and another thing that is really devastating is painting on cave walls of last hunting expedition. Other cavemen will be able to learn from Ug's hunting tactics and Ug will go out of business!
Just a funny gag, I know, but actually it suggests a serious point. It took ages (literally) to progress from stone to bronze then to iron. The pace of invention in pre-history and classical history was slow. Now it's very very fast. The rate of innovation having really picked up during the industrial revolution.
The industrial revolution came relatively soon (within 100 years) after the patent system was introduced to England.
This, despite the fact that most of the young men had been drafted into the army. So with the most usual offending category either out of the country, or at least under disciplined regimes in an army camp, one would have expected a drop in crime. But it didn't happen.
And it wasn't just looting and black-marketeering either. Every kind of crime was up.
The first is security. Monocultures have regularly proven in the past to be easy target for malware and exploits.
There is no such proof. Take for example iOS vs Android. iOS has a single vendor, most people are using the latest version, there are no branched variants, there is a single store. The ultimate monoculture. Result: No malware.
Android, has multiple vendors, each allowed to customise to fair extent and still be called Android, and to customise completely if they don't care about the Android brand. Lots of branches. Enthusiasts can build their own custom builds. People are on a wide variety of different versions. There's lots of stores - anyone can have a store. Result: Malware.
Web developers might complain that it makes their job a little bit more complicated, but as long as they are sticking on standard this isn't impossible. (And some time, the differences in rendering might come from problem in complying with the standards, either from the website using weird code, or one of the engines having a faulty implementation. Testing on more platforms, although requiring more efforts can help finding bugs and move forward compliance).
In other words web-developers should just accept all the extra work and hassle of making web-sites work with this multitude of browsers, in the name of some suggested greater good.
In actual fact web-developers work has got easier in recent years. But not because of competition in browsers. But because they've moved to using libraries that do all the work of papering over browser incompatibilities for them. I other words they choose a monoculture to paper over the problems of variety.
On the other hand exploit writer have it much more harder, because they HAVE TO write non-standart stuff. They would have even more difficulties targeting multiple devices, multiple engines and so on.
No, they have it far easier, because they don't need to be compatible with all major browsers. They only have to find a hole in one. And if there are say 5 major browsers, then they have 5 times the chance of finding a useful hole than if there was only one browser.
They both use the Motorala trademark at the same time? How does that work out?
Somewhat like the Virgin brand. Virgin Media which is a wireless network and cable company is a completely separate company from Virgin Group which has the airline, music etc businesses. I believe there are also some more entirely separate companies that also use the Virgin brand.
For some reason it's a powerful brand name, and so the right to use it has been sold on when the companies have been spun off into separate entities.
When Motorola Mobility was spun off and sold to Google, the enterprise mobility division stayed with Motorola Solutions. And Psion has long been an enterprise mobility company. So there's nothing untoward here at all.
There are clear benefits for the end user that are derived from browser competition. You need only look at the improvement in browsers on the desktop to see that.
I see no evidence that that is true. What we had is 15 years of web-developer hell as they tried to create web-sites that would work across all the browsers. And consumer frustration as they found that some of the web-sites wouldn't work well with their browser. Presumably you think all that was worth it because very slowly browsers got better. Dogma says that competition improves things, but I see no evidence of it here. In fact software that is much used, and has no significant competition also improves over the years, without causing all that incompatibility hell.
Apple won't allow other browser engines on iOS because it introduces competition on the platform and has the potential to diminish Apple's opportunity for profit.
You don't understand Apple. Apple got to be what it is by designing the best products for consumers. That's what motivates their product decisions. By having the best products the money follows. Apple doesn't sell Safari. It's free. They suffer no financial loss from other browsers on the platform. And indeed there are plenty of other browsers on the platform. It's only the rendering engine that's mandated to be one defacto-standard. And that's for user experience reasons.
Remember: corporations hate competition. They will always do everything they can to avoid it.
People are not all the same. Neither are corporations.
"Apps which appear confusingly similar to an existing Apple product or advertising theme will be rejected."
That's not a non-compete rule. That's a "don't copy our app designs" rule. I mean you'd have to be pretty brazen to copy an Apple app, then expect Apple to sell it for you on their store. And yet people are that brazen... read on...
Now lets get down to business. Will Apple pull a competing app?/quote>
Evi is still there, despite obviously being named and designed to be a Siri clone. So the answer to your question appears to be "no".
