A brief read of the news recently makes it clear that the patent situation is completely out of control.
The hope was that Google buying Motorola would create enough balance between the portfolio's of Google, MS, and Apple that it would be in all of their interests to return to some form of truce.
RIM has an enormous stockpile of patents - if MS gets them, all bets are off.
"The future of mobile open source is pretty much dead at the moment."
Generally, I find that the open-source absolutists who won't even admit the existence of an open-source option unless it is perfect are the ones who end as the biggest Apple fans (Stallman excluded, of course).
Like you, perhaps, I was rooting for Maemo/meego/whatever - I had the 770, 800, and the 810, and I wrote software for them. But face it, Nokia messed up, and there is another open-source mobile OS.
Sure, the google apps that ship on top of Android aren't open-source, but do you really think that Nokia would have kept every piece of Maemo open if it had taken off?
I agree that Google is just another big evil corp and should be watched closely - I'm a fan of much of what they have done, but I still try to remain critical.
But this is nothing like what MS tried to do to the web. I'll repeat some of what I posted above: with NaCl, Dart, WebM, and SPDY, Google is not replacing web technologies with proprietary technologies - they are optimizing pieces of web technologies.
Even when you use these technologies you are still writing a standard web app and it still runs on all browsers - just without the Chrome optimizations. For NaCl for example, the primary use case (according to Google) is that you take your bundle of HTML/CSS/Javascript and replace pieces of the javascript with native code. When deployed to other browsers your app uses the original javascript instead of the optimized NaCl alternative.
More importantly, these technologies are all open source and restriction and royalty free. So, for example, Amazon is now using Google's SPDY technology in their browser without any royalties or advantage to Google.
To me these seem like reasonable ways to move the web forward without subverting it.
So, if you want to be pissed at Google then note that a couple of weeks ago they cancelled their project to make Green technologies competitive with coal. That didn't get nearly enough press. But when it comes to the web they (for now) still appear to be behaving themselves.
I'm guessing they mean that you are more secure now that you can run apps in your browser which you previously had to install into your OS. The privileges enjoyed by an NaCl browser app are really minimal compared to the same app installed with admin on Windows (which is how most users do it).
Regarding web standardization, note that NaCl is nothing like Flash or Silverlight: rather then replacing standard web technologies with proprietary technologies, it is primarily a way to optimize pieces of web technology. You take your bundle of HTML/CSS/Javascript and replace pieces of the javascript with native code. And you don't do it with some proprietary google language - you do it (eventually) with whatever language you want.
To me it seems like a reasonable way to move the web forward without subverting it (or even altering it much).
On the plus side, you can't accuse RIM of being ignorant of this problem, or of not taking it seriously.
RIM's decision to support Android apps on their new QNX-based OS must have been very painful and probably resulted in a backlash from partners who had invested a lot in their existing app platform.
The upside is that the Playbook and the next gen of BB phones will have access to the vast store of apps that consumers want these days in spite of the lack of developer support described in TFA.
Seriously, half of the stories that get posted on/. now are from trolls, particularly the ones about Android. It's gotten so bad that I really feel guilty that I'm continuing to read slashdot - I think it is wrong of me to continue to give my attention to such a low quality source of news and discussion when surely there are higher quality outlets available and more deserving of our attention.
So, what are those other sites? Has some other site picked up where/. left off? A site where they (or their system) somehow weeds out the lowest quality items before accepting them?
It's not the same kind of information at all. The android file (only available if you have root) is a temporary cache. That is totally difference then the Apple file which holds the data about your location since you bought the phone.
The fact that he considers them the same, and the rest of his article, make it clear that he is merely some obscure, inaccurate, apologist.
With this story being reported all over the Internet, by media and blogs both respectable and ridiculous, why did/. choose to use this ridiculous one./. seems to have turned into a sort-of FOX news of tech discussion - without even a pretense of objectivity.
Yes, but let's get over the SD card and Flash issue.
Those are not yet functional on the Xoom, and the fact that they released the Xoom without the SD support was rather silly, but the hardware is there and SD and Flash will soon be supported on the Xoom.
Claiming Flash and SD as an advantage of the ASUS product will just confuse people.
They aren't just recording that data for fun - it gets sent to Apple, anonymized, and then sold. That is all spelled out in the EULA and was widely reported last Spring when the change was made.
