If I understand it correctly, I would be able to power on, fix or reimage my home desktops/laptops while at work or away on a trip. Or fix my moms crashed computer from half way around the globe.
And govt agencies and hackers would also be able to do this and we don't want that. As far as fixing your mom's computer, a simple video chat using some mobile phone can be used to fix the computer, without the invasive spyware.
wait, no, a GNU/Linux enthusiast; run-of-the-mill Linux enthusiasts are too corrupted by pragmatism) poring over hundreds of giant sheets of chip diagrams,
They don't do that (poring) even for software, that they can read and understand, hence all these critical bugs. Why should manufacturers spill their millions of dollars worth secrets to a bunch of freeloaders? Vendors are fully within their rights to keep their designs secret -- If you don't trust their products, don't use it.
If you divide the claimed 10 billion dollars by the claimed 600,000 jobs, you get 16,000 dollars per job. That's much lower than the average developer's salary.
Most of that $10B probably goes to big name freemium game companies who make tons of money from in-app purchases of digital goods. So if you subtract big-game dev income, you'd end up with something like $5,000 to $10,000 per independent developer.
Apple should release how much of that $10B goes to independent developers.
If you want small, forth is probably the best... better than assembly. Java uses it to convert source to forth-like intermediate language (jvm) opcodes.
And they make money by ensuring that there are drivers.
Oh, there's going to plenty of supply of drivers if you charge a whopping $357 for 14 miles. What sane person would ride during surge pricing times?
You can rent a car for 3-5 days, with insurance, for that much money. Surge pricing is more about ripping people off when they need something the most than it is about maintaining a supply of drivers.
It's a valid example: a smartphone is just a shrunk down PC/laptop.
You don't get all your drivers from the OS vendor.
True, but we do get OS updates from only one vendor: the OS vendor. If there's a driver bug or hardware bug, we get the driver update from the hardware vendor. This is not a hardware/hardware driver bug, so the update must come from the OS vendor, google.
The problem is that you can't use them if your hardware vendor has not yet made their drivers compatible with the new version of the OS.
What does a pure software component, WebView, have anything to do with hardware drivers? Nothing. Your argument is baseless.
No, it's your hardware provider that is your problem, not Google.
Do you update your Windows/Linux/OSX PC/laptop from the OS vendor or the company that sold you the hardware? It's almost always the OS vendor. A PC/laptop is very similar to a smartphone except the latter is smaller. Google's model of pushing updates through the hardware vendor utterly stupid and adds an extra unnecessary middleman to the process.
Contact your hardware provider and bitch to them, not Google.
Why can't google's patch fix the issue? Is there a different kernel for each android phone so that different patches are needed for each phone?
Wait... can you state again just how Pascal and Java are similar?
Here are a few similarities, off the top of my head:
* Java's single-inheritance class system is very similar to that in Object Pascal except Pascal did not have interfaces. It's much saner and error-resistant than C++'s byzantine class system. * System.out.println() is very similar to Pascal's Write, Writeln * No separate header files: Interface declaration and implementation in the same source file. Java's 'import' is similar to Pascal's 'uses' statement. * Both have runtime array bounds checking * Some data types like 'byte' and 'boolean' seem to be taken from pascal.
Yes, because only ugly, unreadable languages like C/C++, PHP and Perl are favorned because they make programmers look cleverer and provide job security through obscurity (of code). Clean languages like Pascal, Python or Java are derided as ivory tower and unpractical although they are readable, encourage good design and help finding/preventing more bugs in the development phase.
What exactly does cumbersome mean here? Does it (a) Require a lot of time, hassle and/or paperwork? (b) Cost high fees to obtain and maintain it? (c) Require a much higher level of driving skills than non-commercial DL?
Also, what's the difference in cost for non-commercial vs commercial insurance, typically?
Of course they'll have a decent finish and UV protection. Except they'll probably be mass manufactured in some cheap country by robots where they don't charge $50/hour, so it'll be 1/10th the cost of having in repaired by an auto body shop.
Yes, you should explain how something that could be described as an "airlock" and which you now admit should be large enough to allow at least a small child to crawl into, isn't a liability problem.
Yep, a milk bottle tray sized door is not enough to put many packages into the house. Why don't they instead have large containers near houses? They are the size of large trash cans and are often used near public trains to hold bicycles inside them.
The Fedex/UPS delivery guy can place them inside these containers and email a 10 or 12-digit pass code to the receiver. Since the box is walking distance from the receiver, he can pick it on of after reaching home from work.
How about minor repairs? Will we need to pay hundreds of dollars to buff out some scratch or repair deep dents when we can instead replace the damaged outer panel with a new 3D printed one. Of course, cars need to be redesigned to handle such swapping.
That arrangement conveniently ignores that a uniform OS API would effectively reduce all platforms to the lowest-common-denominator.
