similar? especially given many applications like Facebook are just calling webservices, so much of the complexity is on the server. It should be very trivial to write such apps.
WebOS can multi task and has more software than WP7. I'd say that puts it ahead of WP7.
It went wrong when people started to patent things they had no intention of putting into practice. Such patents are like laying land mines or snares and waiting for someone to set them off.
I think a patent should expire after 6 months if they haven't been utilised in a product.
What's the big deal with open?
Firstly Android development is not open, the code is developed in private and then published when done. Not open!
Secondly, you can't choose what language to develop in when creating Android, you have to use the Dalvik VM and use libraries for any native code. Not open!
Thirdly, if open source was so desirable we would all be using Linux now, OSX and Windows would be dead. The opposite is true.
Why would I want "community" firmware on my phone?
I want firmware that has been built by the manufacturer and then tested so I don't miss calls or SMS messages.
It's a phone not a computer. A phone is something you depend on more than a computer. If your computer crashes so what, you reboot. If your phone crashes you can disconnect from a call.
Which of these two scenarios do you want:
1. Total and utter freedom to install anything on your phone. But miss a very important phone call due to a badly programmed application running down the battery or locking up the phone. Just think, that call could be a job offer, an ex-girlfriend wanting some fun or the news that someone is in trouble.
2. Less freedoms but a better experience, higher quality software, less chance of battery rundown or lock ups?
Did you ever own a Windows Mobile phone before WP7? every single one of them had a reset button and boy did you need it! Anything beyond a simple program stood the chance of locking up the phone completely. Sometimes you had to remove the battery as the reset didn't help.
If restrictions and licence fees weed out all the bad coders then it's a good thing.
People are already getting bored of Facebook. It's just there and taken for granted now.
What has been lost with Facebook is the spirit of social networking. It's more a site where you add all your friends or people you have met in real life. Other sites allowed you to make new connections with people you didn't know.
I put this down to Facebook's ability to enter all your details, name, address, phone number and so on. It was pretty obvious once your profile allows you to add some very specific information that is valuable for ID theft that people would then lock down their profiles and no longer be networking outside of their group of friends.
Not to mention that in the US the iPhone is only available on one network, one which many people don't like.
Rumour has it that Verizon will soon be selling the iPhone 4 and that will result in more sales.
Everywhere else in the world the iPhone is available on multiple networks. It would be interesting to see the EU figures.
How do you educate people with serious mental or personality disorders?
Indeed. A central point of failure is never a good thing.
Just like a biometric ID card is a bad idea too. Until you have on there is the risk that someone registers one in your name. Then you have a really hard time to prove that this person is not you.
You don't have to use the App Store to sell software.
I don't imagine for one minute that large professional applications will ever be sold this way for the time being.
Support would be part of the package no doubt.
It's only a patent and as we know each patent is just another land mine in the minefield of corporate greed.
Great, so you want another pile of suboptimal backward compatibility to win rather than a well engineered solution?
If you want your software to run on really cheap and nasty hardware you have to make some pretty unforgivable software compromises. At least Microsoft, Apple and others have standards.
That sums up most Android vendors, they develop their own GUIs and improvements and don't give much or anything back to the project.
Hardly in the spirit of open source is it?
But that's the reason people buy Android phones, to have the freedom to do stupid things and install dodgy software?
The security only really needs to be good enough to establish the platform and sell a few million games.
I'm sure Sony will have a way to detect altered consoles online and block?
Everyone knows it is much easier to pirate music and films on a real computer compared to a tablet.
If anything the tax should be the other way around.
My 42 inch TV won't fit in a small bag, but I wouldn't sacrifice its size just so it is easier to move around.
Cheapness and stupidity.
7 inch screens are cheaper and less casing is cheaper too. Not to mention less batteries. The iPad is full of big batteries to get that long run time. Competitors will just skimp on the battery life and materials the wonder why their product isn't as well received.
What I didn't like was how organic and non-computer like the world inside the computer looks in the new film.
Even the spaceships had steam or smoke coming off them when they were taking off.
Also, the new costumes weren't as good, they looked too fashionable and swarve. The originals looked more "circuit" like and the original's hand tinting looks better. In the new film the glowing of the costume just looked like they had UV stripes on the costume and had UV lights aimed at the actors.
I disliked the lightcycles in the new film, they can jump, can do sweeping corners. Totally ruining the whole concept of the lightcycles.