Thing is, Apple users such as yourself didn't care, so the story died. And I can understand your argument - in some ways who cares.
But let's imagine that Google did this. The controversy, paranoia (the data is being given to the CIA and to aliens), and lawsuits would go on for years.
The idea and design of the flip phone is much more unique and sophisticated then a "rectangular design with rounded corners, similar black border and array of icons". Did someone try to patent the general design of the flip phone?
I doubt it since every seems to make a flip phone and I've never heard of anyone being sued over it. Maybe greater sanity prevailed back then.
Their decision to stop filtering content in China (while MS continues) was widely reported, but something that I found more interesting was the internal documents that the WSJ released revealing the debates that top Googlers had about the use of personal information for advertising.
This wasn't so much about what they could get away with - the way it would be at most other companies - it was a philosophical debate about right and wrong. And in the end, they let their values circumscribe their actions in their core revenue area.
So I agree, "Google's corporate DNA still includes ethics as a driver, unlike some other companies".
As far as I can tell, the only evidence to support adeelaershad82's conclusion that Android was "born too early" is that the top apps are not new. To my surprise, none of the links given really backup or explain his this thesis.
So, at launch, Honeycomb will not have very many tablet-specific apps, so early adopters will be stuck mostly with regular Android apps. Wow! Big surprise.
If this is the best attack on Android they can come up with then Honeycomb must be pretty good.
"On my iPad, I've been able to stream Netflix, Yahoo clips, YouTube, and WSJ videos with no problem. Somehow they've worked around the no-Flash limitation."
Yes, that's because either they support HTML5 video (YouTube), or they abandon web delivery and use iTunes or App Store, for those that want content protection.
That's great for Apple, which gets to implement their 30% tax and block stuff for whatever strategic, political, or moral reason they like, but that is bad for: - for consumers who will eventually have to pay ~30% more, - for developers who have to write an app for every platform, - the web, which seems to shrinking for the first time - for less popular platforms that don't have as many apps.
I agree with you that Flash is used for a lot of obnoxious ads, so I dislike it too, but I like the idea that content distributors can deliver their content over the web, in a platform independent manner, without adding an extra layer of tax and control. A good example of this is Amazon video service - their support of Flash means that you can watch the video you buy from them on an enormous array of devices. So, while DRM is generally obnoxious, it is not nearly so bad when it is not used to artificially restrict the devices that I can watch it on (e.g. as with Kindle or anything Apple).
As for it being inefficient compared to native code, and Flash sites working poorly on mobile devices, the same can (and was) said of the web in general. Javascript is inefficient compared to native code and all web sites rendered horribly on mobile devices until they were appropriately tuned. I prefer that the owners of a Flash website tune their Flash for mobile instead of leaving it as is, writing iPhone and Android apps with all the disadvantages that I list above.
"There is no way to have standardized DRM... The whole idea of DRM relies entirely on security through obscurity, and if you publish a standard then that obscurity is gone."
I don't agree. The encryption used for e-mail is a form of DRM that prevents unauthorized users from reading the e-mail, and it is standardized. The DRM that you are talking about has different features but I don't see how that makes it impossible to standardize.
More importantly, whether or not it is currently possible to have standardized encryption is a practical issue and this is really a theoretical discussion: we are talking about future DRM's, not about a specific existing DRM.
I believe that DRM is necessary, and that it is only evil as it is currently implemented.
"There's no need to push HTML video adoption. With the craze over the iStuff and Jobs' anti-Adobe stand, it will naturally become popular with video content producers on the basis of being able to tap into the iPad, iPhone and iPod market."
No. The idea is that the content producers are forced to write an iApp or use iTunes. Either way Apple gets their 30%.
Apple is thrilled about a web without content protection. They know that content owners will not distribute their content without DRM, so a web without content protection means that the web can't be used for content distribution.
Just look at the recent fuss about Apple's subscription service. Content producers would love to have a way around the App Store/iTunes, but with no Flash and no DRM on HTML video they don't have it.
"Here's the easy fix. Ditch your app and make a web-based app. "
Doesn't work. These services require DRM. Apple happens to have blocked the only good way of doing DRM in the browser. I believe that Google is attempting to do Javascript pseudo-DRM to get around this, but I doubt it will be very effective.