The anti-Apple crowd makes much of Apple App Store rules. But the rules are not unreasonable nor their implementation usually capricious, they're pretty reasonable. With about 600,000 apps approved so far there have been remarkably few instances where poor judgement has been made by a reviewer, but they are endlessly recycled as links. Even ones where there wasn't really a problem, but the story has been misrepresented. Like the two links you gave.
There are many, many browsers, mail clients, media players, address books etc available on the iOS App Store. So if that was ever a rule at all, it certainly hasn't been one for years.
I say if, because I think that line of thinking dates from before Apple published it's app review guidelines.
I didn't say anything about not advancing that defacto standard on as new web standards appear.
And of course the problem with IE as a defacto standard is that it isn't available on different platforms. Other than Windows, it appeared for a while on Macs. And that's it. Webkit on the other hand is open source, and therefore can be put on any platform. Hence why most mobile devices use it.
Contrary to popular opinion, choice is not necessarily a good thing. And for browser rendering engines it's definitely not a good thing. Browser rendering engines are essentially a commodity - all supposedly adhering to the same set of standards. But bugs and slightly different interpretations of those standards create problems for web-developers and problems for users. Better to have a defacto standard for mobile by only having one engine. Far better than the situation on the desktop where sometimes people have multiple browsers for no other reason than ome websites don't work well on certain browsers.
Webkit is that defacto mobile standard. Not just because Apple uses it, but Google's standard Chrome browser onAndroid uses it too. As do most other varieties of smartphones. Nokia did too until Microsoft's stealth take over.
You seem to have forgotten that Apple's original plan for third-party apps for the iPhone was web-apps. The plan was roundly rejected by everyone.
As it was when Palm/HP tried it with "WebOS". It killed Palm, and HP had to have a firesale of the devices that no one would buy.
The threat of web apps to Apple is like the threat of being mauled by a dead sheep.
Thats not the reason Apple don't allow other browsers. The reason is that one single standard web rendering engine serves the consumer better than having multiple slightly incompatible ones. And Apple's success is by making decisions that are best for consumers rather than delegating those decisions and offering choice for choice's sake.
Google's the one that only wants you for your data (and to show advertising to.) Apple's proposal is more honest. They make their money by selling hardware, software and entertainment media.
Remember, Apple came from nowhere in these markets. When they launched the iPhone in 2007, they had an ambition to get just 1% of the phone market. A year later when they launched the App Store, there was no predetermined inevitability that it wold work. Smartphone apps had been around for a decade as a tiny niche. When they launched the iPad, various other companies had tried and failed to create a commercially successful tablet.
Yes for sure these markets make them dump-trucks full of money. But there is only one possible reason for that. Because vast numbers of people like what Apple creates, products and surrounding ecosystem. Their "official reason why they do this is because it allows for a uniform user experience without weird bugs caused by strange combinations" is very, very popular. To put it more succinctly "It just works."
For sure Apple won't be allowing any other browser engine on iOS. Because there is no benefit to the consumer in doing so. Browser rendering is a essentially a commodity. But a few trivial differences in browser engines can mean that occasionally a web-site will behave badly on a particular browser. By standardising on a single renderer, the consumer is better served - any web page that is intended to work with an iPad will work with any iPad browser. No incompatibilities. And as Google's Chrome also uses Webkit, essentially any web-site intended to work on mobile devices will always work perfectly. A Mozilla rendering engine would do more harm than good. And for what? The idea of Open Source? Webkit is open source anyway.
VNPR, CCTV, proposed internet monitoring, and just yesterday we find that the bill contains the power to routinely monitor postal and delivery services too.
Do you need a diagram? Do you really think this is only about road tax and insurance? It's not.
His proposal is to change virtually nothing. Pretty much the same security theatre, but performed by the private sector rather than the public sector. Pointless.
Slashdot Mirror
and another thing that is really devastating is painting on cave walls of last hunting expedition. Other cavemen will be able to learn from Ug's hunting tactics and Ug will go out of business!
Just a funny gag, I know, but actually it suggests a serious point. It took ages (literally) to progress from stone to bronze then to iron. The pace of invention in pre-history and classical history was slow. Now it's very very fast. The rate of innovation having really picked up during the industrial revolution.
The industrial revolution came relatively soon (within 100 years) after the patent system was introduced to England.
ACs? Plural? Big assumption there. It might just be one person with a lot of time on his hands.
The crime rate also dropped during the second world war in the UK.
