Your comment is false. Apple has clearly stated the vast majority of their app rejections are due to quality issues (bugs, mostly). And their guidelines are published, as GP stated (me, actually, just didn't bother to log in at the time).
Controversial cases, like you suggest, are actually rare and in those cases we almost never publicly receive Apple's POV.
Considering how much money Google makes from ads shown on iOS devices (probably overall more profitable for Google than Android ads, to date), I doubt they are loving this.
I notice that when you type in Google search box "Samsung Galaxy S3" that "Samsung Galaxy S3 Jelly Bean" is the 2nd suggestion. Wow, that's some distressed deployment there... how long has Nexus had it again?
iPhone 4 cannot handle 3d vector drawn aspects of new map app, so it's a little more limited on that device. I agree with you about responsiveness and better labeling. Apple always cares greatly about aesthetics, and it shows in this app, as the cartography just overall looks nicer and more polished.
Agreed, there are already plenty of choices, especially if using Safari links. I've been using the iOS TomTom app for over two years, works perfectly well for navigating to unfamiliar places.
This whole criticism of the new maps app sounds too much like the overblown criticism when iPhone 4 came out... "You're holding it wrong". I bought an early iPhone 4, and I could never even figure out how to hold it wrong... I TRIED to force it to drop a call and couldn't do it. Similarly, I suspect the number of "wrong results" is being overstated, probably mostly by Android partisans.
The fact that a dual-core iPhone 5 nearly equals a quad-core S3 on benchmarks (and beats EVERY single other Android phone on the market) is probably a win for iPhone, especially considering normal smartphone power and usage profiles. "The iPhone is slow"? You're just trolling there.
If you buy a Nexus 7, do you have access to all the Amazon Appstore and other Kindle Fire features? What about HTC Sense or Motorola Blur for that matter?
The reality is, TODAY Google has control over what "the full Android experience" means, but they may not tomorrow, due to its open source nature.
We have RFID tags in our passports already, so they are already moving us towards electronic IDs. It's a foregone conclusion that the type of ID done for international flights will eventually crop up in domestic travel as well, for better or worse.
Consumers won't fight phone ID provided there is some added convenience that comes with it. Perhaps if we didn't have to remove shoes, for example (even though that security theatre seems unrelated to digital identification).
GP is suggesting that Google may be up to some PR shenanigans here. Any "dirty" work is left to their subsidiaries / partners so as not to besmirch the Google "Don't be Evil" corporate name.
Why would the court even address this? All they would be asked to do is decide if Apple is infringing, and, if so, decide if a ban is suitable. They don't necessarily need to consider the marketplace aftermath.
Whoever is the delegate needs strong communication skills, to be able to clearly and concisely state the benefits and risks of various project proposals made by the entrepreneur. So long as such communication skills exist on the part of the lead developer, I agree with you 100%.
The most likely outcome is that the two companies settle out of court, even now. All this litigation is merely foreplay, in terms of moving the final settlement slightly one way or the other.
That's a narrow view of advertising, one that I suggest is incomplete.
Let's say, hypothetically, there is a Coca-Cola ad on the side of this page, even though you rarely drink Coke, and have no plans to drink more at the moment. And let's say you only superficially see and note it. And you still don't rush to the vending machine to purchase a coke.
Has the ad failed? I say probably not. For most people, they may subconsciously note that Coke is a common thing to drink, a tasty thing to drink, and there may be a statistical increase in the likelihood that they purchase one a week from now, a month from now, with some restaurant meal.
In other words, advertising has long term payoffs, from simply informing customers about a product to getting into a person's subconscious.
Slashdot Mirror
I'm not seeing how adding video will help this product. It's a little "over-featured" and "over-priced" to be successful, in my opinion.
Your comment is false. Apple has clearly stated the vast majority of their app rejections are due to quality issues (bugs, mostly). And their guidelines are published, as GP stated (me, actually, just didn't bother to log in at the time).
Controversial cases, like you suggest, are actually rare and in those cases we almost never publicly receive Apple's POV.
Mozilla never bothered to attempt an iOS port. Opera mini works fine on it, in comparison.
Considering how much money Google makes from ads shown on iOS devices (probably overall more profitable for Google than Android ads, to date), I doubt they are loving this.
