Apple does not want 3rd parties to build anything for their products... period. You can't even make a charger for an iPod without licensing the connector from them.
You're contradicting yourself. If Apple didn't want third parties to build anything for their products they wouldn't license the connector to them.
Looking at the history of the companies, can you present a alternative that would allow Google to compete against Apple when Apple keeps stifling innovation through abusing the patent system?
I do find these homophobic analogies odd. Are people here really so limited with their descriptive abilities that this is the best we can come up with? If you're happy with it why stop there, you can probably throw a racist element in too.
BTW, in an earlier message you said this. "Personally having played with a Huawei g300, a phone eight times cheaper than the iPhone"
Those devices are also manufactured in Shenzhen and at prices ("eight times less") that don't allow for pay or conditions any better than Foxconn, and in all probability they are far worse.
You're not only dishonest, you're a massive hypocrite.
Of course you're going to dishonestly reject this comment too. But you and I both know what I say is true. But you're the one who has to live with yourself. Sucks to be you.
Your twice repeated link does absolutely nothing to counter the facts I gave. You are repeating things that have long since been shown false, even after I've reminded you that they have been debunked.
Is it a general thing for Android fanboys to be so deceitful and immoral in thir FUD attempts, or is it just you?
(But hey, if someone were to dig up my old post from 1999 in the Symbian General Notes group on how Linux on mobiles would be the end of Symbian I'm all for having that one published and well known... )
Heh! If only you'd have said Apple, BSD or NextStep, you'd have been right. It was the iPhone that caused the Symbian market share collapse, not Android. Android's lead in the market share only came later. And arguably wouldn't have come at all were it not a cheap copy of iPhone. After all, other previous attempts at Linux phones, such as Maemo, failed.
Well, I can tell you that there were an awful lot of Symbian emails that weren't for public consumption, and I don't just mean because of business secrets.
So you're sure that in 20 years there weren't any emails from or to the personnel dept of a personal and private nature. And you're sure that family, friends or romantic interest never once emailed you at work. And you're sure that there was nothing there in 20 years that could be misinterpreted by anyone that wants to undermine you.
You're either a robot, forgetful, or a braver man than I.
I've worked both public sector and private, and I know there's plenty of things in 20 years of email that could cause embarrassment. Which doesn't mean that I did a bad job or was ever deceptive. Just that I have often written emails for the intended audience, not public consumption.
Making a rule that says that is fine. But only for emails going forward. It shouldn't be applied to emails going backwards. Face it, most of us have some degree of personal and private emails. And the way we communicate with people we know well may not always be understood in the way it was intended by third parties.
Would you honestly be happy to have your last 20 years worth of work emails published on the web? If not, then you do understand the problem.
I'm sure the reports of suicide nets and riots are all lies.
Again, if you remember, when the story of suicides came to slashdot, people here quickly did the sensible thing and compared the suicide rate per 100,000 people: Foxconn vs China as a whole. Result, Foxconn employees commit suicide significantly less often than the average Chinese person.
Some people just can't cope with large numbers and don't get the logic that any group of hundreds of thousands of people will have multiple suicides in the group.
Riots? You mean the 7 new employees that were out for a meal and had a fight with the owner of a restaurant. And a bunch of their colleagues joined in. Nothing to do with the factory or working practices. Just a brawl in a company town. http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-asia-china-18363929
Now, even if these things you mention weren't lies and distortions, you'd then have to consider that Foxconn don't just manufacture for Apple, but many other brands. You undoubtably own products made by Foxconn in China.
Your liking for one smartphone over another causes you to ape and repeat the exposed liar Mike Daisey. How pathetic is that. Meditate on it for a while. Is this really the kind of as person you want to be?
No, I'm pointing out that web-browsing is a pretty fundamental use of a tablet, and for some reason the people buying Android tablets aren't doing much of it. My speculation is that they aren't used much for anything because they are a bit of a disappointment, and are sitting on a shelf at home.
I mean the other possibility you raise, that they haven't actually been sold to end-users, and are gathering dust on store shelves is possible, but that was your point, not mine.
Another poster points out that some proportion of those Android tablets are ebook readers... but aren't the Android ones of those capable of browsing the web as well? iPads can and do function well as both.
