I want people to look at the moderation patterns here. MrHanky's comments here and further down are off-topic, yet they're modded up. Bonch's replies to defend himself against the accusations, however, are modded as off-topic. Could Slashdot's moderators be any more biased and one-sided?
Companies with proprietary software don't want to deal with the GPL, no. Hardware companies don't care because Linux is a free-as-in-beer operating system for their products that they can contribute as much or as little to as they want.
I was actually just joking, but I've had anonymous trolls talk about using open proxies, so it's not as if IP-tracking is some kind of barrier unless Slashdot prohibits open proxies in that case.
Totally shocked that the CEO of the company that licenses Android insists that it's not fragmented. Could we also get China's opinion on internet censorship or Rush Limbaugh's thoughts on Obama?
10 posts in, and there are already guys like you completely missing the point and going right back to baselessly accusing Apple of things. Slashdot never changes.
The people you are referring to will just say nothing and pretend this submission doesn't exist, because it challenges an anti-Apple mindset that they're emotionally invested in.
Sigh...it's obviously more than just "rounded rectangles" that makes it similar-looking to existing Apple products. The keyboard looks exactly like Apple's flat keyboard, and the trackpad is the Magic Trackpad that Apple started offering a year or so ago. When you've got obvious rip-offs on the market--like this Samsung Windows laptop that looks like a MacBook Pro and even uses an Apple logo for the default account avatar to resemble the OS X boot up sequence in order to confuse customers--it's not at all surprising that Apple is going to be proactive in protecting its design work. But sites like Slashdot are full of Apple-haters who don't want to give the company credit for anything, because Apple is popular. That doesn't change the fact that when Apple introduces a popular product, a bunch of of competing products start to look almost exactly like it--as if there's no other way to design a PC, tablet, phone, etc. once Apple introduces a particular design for them.
FOR FUCK'S SAKE STOP POSTING THIS MONOPOLY CRAP. You're the only one pushing it, and it certainly hasn't been established as a fact in any court I've heard of. If it *had*, Microsoft would be all over it...
By the way, I forgot to mention this in the last post, but Samuel Miller, the DOJ prosecutor who went after Microsoft also considers them a monopoly. So your statement about Microsoft is somewhat amusing in restrospect.
Are you for real? And who modded you up and me down? Google is absolutely a monopoly in web search. It doesn't matter if I'm the "only one pushing it" on Slashdot (which isn't true).
A monopoly means more than just "has a lot of market share". Try reading up on it before you start throwing it around.
Monopoly means "the exclusive possession or control of the supply or trade in a commodity or service." Google is the dominant search engine as well as the dominant web advertiser. It is most definitely a monopoly. But if you and the moderators don't believe me, how about the words of Eric Schmidt, who said in response to the question of whether Google is in a position that would subject it to monopoly rules: "We're in that area."
Search engines do not call business bad names. They don't call anything.
I'm not advocating the decision of the court (and so the downloads of my post are just weird), I'm simply explaining why they made the decision. The search engine did call a business a bad name--it associated a negative term with the name of the business. If Google was just another search engine, nobody would care, but they're practically the gateway to the web and the #1 way that people find information about things.
Remember when Microsoft instituted a browser ballot? But they listed them in alphabetical order, and so Opera complained about their placement on the list, forcing Microsoft to randomize the order? Microsoft could have argued that they weren't placing the browsers in any sort of priority list, and that it was the order of the alphabet that placed them that way, but that wasn't the point--the courts decided that Microsoft's influence was so huge that, regardless of the reason, the list was biased against browsers that placed lower than others alphabetically.
The same is true here. Google didn't intervene and call anybody names, but their influence is so huge and dominant that the court has decided it is a violation of free market competition for it to libel (as they perceive it) a business. I'm not advocating any position; I'm just explaining why Google is being held to such a unique standard, just as Microsoft was.
The ants weren't acting as a global hive, per se. They were just genetically related and so didn't attack each other in experiments, and so technically counted as members of the same colony.