You're right about that, but most apps don't need more than the basic and commonly used APIs for screen drawing, file and network access.
It would also eliminate any chance of one platform doing anything to stand out against the sea of other platforms, which would in turn eliminate competition on all points except price. Goodbye, innovation. Goodbye, progress.
Suppose the OS provides multiple interfaces: interface S, which is an industry standard and interface P that has more innovative features but is proprietary. The developer now has a choice whether he wants the features bad enough to use interface P and write multiple ports of his app, or just stick to interface S and write a single source app that works on all platforms.
This so-called "app neutrality" requires that anyone developing an application is obligated to provide it for all platforms, independent of whether it is in their best interests to do so, and independent of whether the developer has the resources to meet that obligation.
A webpage works the same on Windows, Linux and OSX and works in many browsers as well. This is because a webpage's format and semantics have been standardized. Standardization means the web developer does not have to develop a one unique webpage for each browser+OS combination. Instead he develops for just one standard. So if OS APIs were to be similarly standardized like the web, a developer would not have to port his app to a different platform -- it would work on multiple OSes without any change in source.
It is only by ignoring this fundamental difference that you can even attempt to equate net neutrality and "app neutrality".
There is no fundamental difference other than the webpages are standardized and the interface between apps and the OS is not standardized. They are fundamentally the same -- apps can be converted to websites and vice versa.
I think there was a big leap made here from "open access" to "force app developers to write code for Blackberry".
Exactly, this is not about forcing app developers to rewrite apps for different platforms, but rather setting a standard, neutral, non-OS-discriminatory interface between apps and the OS. The app developer writes his app once to this neutral interface and it automagically runs on all OSes (famous or obscure) without further changes.
Then good luck with net neutrality. Just as the internet is a distribution platform for media content and data, OSes are distribution platforms for apps. Why are you for net neutrality and against app neutrality (or whatever it's called)? This CEO should be applauded for bringing up this issue.
Let's take an example: Developer D develops app A that only works on ios. Since there's not much market share for blackberry, he decides not to port it other platforms since his profit increase will be negligible.
Both Blackberry OS and iOS provide the same basic functionality to developers. However, the API exposed by them is very different, so a developer must make significant changes to his app to port it another platform.
Famous and useful apps like A, B, C, D are the reason people buy iphones, not just because it's iOS. The question here is, why should Apple alone and unfairly benefit from the work done by app developers? OS companies go to great lengths to create system APIs that are incompatible with other OSes to prevent developers from developing platform-independent apps.
So the Blackberry CEO is right that OS APIs should be uniform (or neutral) across of all mobile devices so as to allow small OS vendors entering the market and reducing development and increasing profits for developers.
Oh look... Someone justifying assault by implying that the victim is an asshole. Meanwhile, people who justify assault are..... Not(?) assholes?
Video recording someone is also an assault, albeit not a physical one. If recording people were not a crime/harrassment, cameras and mics could be installed everywhere. Imagine such a world, where crime would be greatly reduced. But it would be complete hell as far as the comfort level of people goes.
So, IMO, the glassholes are justified in wanting to punch you, because you assaulted them first. Only assholes record strangers without cause or permission.
Why not make the same arguments for Office? Or for Windows?
Office and Windows bring in money, IE does not, at least not directly or as substantial. Making them open source would bankrupt MS. IE too would have been commercial, but was made free as a tactical strategy by MS to bankrupt (or cut off air supply of) Netscape since MS was afraid the Netscape Navigator browser would take over platforms and make operating systems, such as Windows, not as useful/important anymore. Navigator would've turned OSes into ordinary device drivers.
This does point to a curious fact: since all major browsers (IE, firefox, opera, safari etc) are free, there is zero incentive for commercial browsers to enter the market. The lowered competition due to free product has probably resulted in low quality of browsers that are too buggy, insecure, consume memory like pigs etc. Does free == low quality?
no matter how big hit movie is, it sure as hell doesn't make any profit according to their accounting.
That's where clause (b) kicks in, and the inventor makes x% of the product revenue/sales (not profit). And it's the maximum of either (a), (b) or (c) which is at least $8 million and such a contract reduces the chance of any legal trickery.
The number are wrong/reversed in my post above. It should be: b) 0.5% of product sales/revenue OR c) 2% of product profit
Sorry, they didn't pay for it. They only paid a living wage so the inventor could make stuff for them. The financier has not paid the full value of the invention. When you buy a house, you pay for the land, the building materials and labor costs. You don't just pay the living costs of the contractor. And since the future value of the patent is unknown, it should be some kind of profit split.
If I pay you to invent stuff, and you expect extra compensation if you actually invent something,
LOL, you pay 1/1000th or 1/millionth the money you're going to make off it and then you have the gall to talk about extra.
If you aren't willing to do a job in return for a fixed salary, then DON'T TAKE THE JOB.