It's often said that that's the case, but as with many beliefs about crime rates, it's not true. Crime in every category soared during the war years, ending with almost double the crime rate at the end of war compared with before the war.
http://www.homeoffice.gov.uk/publications/science-research-statistics/research-statistics/crime-research/historical-crime-data/rec-crime-1898-2002
This, despite the fact that most of the young men had been drafted into the army. So with the most usual offending category either out of the country, or at least under disciplined regimes in an army camp, one would have expected a drop in crime. But it didn't happen.
And it wasn't just looting and black-marketeering either. Every kind of crime was up.
Actually, more often Brits would just call them Psions. At least till the late 90s when they switched to calling them PalmPilots.
Pretty much as now people call smartphones: iPhones and tablets: iPads.
Hmm... must do some hoovering with my Dyson.
The first is security. Monocultures have regularly proven in the past to be easy target for malware and exploits.
There is no such proof. Take for example iOS vs Android. iOS has a single vendor, most people are using the latest version, there are no branched variants, there is a single store. The ultimate monoculture. Result: No malware.
Android, has multiple vendors, each allowed to customise to fair extent and still be called Android, and to customise completely if they don't care about the Android brand. Lots of branches. Enthusiasts can build their own custom builds. People are on a wide variety of different versions. There's lots of stores - anyone can have a store. Result: Malware.
Web developers might complain that it makes their job a little bit more complicated, but as long as they are sticking on standard this isn't impossible. (And some time, the differences in rendering might come from problem in complying with the standards, either from the website using weird code, or one of the engines having a faulty implementation. Testing on more platforms, although requiring more efforts can help finding bugs and move forward compliance).
In other words web-developers should just accept all the extra work and hassle of making web-sites work with this multitude of browsers, in the name of some suggested greater good.
In actual fact web-developers work has got easier in recent years. But not because of competition in browsers. But because they've moved to using libraries that do all the work of papering over browser incompatibilities for them. I other words they choose a monoculture to paper over the problems of variety.
On the other hand exploit writer have it much more harder, because they HAVE TO write non-standart stuff. They would have even more difficulties targeting multiple devices, multiple engines and so on.
No, they have it far easier, because they don't need to be compatible with all major browsers. They only have to find a hole in one. And if there are say 5 major browsers, then they have 5 times the chance of finding a useful hole than if there was only one browser.
On the plus side, I have a Mac.
They both use the Motorala trademark at the same time? How does that work out?
Somewhat like the Virgin brand. Virgin Media which is a wireless network and cable company is a completely separate company from Virgin Group which has the airline, music etc businesses. I believe there are also some more entirely separate companies that also use the Virgin brand.
For some reason it's a powerful brand name, and so the right to use it has been sold on when the companies have been spun off into separate entities.
When Motorola Mobility was spun off and sold to Google, the enterprise mobility division stayed with Motorola Solutions. And Psion has long been an enterprise mobility company. So there's nothing untoward here at all.
Semantically Apple named the PDA, rather than inventing it.
Safari's "Reader" function did a great job of reformatting the article into something very readable.
There are clear benefits for the end user that are derived from browser competition. You need only look at the improvement in browsers on the desktop to see that.
I see no evidence that that is true. What we had is 15 years of web-developer hell as they tried to create web-sites that would work across all the browsers. And consumer frustration as they found that some of the web-sites wouldn't work well with their browser. Presumably you think all that was worth it because very slowly browsers got better. Dogma says that competition improves things, but I see no evidence of it here. In fact software that is much used, and has no significant competition also improves over the years, without causing all that incompatibility hell.
Apple won't allow other browser engines on iOS because it introduces competition on the platform and has the potential to diminish Apple's opportunity for profit.
You don't understand Apple. Apple got to be what it is by designing the best products for consumers. That's what motivates their product decisions. By having the best products the money follows. Apple doesn't sell Safari. It's free. They suffer no financial loss from other browsers on the platform. And indeed there are plenty of other browsers on the platform. It's only the rendering engine that's mandated to be one defacto-standard. And that's for user experience reasons.
Remember: corporations hate competition. They will always do everything they can to avoid it.
People are not all the same. Neither are corporations.
"Apps which appear confusingly similar to an existing Apple product or advertising theme will be rejected."
That's not a non-compete rule. That's a "don't copy our app designs" rule. I mean you'd have to be pretty brazen to copy an Apple app, then expect Apple to sell it for you on their store. And yet people are that brazen... read on...