France would likely consider that an even bigger monopoly abuse. The key here is to remember that Google is completely dominant in web search and has enormous influence over the success and failure of entities in the market.
Monopolies are held to different standards of the law by governments, in order to ensure fair competition. If the monopoly search engine is calling a business bad names, algorithmically or not, well, apparently France believes that's not fair competition.
Likely, the French Court is holding Google to a unique standard because they are a monopoly in web search, and they inadvertently have influence over the success of other businesses and industries.
It is a very unusual measure of marketshare to compare sale of individual phone models.
I agree, and that is what people are doing when they compare an iPhone, an individual phone model, to an operating system.
Also the notion that iPods should be included when looking at phone OS market share, is more than a bit strange, just to avoid talking about phone OS market share which has been the normal measure in the industry long before the iPhone and is a very relevant category to look at, even if Apple is not on top.
I specifically said mobile operating system, not smartphone operating system. As Android is attempting to expand outside of smartphones, and iPods remain a popular mobile device (they're simply iPhones without cellular radios), I see no reason why mobile operating system marketshare should be compared strictly on the basis of smartphones running them, anymore than you'd compare desktop operating system marketshare based strictly on laptops.
Could the submission be any snarkier? Malware is already a big problem on Android. I also think people underestimate Windows 8--as Google starts offering its own phones and tablets, angered Android licensees may be swayed toward putting Windows 8 on their devices. I just think you should never dismiss Microsoft.
Don't forget that back then EVERYTHING was hackable and the companies would give you details on the entire system like you wouldn't believe!
That's only because you couldn't do much else with a computer but program it yourself. Home computers were sold with the intention of being programmed by the user, and magazines would print code listings in BASIC. There was barely a third-party software ecosystem, and it was easier to just dump people in a BASIC prompt rather than design an end-user interface. People glorify the "packability" of things back then, but it came not out of principle but necessity.
The metric "Apple aficionados" use is the one where the iPhone is the top-selling handset. For some reason, you're comparing a phone to an operating system. If you actually compare mobile operating systems, iOS has more share due to iPads and iPods.
Slashdot Mirror
I want people to look at the moderation patterns here. MrHanky's comments here and further down are off-topic, yet they're modded up. Bonch's replies to defend himself against the accusations, however, are modded as off-topic. Could Slashdot's moderators be any more biased and one-sided?
Companies with proprietary software don't want to deal with the GPL, no. Hardware companies don't care because Linux is a free-as-in-beer operating system for their products that they can contribute as much or as little to as they want.
I was actually just joking, but I've had anonymous trolls talk about using open proxies, so it's not as if IP-tracking is some kind of barrier unless Slashdot prohibits open proxies in that case.
I bet you modded him down and then logged out just so you could reply without negating your downmod. Never change, Slashdot.
IBM and Intel do it to sell hardware and support. God knows why Microsoft does.
Totally shocked that the CEO of the company that licenses Android insists that it's not fragmented. Could we also get China's opinion on internet censorship or Rush Limbaugh's thoughts on Obama?
10 posts in, and there are already guys like you completely missing the point and going right back to baselessly accusing Apple of things. Slashdot never changes.
The people you are referring to will just say nothing and pretend this submission doesn't exist, because it challenges an anti-Apple mindset that they're emotionally invested in.
Sigh...it's obviously more than just "rounded rectangles" that makes it similar-looking to existing Apple products. The keyboard looks exactly like Apple's flat keyboard, and the trackpad is the Magic Trackpad that Apple started offering a year or so ago. When you've got obvious rip-offs on the market--like this Samsung Windows laptop that looks like a MacBook Pro and even uses an Apple logo for the default account avatar to resemble the OS X boot up sequence in order to confuse customers--it's not at all surprising that Apple is going to be proactive in protecting its design work. But sites like Slashdot are full of Apple-haters who don't want to give the company credit for anything, because Apple is popular. That doesn't change the fact that when Apple introduces a popular product, a bunch of of competing products start to look almost exactly like it--as if there's no other way to design a PC, tablet, phone, etc. once Apple introduces a particular design for them.
