After that, I believe he just backed up the already installed version of those apps, and put them back on the phone after installing CyanogenMod, and Google seemed to be perfectly fine with that.
It's still a whole phone more than most other manufacturers pay for this excellent service of making their phones more useful and therefore more valuable.
XSLT, trivial? Have you ever tried doing anything useful with it?
I have. As long as you use it for its intended purpose, and don't try to calculate a square root with it (as a co-worker once did as an exercise), it's pretty easy. Trivial even, if you do it right.
The other points aren't all that great either. Most of them are either irrelevant or apply equally to native apps as they do to web apps. If anything, this article seems to point towards relying more on the server and less on the client.
Besides, no one attempts to use "support our troops" to mean excuse abu gharib or anything like that. They mean "while troops are in harms way, regardless of why, cutting off funding for munitions is anathema". And I tend to agree.
On another note, the individual referred to in the summary (identified in the stub-of-an-article as Michael Sedergren), was not the guy who beat Jones senseless, but in my personal opinion, he's just as dirty, and should have been fired, too.
Fired? Why not charged with assault? This is exactly the kind of person that prisons were made for.
Those are the biggest Motorola problems that Google needs to fix. If they do, I predict a happy future, and I might actually break my promise of never buying Motorola ever again.
I think Microsoft was already planning to do that anyway, only after running the value of the company into the ground, making it cheaper to pick up the bits they're interested in.
It's hard to image that they're really all that happy, though.
One of the biggest threats to the Android bunch (HTC, Samsung etc.) is patents. Samsung just had a release of their new tablet halted by Apple everywhere in the E.U. (apart from the Netherlands) because of a patent attack.
That block is not because of patents, but because the design is a direct copy of the iPad. (Though it turns out that Apple forged the evidence for that, so that block might disappear really soon.)
The interesting thing is: everything that Motorola does wrong, is something that Google does much, much better. If they manage to combine the good parts of both companies, you'd get some pretty awesome products.
They may be great phone (hw) manufacturers, but in terms of software they are very, very incompetent, including wasting time on 'customization' that only bother the consumer and refusing to release updates (while Cyanogenmod runs circles around them)
That's kinda what I'm hoping for: Motorola's hardware with Google's software. Fire everybody who worked on Motoblur, Motonav, locking bootloaders and crap like that, and keep the people who build awesome hardware. I love Motorola hardware, but I hate their approach to software with a passion.
Show me one Samsung Android phone that has a locked bootloader that prevents you from booting an arbitrary kernel.
Then show me one Motorola Android phone that wasn't shipped with a locked bootloader.
The Droid. But that was a Verizon exclusive, which only supports the point that it's Motorola who wants to lock everything, while Verizon seems to want it unlocked (seems out of character for them, but who knows?).
The Milestone/Droid suggests it's actually the other way around: the Droid was sold through a carrier (Verizon) and was pretty open. The Milestone was sold directly to users, and it was locked down.
I really hope this acquisition changes this. I vowed to never buy anything from Motorola ever again, but if Google fires all the idiots in Motorola, and opens up their otherwise pretty awesome hardware, I might have to break that vow.
Samsung is the one that's shamelessly copying. Google isn't copying any more than Apply or other big companies do (which is still quite a bit, obviously). The annoying thing about Google (for other companies, not so much for users) is that they compete in a very disruptive way. Google doesn't really compete at all; they increase the market they are interested in by making stuff in other markets free.
So am I. It sounds just a bit too good to be true. Cheap, compact, and no radioactive waste? If it's really that easy, why isn't everybody already doing this in bigger reactors? Why mess about with uranium and critical mass and complex safety procedures when it can be so much easier and safer?
That's all nice if the thorium is a drop-in replacement for gasoline, but how much exactly is the laser+steam engine going to weigh you down?
According to TFA, it seems a 250MW laser would weigh 227 kg, but they have no idea how much the steam turbine is going to weigh. It's already looking a bit heavy for a motorcycle, though.
Thanks. That's very big of you. However, I wasn't entirely correct either: my figures of 11-20 billion look like they're only US revenue. Global revenue for PC + consoles does seem to fall in the 65-77 billion range.