Alternately, you could stop being a cheap, thievin' bastard and pay what you owe someone. Why should the business be able to make unlimited $$$ off the patent and the inventor only get one fixed, small amount? We need govt regulation.
I do agree with you that $CORP is making too much money on that.
I have no problem with corp$ making too much dough and buying yachts and jets. I do have a problem with them taking $$$ that is more than their fair share -- keeping the whole loaf of bread to themselves and tossing a few crumbs to the person who was actually responsible for bringing that bread is completely wrong.
OTOH it's part of the business model of a research lab to invest in many ideas, most of which don't pan out.
Agreed, many inventions will fail and a rare few will succeed. Let's say 20 ideas/patents were considered by the company in building a successful product, and only one succeeded. But that patent returned over 200 times more profit than spent of all patents combined. Don't you think the inventor of the successful patent is owed more than those of the failed patents? After all, he is not responsible for the failure of the other patents.
Slashdot Mirror
And govt agencies and hackers would also be able to do this and we don't want that. As far as fixing your mom's computer, a simple video chat using some mobile phone can be used to fix the computer, without the invasive spyware.
They don't do that (poring) even for software, that they can read and understand, hence all these critical bugs. Why should manufacturers spill their millions of dollars worth secrets to a bunch of freeloaders? Vendors are fully within their rights to keep their designs secret -- If you don't trust their products, don't use it.
What if there were five cages?
1) computer box
2) keyboard
3) screen
4) kbd cable from computer to keyboard
5) shielded cable from computer to screen
Won't this prevent cpu/screen/keyboard signals from being intercepted?
Most of that $10B probably goes to big name freemium game companies who make tons of money from in-app purchases of digital goods. So if you subtract big-game dev income, you'd end up with something like $5,000 to $10,000 per independent developer.
Apple should release how much of that $10B goes to independent developers.
If you want small, forth is probably the best... better than assembly. Java uses it to convert source to forth-like intermediate language (jvm) opcodes.
Oh, there's going to plenty of supply of drivers if you charge a whopping $357 for 14 miles. What sane person would ride during surge pricing times?
You can rent a car for 3-5 days, with insurance, for that much money. Surge pricing is more about ripping people off when they need something the most than it is about maintaining a supply of drivers.
It's a valid example: a smartphone is just a shrunk down PC/laptop.
True, but we do get OS updates from only one vendor: the OS vendor. If there's a driver bug or hardware bug, we get the driver update from the hardware vendor. This is not a hardware/hardware driver bug, so the update must come from the OS vendor, google.
What does a pure software component, WebView, have anything to do with hardware drivers? Nothing. Your argument is baseless.
Do you update your Windows/Linux/OSX PC/laptop from the OS vendor or the company that sold you the hardware? It's almost always the OS vendor. A PC/laptop is very similar to a smartphone except the latter is smaller. Google's model of pushing updates through the hardware vendor utterly stupid and adds an extra unnecessary middleman to the process.
Why can't google's patch fix the issue? Is there a different kernel for each android phone so that different patches are needed for each phone?
Here are a few similarities, off the top of my head:
* Java's single-inheritance class system is very similar to that in Object Pascal except Pascal did not have interfaces. It's much saner and error-resistant than C++'s byzantine class system.
* System.out.println() is very similar to Pascal's Write, Writeln
* No separate header files: Interface declaration and implementation in the same source file. Java's 'import' is similar to Pascal's 'uses' statement.
* Both have runtime array bounds checking
* Some data types like 'byte' and 'boolean' seem to be taken from pascal.
Yes, because only ugly, unreadable languages like C/C++, PHP and Perl are favorned because they make programmers look cleverer and provide job security through obscurity (of code). Clean languages like Pascal, Python or Java are derided as ivory tower and unpractical although they are readable, encourage good design and help finding/preventing more bugs in the development phase.
What exactly does cumbersome mean here? Does it
(a) Require a lot of time, hassle and/or paperwork?
(b) Cost high fees to obtain and maintain it?
(c) Require a much higher level of driving skills than non-commercial DL?
Also, what's the difference in cost for non-commercial vs commercial insurance, typically?
Of course they'll have a decent finish and UV protection. Except they'll probably be mass manufactured in some cheap country by robots where they don't charge $50/hour, so it'll be 1/10th the cost of having in repaired by an auto body shop.
Yep, a milk bottle tray sized door is not enough to put many packages into the house. Why don't they instead have large containers near houses? They are the size of large trash cans and are often used near public trains to hold bicycles inside them.
The Fedex/UPS delivery guy can place them inside these containers and email a 10 or 12-digit pass code to the receiver. Since the box is walking distance from the receiver, he can pick it on of after reaching home from work.