By Chinese standards, jobs at Foxconn are good, well paid jobs. That's why there are queues of people outside the factories looking to get jobs there. Don't forget that Mike Daisey's stories about Foxconn turned out to be a tissue of lies.
Most of them state that it is better than the one they -have
But not the iPhone 4S (or even iPhone) they have. Just the phone (of no stated type) they have. That MIGHT already have the 4S, but they don't say that. Except for the one person, that I already pointed out in my original post that you responded to.
Oh, and since people are continuing to doubt the nonsense of drawing conclusions from vox-pops, here's the video showing Americans don't know where Australia is. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Hp4iI59BfpQ
Reference counting is. It's a single increment when a memory location is referenced and a decrement and possible delete when it's unreferenced. AUTOMATIC reference counting does not add any additional code to that, and in fact often needs less code.
There are important trivial cases where it can be determined that refcounting is not required.
Correct, and the LLVM compiler spots those and doesn't add ref-counting code in those cases. That's why it often needs less code than manual reference counting.
Now, compare these small amounts of trivial ref-counting code to the 100s of milliseconds of time that the Android garbage collector takes doing mark and sweep. Anyone who understands these two technologies cannot conclude that the Android Garbage Collector is more efficient. It's not. And most Android developers will have come across occasions when the GC is killing the performance of their app. Times when they have to rethink their approach and re-code.
Slashdot Mirror
I would have thought Android copying iPhone would have been the Poland invasion analogy.
Being an analogy it depends what you hold as being equivalent to a shot. From Apple's point of view, copying the iPhone was an act of aggression.
Absolutely my point. Hitler's supporters, like Google supporters saw their acts of aggression as acts of defense.
(It's been ages since we're exercised the Godwin meme. :)
The one who's doing the copying.
The sequence of the court filings is pretty clear.
As is the sequence of who copied from who.
Apple does not want 3rd parties to build anything for their products... period. You can't even make a charger for an iPod without licensing the connector from them.
You're contradicting yourself. If Apple didn't want third parties to build anything for their products they wouldn't license the connector to them.
Looking at the history of the companies, can you present a alternative that would allow Google to compete against Apple when Apple keeps stifling innovation through abusing the patent system?
Copying what Apple does is not innovation.
I do find these homophobic analogies odd. Are people here really so limited with their descriptive abilities that this is the best we can come up with? If you're happy with it why stop there, you can probably throw a racist element in too.
Spot the confirmation bias" When Apple sues on patent ground it's attack. When Google sues on patent grounds it's defense.
Sounds like any war, when acts of aggression and defense are interchangeable, depending on which side the opinion holder has taken.
A Mac is a very different beast from an iPhone.
BTW, in an earlier message you said this. "Personally having played with a Huawei g300, a phone eight times cheaper than the iPhone"
Those devices are also manufactured in Shenzhen and at prices ("eight times less") that don't allow for pay or conditions any better than Foxconn, and in all probability they are far worse.
You're not only dishonest, you're a massive hypocrite.
Of course you're going to dishonestly reject this comment too. But you and I both know what I say is true. But you're the one who has to live with yourself. Sucks to be you.
Ah, I see your being dishonest in defence of Android is a pattern.
Your twice repeated link does absolutely nothing to counter the facts I gave. You are repeating things that have long since been shown false, even after I've reminded you that they have been debunked.
Is it a general thing for Android fanboys to be so deceitful and immoral in thir FUD attempts, or is it just you?
(But hey, if someone were to dig up my old post from 1999 in the Symbian General Notes group on how Linux on mobiles would be the end of Symbian I'm all for having that one published and well known ... )
Heh! If only you'd have said Apple, BSD or NextStep, you'd have been right. It was the iPhone that caused the Symbian market share collapse, not Android. Android's lead in the market share only came later. And arguably wouldn't have come at all were it not a cheap copy of iPhone. After all, other previous attempts at Linux phones, such as Maemo, failed.
Well, I can tell you that there were an awful lot of Symbian emails that weren't for public consumption, and I don't just mean because of business secrets.