Lots of people are saying this is a non-issue and demonstrating it with their easy way to get around Apple's restrictions, but I suspect that Apple already thought of all these easy work-arounds. Apple is building the walls of their garden very carefully.
I think there are more important issues then where the content is hosted.
The most important so far is the 30% cut Apple is taking versus Google's 10%.
Apple's system is opt-in for providing publishers with your contact info, whereas Google is opt-out (by default they will provide your contact info, including e-mail address).
Also important, Apple's system only works on Apple devices and doesn't let you take your content with you if you want to use a non-Apple device.
Google's system attempts to work everywhere (it has a browser version). If the browser version of Google's service uses Flash (for the DRM) it won't work on Apple devices and Apple would block it from their App Store, so it might not be available on Apple devices.
I've often wondered whether that is one of the main reasons why Apple blocked Flash - it gives companies a way to deliver protected content to Apple users without Apple tax and approval? Doing DRM in javascript is possible but very difficult and probably less effective.
Both companies record what you are reading and your personal info, which is nothing new.
What is new is that Apple, as of iOS v4, is tracking your exact (GPS) location and is selling the data (after making it anonymous) to other companies. That was widely reported last July when it was announced.
On Android that is opt-in. Google is only tracking who decide they are OK with being tracked and Google has never sold user data.
Slashdot Mirror
A brief read of the news recently makes it clear that the patent situation is completely out of control.
The hope was that Google buying Motorola would create enough balance between the portfolio's of Google, MS, and Apple that it would be in all of their interests to return to some form of truce.
RIM has an enormous stockpile of patents - if MS gets them, all bets are off.
"The future of mobile open source is pretty much dead at the moment."
Generally, I find that the open-source absolutists who won't even admit the existence of an open-source option unless it is perfect are the ones who end as the biggest Apple fans (Stallman excluded, of course).
Like you, perhaps, I was rooting for Maemo/meego/whatever - I had the 770, 800, and the 810, and I wrote software for them. But face it, Nokia messed up, and there is another open-source mobile OS.
Sure, the google apps that ship on top of Android aren't open-source, but do you really think that Nokia would have kept every piece of Maemo open if it had taken off?
I agree that Google is just another big evil corp and should be watched closely - I'm a fan of much of what they have done, but I still try to remain critical.
But this is nothing like what MS tried to do to the web. I'll repeat some of what I posted above: with NaCl, Dart, WebM, and SPDY, Google is not replacing web technologies with proprietary technologies - they are optimizing pieces of web technologies.
Even when you use these technologies you are still writing a standard web app and it still runs on all browsers - just without the Chrome optimizations. For NaCl for example, the primary use case (according to Google) is that you take your bundle of HTML/CSS/Javascript and replace pieces of the javascript with native code. When deployed to other browsers your app uses the original javascript instead of the optimized NaCl alternative.
More importantly, these technologies are all open source and restriction and royalty free. So, for example, Amazon is now using Google's SPDY technology in their browser without any royalties or advantage to Google.
To me these seem like reasonable ways to move the web forward without subverting it.
So, if you want to be pissed at Google then note that a couple of weeks ago they cancelled their project to make Green technologies competitive with coal. That didn't get nearly enough press. But when it comes to the web they (for now) still appear to be behaving themselves.
I'm guessing they mean that you are more secure now that you can run apps in your browser which you previously had to install into your OS. The privileges enjoyed by an NaCl browser app are really minimal compared to the same app installed with admin on Windows (which is how most users do it).
Regarding web standardization, note that NaCl is nothing like Flash or Silverlight: rather then replacing standard web technologies with proprietary technologies, it is primarily a way to optimize pieces of web technology. You take your bundle of HTML/CSS/Javascript and replace pieces of the javascript with native code. And you don't do it with some proprietary google language - you do it (eventually) with whatever language you want.
To me it seems like a reasonable way to move the web forward without subverting it (or even altering it much).
"Otherwise, what's the difference if one still has to install software on both systems to make it feasible?"
Well, given that TeamViewer starts at $700 for commercial use, I would say there is rather a large difference.
On the plus side, you can't accuse RIM of being ignorant of this problem, or of not taking it seriously.
RIM's decision to support Android apps on their new QNX-based OS must have been very painful and probably resulted in a backlash from partners who had invested a lot in their existing app platform.