How about minor repairs? Will we need to pay hundreds of dollars to buff out some scratch or repair deep dents when we can instead replace the damaged outer panel with a new 3D printed one. Of course, cars need to be redesigned to handle such swapping.
You're right about that, but most apps don't need more than the basic and commonly used APIs for screen drawing, file and network access.
Suppose the OS provides multiple interfaces: interface S, which is an industry standard and interface P that has more innovative features but is proprietary. The developer now has a choice whether he wants the features bad enough to use interface P and write multiple ports of his app, or just stick to interface S and write a single source app that works on all platforms.
A webpage works the same on Windows, Linux and OSX and works in many browsers as well. This is because a webpage's format and semantics have been standardized. Standardization means the web developer does not have to develop a one unique webpage for each browser+OS combination. Instead he develops for just one standard. So if OS APIs were to be similarly standardized like the web, a developer would not have to port his app to a different platform -- it would work on multiple OSes without any change in source.
There is no fundamental difference other than the webpages are standardized and the interface between apps and the OS is not standardized. They are fundamentally the same -- apps can be converted to websites and vice versa.
Exactly, this is not about forcing app developers to rewrite apps for different platforms, but rather setting a standard, neutral, non-OS-discriminatory interface between apps and the OS. The app developer writes his app once to this neutral interface and it automagically runs on all OSes (famous or obscure) without further changes.
Then good luck with net neutrality. Just as the internet is a distribution platform for media content and data, OSes are distribution platforms for apps. Why are you for net neutrality and against app neutrality (or whatever it's called)? This CEO should be applauded for bringing up this issue.
Let's take an example: Developer D develops app A that only works on ios. Since there's not much market share for blackberry, he decides not to port it other platforms since his profit increase will be negligible.
Both Blackberry OS and iOS provide the same basic functionality to developers. However, the API exposed by them is very different, so a developer must make significant changes to his app to port it another platform.
Famous and useful apps like A, B, C, D are the reason people buy iphones, not just because it's iOS. The question here is, why should Apple alone and unfairly benefit from the work done by app developers? OS companies go to great lengths to create system APIs that are incompatible with other OSes to prevent developers from developing platform-independent apps.
So the Blackberry CEO is right that OS APIs should be uniform (or neutral) across of all mobile devices so as to allow small OS vendors entering the market and reducing development and increasing profits for developers.
Video recording someone is also an assault, albeit not a physical one. If recording people were not a crime/harrassment, cameras and mics could be installed everywhere. Imagine such a world, where crime would be greatly reduced. But it would be complete hell as far as the comfort level of people goes.
So, IMO, the glassholes are justified in wanting to punch you, because you assaulted them first. Only assholes record strangers without cause or permission.
Office and Windows bring in money, IE does not, at least not directly or as substantial. Making them open source would bankrupt MS. IE too would have been commercial, but was made free as a tactical strategy by MS to bankrupt (or cut off air supply of) Netscape since MS was afraid the Netscape Navigator browser would take over platforms and make operating systems, such as Windows, not as useful/important anymore. Navigator would've turned OSes into ordinary device drivers.
This does point to a curious fact: since all major browsers (IE, firefox, opera, safari etc) are free, there is zero incentive for commercial browsers to enter the market. The lowered competition due to free product has probably resulted in low quality of browsers that are too buggy, insecure, consume memory like pigs etc. Does free == low quality?
Isn't that a design defect?
That's where clause (b) kicks in, and the inventor makes x% of the product revenue/sales (not profit). And it's the maximum of either (a), (b) or (c) which is at least $8 million and such a contract reduces the chance of any legal trickery.
The number are wrong/reversed in my post above. It should be:
b) 0.5% of product sales/revenue
OR
c) 2% of product profit
Sorry, they didn't pay for it. They only paid a living wage so the inventor could make stuff for them. The financier has not paid the full value of the invention. When you buy a house, you pay for the land, the building materials and labor costs. You don't just pay the living costs of the contractor. And since the future value of the patent is unknown, it should be some kind of profit split.
LOL, you pay 1/1000th or 1/millionth the money you're going to make off it and then you have the gall to talk about extra.
Alternately, you could stop being a cheap, thievin' bastard and pay what you owe someone. Why should the business be able to make unlimited $$$ off the patent and the inventor only get one fixed, small amount? We need govt regulation.
I have no problem with corp$ making too much dough and buying yachts and jets. I do have a problem with them taking $$$ that is more than their fair share -- keeping the whole loaf of bread to themselves and tossing a few crumbs to the person who was actually responsible for bringing that bread is completely wrong.
Agreed, many inventions will fail and a rare few will succeed. Let's say 20 ideas/patents were considered by the company in building a successful product, and only one succeeded. But that patent returned over 200 times more profit than spent of all patents combined. Don't you think the inventor of the successful patent is owed more than those of the failed patents? After all, he is not responsible for the failure of the other patents.