How the hell is that not a market? What kind of insane definition of market are you using?
One that doesn't depend on using one extreme example?
That example is part of the market. You can't just go excluding one game because it doesn't happen to fit the facts that you prefer to see.
That number is way bigger than anything I've seen. Does it include hardware? Shall we also include PC hardware then?
Do you think they sold $50 billion at a loss in hardware to make $10 billion in games?
I just want to know where you're getting that number. Google for "console game revenue", and you'll see totals from 11 to 20 billion. For the total console market, not just one single platform. You haven't provided any sources yet.
You can keep saying "Wrong" as often as you like, but that doesn't make it so.
Your being wrong is what makes it so.
Do you really honestly think that PC games are limited to shooters? You really ought to get out of that cave, because that single claim proves that you know absolutely nothing about PC games.
When I called you on your silly claim, I expected you to say "of course I'm exaggerating a bit", and I'd reply "you're exaggerating a lot", and this discussion would at least remain somewhere in the vicinity of reality. By stubbornly sticking to that ridiculous claim, you're undermining every last shred of credibility you've got. It makes you look like an idiot.
If you knew even the slightest thing about PC games....
This from the guy who didn't have the dimmest clue about how much money the console market brings in. Heh. Meanwhile, being somebody who has worked on PC games...
So far I'm the only one in this discussion with figures to back him up. You're just pulling stuff out of your ass.
Slashdot Mirror
So we can discuss it here. If you come only for the news, Slashdot is a crappy site.
After that, I believe he just backed up the already installed version of those apps, and put them back on the phone after installing CyanogenMod, and Google seemed to be perfectly fine with that.
It's still a whole phone more than most other manufacturers pay for this excellent service of making their phones more useful and therefore more valuable.
I bought a Droid Charge. The hardware is amazing. The stock software sucks, horribly.
Sounds like Motorola alright. Hopefully the Google takeover will change that second part in the future.
If you feel comfortable ROMing it, it's a great pick.
It's not locked down like almost every other Motorola phone?
Samsung gave 5 of the CyanogenMod devs free Galaxy S2 phones and only asked that they make CyanogenMod work on it.
Awesome. Samsung gets it. Now if only they made a steel phone with a keyboard, and I'll happily give them my money.
Does at at least accept the XML-valid structure too? Or is HTML5 just intended to give web developers more tedious work?
Almost every single tool in the world spits out valid XML nowadays. Browsers expecting non-XML is going to be really frustrating.
XSLT, trivial? Have you ever tried doing anything useful with it?
I have. As long as you use it for its intended purpose, and don't try to calculate a square root with it (as a co-worker once did as an exercise), it's pretty easy. Trivial even, if you do it right.
The other points aren't all that great either. Most of them are either irrelevant or apply equally to native apps as they do to web apps. If anything, this article seems to point towards relying more on the server and less on the client.
Besides, no one attempts to use "support our troops" to mean excuse abu gharib or anything like that. They mean "while troops are in harms way, regardless of why, cutting off funding for munitions is anathema". And I tend to agree.
I think that's "supply our troops".
On another note, the individual referred to in the summary (identified in the stub-of-an-article as Michael Sedergren), was not the guy who beat Jones senseless, but in my personal opinion, he's just as dirty, and should have been fired, too.
Fired? Why not charged with assault? This is exactly the kind of person that prisons were made for.
Those are the biggest Motorola problems that Google needs to fix. If they do, I predict a happy future, and I might actually break my promise of never buying Motorola ever again.
Yeah, I really want Google to track every single barcode scanned in the world.
I think Microsoft was already planning to do that anyway, only after running the value of the company into the ground, making it cheaper to pick up the bits they're interested in.
It's hard to image that they're really all that happy, though.
One of the biggest threats to the Android bunch (HTC, Samsung etc.) is patents. Samsung just had a release of their new tablet halted by Apple everywhere in the E.U. (apart from the Netherlands) because of a patent attack.
That block is not because of patents, but because the design is a direct copy of the iPad. (Though it turns out that Apple forged the evidence for that, so that block might disappear really soon.)