So you're sure that in 20 years there weren't any emails from or to the personnel dept of a personal and private nature. And you're sure that family, friends or romantic interest never once emailed you at work. And you're sure that there was nothing there in 20 years that could be misinterpreted by anyone that wants to undermine you.
You're either a robot, forgetful, or a braver man than I.
I've worked both public sector and private, and I know there's plenty of things in 20 years of email that could cause embarrassment. Which doesn't mean that I did a bad job or was ever deceptive. Just that I have often written emails for the intended audience, not public consumption.
Making a rule that says that is fine. But only for emails going forward. It shouldn't be applied to emails going backwards. Face it, most of us have some degree of personal and private emails. And the way we communicate with people we know well may not always be understood in the way it was intended by third parties.
Would you honestly be happy to have your last 20 years worth of work emails published on the web? If not, then you do understand the problem.
I'm sure the reports of suicide nets and riots are all lies.
Again, if you remember, when the story of suicides came to slashdot, people here quickly did the sensible thing and compared the suicide rate per 100,000 people: Foxconn vs China as a whole. Result, Foxconn employees commit suicide significantly less often than the average Chinese person.
Some people just can't cope with large numbers and don't get the logic that any group of hundreds of thousands of people will have multiple suicides in the group.
Riots? You mean the 7 new employees that were out for a meal and had a fight with the owner of a restaurant. And a bunch of their colleagues joined in. Nothing to do with the factory or working practices. Just a brawl in a company town.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-asia-china-18363929
Now, even if these things you mention weren't lies and distortions, you'd then have to consider that Foxconn don't just manufacture for Apple, but many other brands. You undoubtably own products made by Foxconn in China.
Your liking for one smartphone over another causes you to ape and repeat the exposed liar Mike Daisey. How pathetic is that. Meditate on it for a while. Is this really the kind of as person you want to be?
Your quoting web traffic as a metric for sales!?
No, I'm pointing out that web-browsing is a pretty fundamental use of a tablet, and for some reason the people buying Android tablets aren't doing much of it. My speculation is that they aren't used much for anything because they are a bit of a disappointment, and are sitting on a shelf at home.
I mean the other possibility you raise, that they haven't actually been sold to end-users, and are gathering dust on store shelves is possible, but that was your point, not mine.
Another poster points out that some proportion of those Android tablets are ebook readers... but aren't the Android ones of those capable of browsing the web as well? iPads can and do function well as both.
By Chinese standards, jobs at Foxconn are good, well paid jobs. That's why there are queues of people outside the factories looking to get jobs there. Don't forget that Mike Daisey's stories about Foxconn turned out to be a tissue of lies.
Lets face it Cook could crap in a box and get 10K+ for it, its the nature of fashion.
No he couldn't. And by making such crap arguments, you only go to show you're the one full of shit.
iPad has 90% of tablet web traffic. Why is that? You might be able to buy cheaper Android tablets, but chances are they'll gather dust on the shelf.
"No wireless. Less space than a nomad. Lame."
There's always another idiot that thinks good devices are about feature checklists rather than user experience.
Most of them state that it is better than the one they -have
But not the iPhone 4S (or even iPhone) they have. Just the phone (of no stated type) they have. That MIGHT already have the 4S, but they don't say that. Except for the one person, that I already pointed out in my original post that you responded to.
Oh, and since people are continuing to doubt the nonsense of drawing conclusions from vox-pops, here's the video showing Americans don't know where Australia is.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Hp4iI59BfpQ
Reference counting is certainly a runtime cost.
Reference counting is. It's a single increment when a memory location is referenced and a decrement and possible delete when it's unreferenced. AUTOMATIC reference counting does not add any additional code to that, and in fact often needs less code.
There are important trivial cases where it can be determined that refcounting is not required.
Correct, and the LLVM compiler spots those and doesn't add ref-counting code in those cases. That's why it often needs less code than manual reference counting.
Now, compare these small amounts of trivial ref-counting code to the 100s of milliseconds of time that the Android garbage collector takes doing mark and sweep. Anyone who understands these two technologies cannot conclude that the Android Garbage Collector is more efficient. It's not. And most Android developers will have come across occasions when the GC is killing the performance of their app. Times when they have to rethink their approach and re-code.