The upside is that the Playbook and the next gen of BB phones will have access to the vast store of apps that consumers want these days in spite of the lack of developer support described in TFA.
Seriously, half of the stories that get posted on /. now are from trolls, particularly the ones about Android. It's gotten so bad that I really feel guilty that I'm continuing to read slashdot - I think it is wrong of me to continue to give my attention to such a low quality source of news and discussion when surely there are higher quality outlets available and more deserving of our attention.
So, what are those other sites? Has some other site picked up where /. left off? A site where they (or their system) somehow weeds out the lowest quality items before accepting them?
You forgot:
Apple will remove any app that makes fun of friendly politicians or mentions the name of any competitor (until your content wins a Pulitzer).
Seriously, a guy had to win a Pulitzer to get Apple to re-admit his political satire.
It's not the same kind of information at all. The android file (only available if you have root) is a temporary cache. That is totally difference then the Apple file which holds the data about your location since you bought the phone.
The fact that he considers them the same, and the rest of his article, make it clear that he is merely some obscure, inaccurate, apologist.
With this story being reported all over the Internet, by media and blogs both respectable and ridiculous, why did /. choose to use this ridiculous one. /. seems to have turned into a sort-of FOX news of tech discussion - without even a pretense of objectivity.
Speaking of which, here's one of my favorites pieces so far. A Forces columnist asks whether this discovery (of the Apple location history file) is cool or creepy and concludes that it is cool. She decides that it is actually a great feature and pushes Google to get to it and see if they can come up with a similar feature:
http://blogs.forbes.com/kashmirhill/2011/04/20/cool-or-creepy-your-iphone-and-ipad-are-keeping-track-of-everywhere-you-go-and-you-can-see-it/
So maybe the blog post that /. choose for this whole saga is not actually the worst piece written on the topic.
Yes, but let's get over the SD card and Flash issue.
Those are not yet functional on the Xoom, and the fact that they released the Xoom without the SD support was rather silly, but the hardware is there and SD and Flash will soon be supported on the Xoom.
Claiming Flash and SD as an advantage of the ASUS product will just confuse people.
They aren't just recording that data for fun - it gets sent to Apple, anonymized, and then sold. That is all spelled out in the EULA and was widely reported last Spring when the change was made.
Thing is, Apple users such as yourself didn't care, so the story died. And I can understand your argument - in some ways who cares.
But let's imagine that Google did this. The controversy, paranoia (the data is being given to the CIA and to aliens), and lawsuits would go on for years.
They are not sharing it, they are selling it. That is clearly spelled out in the EULA.
Imagine if Google did anything like this. People would go beserk.
The idea and design of the flip phone is much more unique and sophisticated then a "rectangular design with rounded corners, similar black border and array of icons". Did someone try to patent the general design of the flip phone?
I doubt it since every seems to make a flip phone and I've never heard of anyone being sued over it. Maybe greater sanity prevailed back then.
Their decision to stop filtering content in China (while MS continues) was widely reported, but something that I found more interesting was the internal documents that the WSJ released revealing the debates that top Googlers had about the use of personal information for advertising.
This wasn't so much about what they could get away with - the way it would be at most other companies - it was a philosophical debate about right and wrong. And in the end, they let their values circumscribe their actions in their core revenue area.
So I agree, "Google's corporate DNA still includes ethics as a driver, unlike some other companies".
I'm afraid you are right. The difference is quite noticable. And it is too bad.
Is there a better site now?
As far as I can tell, the only evidence to support adeelaershad82's conclusion that Android was "born too early" is that the top apps are not new. To my surprise, none of the links given really backup or explain his this thesis.
So, at launch, Honeycomb will not have very many tablet-specific apps, so early adopters will be stuck mostly with regular Android apps. Wow! Big surprise.
If this is the best attack on Android they can come up with then Honeycomb must be pretty good.
"On my iPad, I've been able to stream Netflix, Yahoo clips, YouTube, and WSJ videos with no problem. Somehow they've worked around the no-Flash limitation."
Yes, that's because either they support HTML5 video (YouTube), or they abandon web delivery and use iTunes or App Store, for those that want content protection.