The interesting thing is: everything that Motorola does wrong, is something that Google does much, much better. If they manage to combine the good parts of both companies, you'd get some pretty awesome products.
In its early days, my Milestone sometimes called somebody entirely by itself. I've also had one day where it was completely useless.
Though for the last year, it's been working pretty well.
They may be great phone (hw) manufacturers, but in terms of software they are very, very incompetent, including wasting time on 'customization' that only bother the consumer and refusing to release updates (while Cyanogenmod runs circles around them)
That's kinda what I'm hoping for: Motorola's hardware with Google's software. Fire everybody who worked on Motoblur, Motonav, locking bootloaders and crap like that, and keep the people who build awesome hardware. I love Motorola hardware, but I hate their approach to software with a passion.
Show me one Samsung Android phone that has a locked bootloader that prevents you from booting an arbitrary kernel.
Then show me one Motorola Android phone that wasn't shipped with a locked bootloader.
The Droid. But that was a Verizon exclusive, which only supports the point that it's Motorola who wants to lock everything, while Verizon seems to want it unlocked (seems out of character for them, but who knows?).
The Milestone/Droid suggests it's actually the other way around: the Droid was sold through a carrier (Verizon) and was pretty open. The Milestone was sold directly to users, and it was locked down.
I really hope this acquisition changes this. I vowed to never buy anything from Motorola ever again, but if Google fires all the idiots in Motorola, and opens up their otherwise pretty awesome hardware, I might have to break that vow.
I don't think this is an antitrust issue. It doesn't give Google anything that Apple doesn't already have, or Microsoft is about to get.
Samsung is the one that's shamelessly copying. Google isn't copying any more than Apply or other big companies do (which is still quite a bit, obviously). The annoying thing about Google (for other companies, not so much for users) is that they compete in a very disruptive way. Google doesn't really compete at all; they increase the market they are interested in by making stuff in other markets free.
So am I. It sounds just a bit too good to be true. Cheap, compact, and no radioactive waste? If it's really that easy, why isn't everybody already doing this in bigger reactors? Why mess about with uranium and critical mass and complex safety procedures when it can be so much easier and safer?
That's all nice if the thorium is a drop-in replacement for gasoline, but how much exactly is the laser+steam engine going to weigh you down?
According to TFA, it seems a 250MW laser would weigh 227 kg, but they have no idea how much the steam turbine is going to weigh. It's already looking a bit heavy for a motorcycle, though.
Thanks. That's very big of you. However, I wasn't entirely correct either: my figures of 11-20 billion look like they're only US revenue. Global revenue for PC + consoles does seem to fall in the 65-77 billion range.
Here's the clearest article I've found so far. 77 billion total in 2009, of which over 30 billion for consoles.
How the hell is that not a market? What kind of insane definition of market are you using?
One that doesn't depend on using one extreme example?
That example is part of the market. You can't just go excluding one game because it doesn't happen to fit the facts that you prefer to see.
That number is way bigger than anything I've seen. Does it include hardware? Shall we also include PC hardware then?
Do you think they sold $50 billion at a loss in hardware to make $10 billion in games?
I just want to know where you're getting that number. Google for "console game revenue", and you'll see totals from 11 to 20 billion. For the total console market, not just one single platform. You haven't provided any sources yet.
You can keep saying "Wrong" as often as you like, but that doesn't make it so.
Your being wrong is what makes it so.
Do you really honestly think that PC games are limited to shooters? You really ought to get out of that cave, because that single claim proves that you know absolutely nothing about PC games.
When I called you on your silly claim, I expected you to say "of course I'm exaggerating a bit", and I'd reply "you're exaggerating a lot", and this discussion would at least remain somewhere in the vicinity of reality. By stubbornly sticking to that ridiculous claim, you're undermining every last shred of credibility you've got. It makes you look like an idiot.
If you knew even the slightest thing about PC games....
This from the guy who didn't have the dimmest clue about how much money the console market brings in. Heh. Meanwhile, being somebody who has worked on PC games...
So far I'm the only one in this discussion with figures to back him up. You're just pulling stuff out of your ass.