I notice that when you type in Google search box "Samsung Galaxy S3" that "Samsung Galaxy S3 Jelly Bean" is the 2nd suggestion. Wow, that's some distressed deployment there... how long has Nexus had it again?
Google provides many apps for iOS, including many that overlap with iOS functionality already (like gmail).
In addition, the google maps app has some functionality that the iOS app doesn't have, such as street view and navigation by public transit.
iPhone 4 cannot handle 3d vector drawn aspects of new map app, so it's a little more limited on that device. I agree with you about responsiveness and better labeling. Apple always cares greatly about aesthetics, and it shows in this app, as the cartography just overall looks nicer and more polished.
Agreed, there are already plenty of choices, especially if using Safari links. I've been using the iOS TomTom app for over two years, works perfectly well for navigating to unfamiliar places.
This whole criticism of the new maps app sounds too much like the overblown criticism when iPhone 4 came out... "You're holding it wrong". I bought an early iPhone 4, and I could never even figure out how to hold it wrong... I TRIED to force it to drop a call and couldn't do it. Similarly, I suspect the number of "wrong results" is being overstated, probably mostly by Android partisans.
Yes, I think they are going to allow it. Next question?
At least the Apple "walled garden" expands. iPhone 5 will likely get iOS 7.0 and 8.0 upgrades.
At this point, it's only 50/50 that the S3 even sees a 4.2 update.
The fact that a dual-core iPhone 5 nearly equals a quad-core S3 on benchmarks (and beats EVERY single other Android phone on the market) is probably a win for iPhone, especially considering normal smartphone power and usage profiles. "The iPhone is slow"? You're just trolling there.
umm, kinda obvious fact to omit from the summary, that whole ifixit repairability score...
I am not saying this is new, or secure, or even a good idea. It just seems to be what US policymakers have decreed.
Ask any big defense company. Government contracts are fabulous things.
If you buy a Nexus 7, do you have access to all the Amazon Appstore and other Kindle Fire features? What about HTC Sense or Motorola Blur for that matter?
The reality is, TODAY Google has control over what "the full Android experience" means, but they may not tomorrow, due to its open source nature.
We have RFID tags in our passports already, so they are already moving us towards electronic IDs. It's a foregone conclusion that the type of ID done for international flights will eventually crop up in domestic travel as well, for better or worse.
Consumers won't fight phone ID provided there is some added convenience that comes with it. Perhaps if we didn't have to remove shoes, for example (even though that security theatre seems unrelated to digital identification).
GP is suggesting that Google may be up to some PR shenanigans here. Any "dirty" work is left to their subsidiaries / partners so as not to besmirch the Google "Don't be Evil" corporate name.
Why would the court even address this? All they would be asked to do is decide if Apple is infringing, and, if so, decide if a ban is suitable. They don't necessarily need to consider the marketplace aftermath.
... and so can, by extension, Qualcomm's customers.
Qualcomm has already licensed those LTE patents in question. End of story. This threat of litigation is entirely FUD.
You think Qualcomm would be dumb enough to build and sell a product that their customers could not use in their end products?
I didn't know Samsung was so eager to get in a spat with Qualcomm again...
Whoever is the delegate needs strong communication skills, to be able to clearly and concisely state the benefits and risks of various project proposals made by the entrepreneur. So long as such communication skills exist on the part of the lead developer, I agree with you 100%.
The most likely outcome is that the two companies settle out of court, even now. All this litigation is merely foreplay, in terms of moving the final settlement slightly one way or the other.
Nothing to see here, move along...
That's a narrow view of advertising, one that I suggest is incomplete.
Let's say, hypothetically, there is a Coca-Cola ad on the side of this page, even though you rarely drink Coke, and have no plans to drink more at the moment. And let's say you only superficially see and note it. And you still don't rush to the vending machine to purchase a coke.
Has the ad failed? I say probably not. For most people, they may subconsciously note that Coke is a common thing to drink, a tasty thing to drink, and there may be a statistical increase in the likelihood that they purchase one a week from now, a month from now, with some restaurant meal.
In other words, advertising has long term payoffs, from simply informing customers about a product to getting into a person's subconscious.