That's great for Apple, which gets to implement their 30% tax and block stuff for whatever strategic, political, or moral reason they like, but that is bad for:
- for consumers who will eventually have to pay ~30% more,
- for developers who have to write an app for every platform,
- the web, which seems to shrinking for the first time
- for less popular platforms that don't have as many apps.
I agree with you that Flash is used for a lot of obnoxious ads, so I dislike it too, but I like the idea that content distributors can deliver their content over the web, in a platform independent manner, without adding an extra layer of tax and control. A good example of this is Amazon video service - their support of Flash means that you can watch the video you buy from them on an enormous array of devices. So, while DRM is generally obnoxious, it is not nearly so bad when it is not used to artificially restrict the devices that I can watch it on (e.g. as with Kindle or anything Apple).
As for it being inefficient compared to native code, and Flash sites working poorly on mobile devices, the same can (and was) said of the web in general. Javascript is inefficient compared to native code and all web sites rendered horribly on mobile devices until they were appropriately tuned. I prefer that the owners of a Flash website tune their Flash for mobile instead of leaving it as is, writing iPhone and Android apps with all the disadvantages that I list above.
"There is no way to have standardized DRM... The whole idea of DRM relies entirely on security through obscurity, and if you publish a standard then that obscurity is gone."
I don't agree. The encryption used for e-mail is a form of DRM that prevents unauthorized users from reading the e-mail, and it is standardized. The DRM that you are talking about has different features but I don't see how that makes it impossible to standardize.
More importantly, whether or not it is currently possible to have standardized encryption is a practical issue and this is really a theoretical discussion: we are talking about future DRM's, not about a specific existing DRM.
I believe that DRM is necessary, and that it is only evil as it is currently implemented.
"There's no need to push HTML video adoption. With the craze over the iStuff and Jobs' anti-Adobe stand, it will naturally become popular with video content producers on the basis of being able to tap into the iPad, iPhone and iPod market."
No. The idea is that the content producers are forced to write an iApp or use iTunes. Either way Apple gets their 30%.
Apple is thrilled about a web without content protection. They know that content owners will not distribute their content without DRM, so a web without content protection means that the web can't be used for content distribution.
Just look at the recent fuss about Apple's subscription service. Content producers would love to have a way around the App Store/iTunes, but with no Flash and no DRM on HTML video they don't have it.
"Here's the easy fix. Ditch your app and make a web-based app. "
Doesn't work. These services require DRM. Apple happens to have blocked the only good way of doing DRM in the browser. I believe that Google is attempting to do Javascript pseudo-DRM to get around this, but I doubt it will be very effective.
Lots of people are saying this is a non-issue and demonstrating it with their easy way to get around Apple's restrictions, but I suspect that Apple already thought of all these easy work-arounds. Apple is building the walls of their garden very carefully.
Personally I like having so much of my data with a single company - it makes it easier to keep an eye on.
With Google, I know that they will use it to advertise to me, but they won't sell it or leak it. If that changes I will hear about it.
If that data were spread amongst ten companies there would be no way I could keep track of it and feel comfortable that it wasn't be sold or spilled.
One is opt-in, one is opt-out.
You think that is more important then the 20% difference?
I think there are more important issues then where the content is hosted.
The most important so far is the 30% cut Apple is taking versus Google's 10%.
Apple's system is opt-in for providing publishers with your contact info, whereas Google is opt-out (by default they will provide your contact info, including e-mail address).
Also important, Apple's system only works on Apple devices and doesn't let you take your content with you if you want to use a non-Apple device.
Google's system attempts to work everywhere (it has a browser version). If the browser version of Google's service uses Flash (for the DRM) it won't work on Apple devices and Apple would block it from their App Store, so it might not be available on Apple devices.
I've often wondered whether that is one of the main reasons why Apple blocked Flash - it gives companies a way to deliver protected content to Apple users without Apple tax and approval? Doing DRM in javascript is possible but very difficult and probably less effective.
Wrong.
Both companies record what you are reading and your personal info, which is nothing new.
What is new is that Apple, as of iOS v4, is tracking your exact (GPS) location and is selling the data (after making it anonymous) to other companies. That was widely reported last July when it was announced.
On Android that is opt-in. Google is only tracking who decide they are OK with being tracked and Google has never sold user data.
Maybe I spoke to soon.
Can anyone confirm whether this is PDMI or proprietary?