By the way, I forgot to mention this in the last post, but Samuel Miller, the DOJ prosecutor who went after Microsoft also considers them a monopoly. So your statement about Microsoft is somewhat amusing in restrospect.
Are you for real? And who modded you up and me down? Google is absolutely a monopoly in web search. It doesn't matter if I'm the "only one pushing it" on Slashdot (which isn't true).
Monopoly means "the exclusive possession or control of the supply or trade in a commodity or service." Google is the dominant search engine as well as the dominant web advertiser. It is most definitely a monopoly. But if you and the moderators don't believe me, how about the words of Eric Schmidt, who said in response to the question of whether Google is in a position that would subject it to monopoly rules: "We're in that area."
They're a monopoly.
Meant "downmods." Damn autocorrect.
I'm not advocating the decision of the court (and so the downloads of my post are just weird), I'm simply explaining why they made the decision. The search engine did call a business a bad name--it associated a negative term with the name of the business. If Google was just another search engine, nobody would care, but they're practically the gateway to the web and the #1 way that people find information about things.
Remember when Microsoft instituted a browser ballot? But they listed them in alphabetical order, and so Opera complained about their placement on the list, forcing Microsoft to randomize the order? Microsoft could have argued that they weren't placing the browsers in any sort of priority list, and that it was the order of the alphabet that placed them that way, but that wasn't the point--the courts decided that Microsoft's influence was so huge that, regardless of the reason, the list was biased against browsers that placed lower than others alphabetically.
The same is true here. Google didn't intervene and call anybody names, but their influence is so huge and dominant that the court has decided it is a violation of free market competition for it to libel (as they perceive it) a business. I'm not advocating any position; I'm just explaining why Google is being held to such a unique standard, just as Microsoft was.
The ants weren't acting as a global hive, per se. They were just genetically related and so didn't attack each other in experiments, and so technically counted as members of the same colony.
Try browsing at a lower threshold. An overlords quote was the second post to the article.
France would likely consider that an even bigger monopoly abuse. The key here is to remember that Google is completely dominant in web search and has enormous influence over the success and failure of entities in the market.
Monopolies are held to different standards of the law by governments, in order to ensure fair competition. If the monopoly search engine is calling a business bad names, algorithmically or not, well, apparently France believes that's not fair competition.
Likely, the French Court is holding Google to a unique standard because they are a monopoly in web search, and they inadvertently have influence over the success of other businesses and industries.
I agree, and that is what people are doing when they compare an iPhone, an individual phone model, to an operating system.
I specifically said mobile operating system, not smartphone operating system. As Android is attempting to expand outside of smartphones, and iPods remain a popular mobile device (they're simply iPhones without cellular radios), I see no reason why mobile operating system marketshare should be compared strictly on the basis of smartphones running them, anymore than you'd compare desktop operating system marketshare based strictly on laptops.
Well, you can say that about any backup. With all due respect, your post is a bit of a karma whore...
Could the submission be any snarkier? Malware is already a big problem on Android. I also think people underestimate Windows 8--as Google starts offering its own phones and tablets, angered Android licensees may be swayed toward putting Windows 8 on their devices. I just think you should never dismiss Microsoft.
That's only because you couldn't do much else with a computer but program it yourself. Home computers were sold with the intention of being programmed by the user, and magazines would print code listings in BASIC. There was barely a third-party software ecosystem, and it was easier to just dump people in a BASIC prompt rather than design an end-user interface. People glorify the "packability" of things back then, but it came not out of principle but necessity.
Can you give an example of one of these major companies making millions of dollars on Free2play games?
The metric "Apple aficionados" use is the one where the iPhone is the top-selling handset. For some reason, you're comparing a phone to an operating system. If you actually compare mobile operating systems, iOS has more share due to iPads and iPods.
I and others have tried. The editors won't publish programming articles.