I don't understand why people put so much weight on instruction-level compatibility. As if compiler technology does not exist. Heck, even today compilers can translate efficiently from one instruction-set to the other (see e.g. virtual machines, emulators, etc).
Granted, there will always be some parts of code (the "innermost loops") that need to be handcrafted to be as efficient as possible, but I don't believe this is so important to base your whole roadmap on as a semiconductor design house.
So that means that you can brew your own version of Android that always reports the same device ID. This in turn means that one person could buy Android Apps, and give them to multiple people (which are running your version of Android and hence have the same ID), without paying for them as they should.
I'm not so sure that google would allow this, because app developers would quickly realize that they are losing money on the platform.
Google Play requires your device ID, I believe. And hence, Google Play will not just run on any device on which a version of Android is installed. The particular version of Android needs to be "locked" to the device. This locking is, I presume, something only Google can do (in a legal way).
To be more specific, the people running Slashdot are patent and copyright trolls. Their reasoning: as long as we're bitching about the system, nothing is going to change!
I'm wondering, given the fact that scientific results are by definition falsifyable, what is the percentage of publications in major peer-reviewed journals (Nature, etc.), that eventually turn out to be (partly) incorrect?
(Not that I'm questioning this particular discovery.)
In case you didn't notice, these days companies are only after the quick buck. This means that they target as large a group of people as they can with minimal effort. This in turn means that security, for example, gets neglected. In other words, the reason is companies have found out that they can exploit the following concept:
Your phone did not pop into existence by command of an almighty Creator. Instead, it evolved in over hundreds of years from insights and incremental improvements from many different people.
The problem is that developers can't make a profit with real browsers. At least not as much and easy as by selling apps. And Apple gets a cut from those profits.
Then why can I buy music from Spotify without any DRM installed?
Yes, there's the same license (probably), but at least I can put the music on any player I want. Apple restricts you such that you can only listen to your music on at most 5 of your devices.
By the way, I would never buy from Apple or Spotify because you download a lossy compression. Transcoding this into mp3 or any other lossy format reduces quality even further.
Slashdot Mirror
whatever you buy is good enough to do 90% of the things people want a smartphone to do
Yes, Apple should have worked instead on bandwidth and battery capacity and longevity.
It is clear they are in urgent need of a new mastermind.
In other words, Intel says they failed at hiding their power consumption details from the API (instruction set).
I don't understand why people put so much weight on instruction-level compatibility. As if compiler technology does not exist. Heck, even today compilers can translate efficiently from one instruction-set to the other (see e.g. virtual machines, emulators, etc).
Granted, there will always be some parts of code (the "innermost loops") that need to be handcrafted to be as efficient as possible, but I don't believe this is so important to base your whole roadmap on as a semiconductor design house.
Aha, so because patents on the one hand are causing a problem and on the other hand are solving one, you say that patents are a good idea?
I get it.
That's like saying shutting down democracy is a good idea for solving the global warming problem.
Any speculations on the future of windowing systems?
Personally, I wonder when we'll get the first windowing system based entirely on HTML5.
Not really. 1GHz ARM SOC chips are going for $5-7 these days
Do you know which foundry?
A solution easily presents itself: just link to a google search.
So that means that you can brew your own version of Android that always reports the same device ID. This in turn means that one person could buy Android Apps, and give them to multiple people (which are running your version of Android and hence have the same ID), without paying for them as they should.
I'm not so sure that google would allow this, because app developers would quickly realize that they are losing money on the platform.
Google Play requires your device ID, I believe. And hence, Google Play will not just run on any device on which a version of Android is installed. The particular version of Android needs to be "locked" to the device. This locking is, I presume, something only Google can do (in a legal way).
One of the keys to Apple's success is the unshakeable conviction that "Nobody wants X--until Apple figures out how to do it right."
Meh. Buying Apple is like buying a LEGO kit, where all the bricks are pre-glued together. But I guess the majority of people like it that way.
Why would you want a HDD? For the gyroscopic effect?
Tablets suck. They are generally too heavy to hold comfortably for more than half an hour. Plus typing on the screen without tactile feedback sucks.
An iPhone is a general purpose computer
Nope. With the artificial restrictions that Apple places on the device, it is certainly not general purpose.
I want a way to remove memories from my brain.
That way, I can see a movie over and over again and still enjoy watching it.
Anyway, I hope advertisers don't get a hold on this invention.
The people running Slashdot are trolls
To be more specific, the people running Slashdot are patent and copyright trolls.
Their reasoning: as long as we're bitching about the system, nothing is going to change!
I'm wondering, given the fact that scientific results are by definition falsifyable, what is the percentage of publications in major peer-reviewed journals (Nature, etc.), that eventually turn out to be (partly) incorrect?
(Not that I'm questioning this particular discovery.)
So, ironically, you'll be buying your tablet from an advertisement company instead.
In case you didn't notice, these days companies are only after the quick buck. This means that they target as large a group of people as they can with minimal effort. This in turn means that security, for example, gets neglected. In other words, the reason is companies have found out that they can exploit the following concept:
99% OF USERS DON'T CARE
Your phone did not pop into existence by command of an almighty Creator. Instead, it evolved in over hundreds of years from insights and incremental improvements from many different people.
Silly Americans to think different(ly) (tm)
iPhone purchasers will be ok with it.
Please, we should show a little compassion for the fashion-victims too.
Who wants an autonomous Google car if we can have teleportation instead?
I agree with your point.
The problem is that developers can't make a profit with real browsers. At least not as much and easy as by selling apps. And Apple gets a cut from those profits.
Meet the new Facebook car! Get in, it's free!
Apple allows you to transfer YOUR music to at most 5 of your devices.
How's that not DRM?
(Thanks Apple!)
Then why can I buy music from Spotify without any DRM installed?
Yes, there's the same license (probably), but at least I can put the music on any player I want.
Apple restricts you such that you can only listen to your music on at most 5 of your devices.
By the way, I would never buy from Apple or Spotify because you download a lossy compression. Transcoding this into mp3 or any other lossy format reduces quality even further.