Now lets get down to business. Will Apple pull a competing app?/quote>
Evi is still there, despite obviously being named and designed to be a Siri clone. So the answer to your question appears to be "no".
http://itunes.apple.com/gb/app/evi/id463296609?mt=8
And there are plenty more, such as this one who's icon is very obviously meant to suggest Siri.
http://itunes.apple.com/gb/app/voice-assistant+/id517603342?mt=8
The anti-Apple crowd makes much of Apple App Store rules. But the rules are not unreasonable nor their implementation usually capricious, they're pretty reasonable. With about 600,000 apps approved so far there have been remarkably few instances where poor judgement has been made by a reviewer, but they are endlessly recycled as links. Even ones where there wasn't really a problem, but the story has been misrepresented. Like the two links you gave.
You're coming across as a Sun reader. Which means your post has no intellectual interest, and plenty of vulgarity. Frankly its not worth a response.
That wasn't pulled for competing on app functionality. That was pulled for re-implementing a proprietary protocol without permission.
There are many, many browsers, mail clients, media players, address books etc available on the iOS App Store. So if that was ever a rule at all, it certainly hasn't been one for years.
I say if, because I think that line of thinking dates from before Apple published it's app review guidelines.
6?
I didn't say anything about not advancing that defacto standard on as new web standards appear.
And of course the problem with IE as a defacto standard is that it isn't available on different platforms. Other than Windows, it appeared for a while on Macs. And that's it. Webkit on the other hand is open source, and therefore can be put on any platform. Hence why most mobile devices use it.
For 4 years it's been theoretically possible that one day there might be some malware on iOS.
Of course good old Android has been true to to it's ideal of offering choice. There's quite a variety of malware on offer for that platform.
Really? You went to the bother of finding 4 links without first ascertaining that iOS is the OS on the iPhone and iPad, not the OS on the Mac.
Contrary to popular opinion, choice is not necessarily a good thing. And for browser rendering engines it's definitely not a good thing. Browser rendering engines are essentially a commodity - all supposedly adhering to the same set of standards. But bugs and slightly different interpretations of those standards create problems for web-developers and problems for users. Better to have a defacto standard for mobile by only having one engine. Far better than the situation on the desktop where sometimes people have multiple browsers for no other reason than ome websites don't work well on certain browsers.
Webkit is that defacto mobile standard. Not just because Apple uses it, but Google's standard Chrome browser onAndroid uses it too. As do most other varieties of smartphones. Nokia did too until Microsoft's stealth take over.
You seem to have forgotten that Apple's original plan for third-party apps for the iPhone was web-apps. The plan was roundly rejected by everyone.
As it was when Palm/HP tried it with "WebOS". It killed Palm, and HP had to have a firesale of the devices that no one would buy.
The threat of web apps to Apple is like the threat of being mauled by a dead sheep.
Thats not the reason Apple don't allow other browsers. The reason is that one single standard web rendering engine serves the consumer better than having multiple slightly incompatible ones. And Apple's success is by making decisions that are best for consumers rather than delegating those decisions and offering choice for choice's sake.
Google's the one that only wants you for your data (and to show advertising to.) Apple's proposal is more honest. They make their money by selling hardware, software and entertainment media.
Remember, Apple came from nowhere in these markets. When they launched the iPhone in 2007, they had an ambition to get just 1% of the phone market. A year later when they launched the App Store, there was no predetermined inevitability that it wold work. Smartphone apps had been around for a decade as a tiny niche. When they launched the iPad, various other companies had tried and failed to create a commercially successful tablet.
Yes for sure these markets make them dump-trucks full of money. But there is only one possible reason for that. Because vast numbers of people like what Apple creates, products and surrounding ecosystem. Their "official reason why they do this is because it allows for a uniform user experience without weird bugs caused by strange combinations" is very, very popular. To put it more succinctly "It just works."
For sure Apple won't be allowing any other browser engine on iOS. Because there is no benefit to the consumer in doing so. Browser rendering is a essentially a commodity. But a few trivial differences in browser engines can mean that occasionally a web-site will behave badly on a particular browser. By standardising on a single renderer, the consumer is better served - any web page that is intended to work with an iPad will work with any iPad browser. No incompatibilities. And as Google's Chrome also uses Webkit, essentially any web-site intended to work on mobile devices will always work perfectly. A Mozilla rendering engine would do more harm than good. And for what? The idea of Open Source? Webkit is open source anyway.
VNPR, CCTV, proposed internet monitoring, and just yesterday we find that the bill contains the power to routinely monitor postal and delivery services too.
Do you need a diagram? Do you really think this is only about road tax and insurance? It's not.
Read Nineteen Eighty-Four.
His proposal is to change virtually nothing. Pretty much the same security theatre, but performed by the private sector rather than the public sector. Pointless.