Yes, when you buy a carrier locked phone you have to expect that it will take some work to root it.
Yes, so in short, these phones are not open devices. Just like the iPhone, you are only permitted to do a specific set of things; beyond that, you need to hack the device.
I bought the Nexus One
Great. Well gee, thanks. A single phone model that costs 3 times as much, doesn't support Verizon, and even that still needs to be hacked-- it's just that it's easier to hack. Plus, it's being discontinued.
If you think Android phones are really more open than the iPhone, you're in denial.
I don't think that anyone disbelieved Microsoft when they claimed that IE had been made part of the OS. No one is really calling that a myth. The supposed myth is that it had to be part of the OS, and that Microsoft could not make a meaningful distinction between the browser and the OS.
Still, we can argue about whether Microsoft claimed such a thing or whether it really is a "myth".
Uh... Yeah, I tried that, but there isn't a good root available. There is one group that has been able to root the thing, but it's a fairly tricky process and is far more difficult that rooting an iPhone.
That was why I asked you. You seem to think that it's trivial to root Android devices, whereas everyone else on the Internet is having a hard time of it. Thanks, though, for the misinformation. It's people like you that lead me to buy this stupid locked-down phone in the first place. I foolishly believed that it was more open than the iPhone.
I think Apple distinguishes mobile platforms from everything else, and view mobile platforms as requiring a certain amount of closed-ness to manage resources carefully and prevent malware. Their desktop stuff is open, but their mobile stuff is a bit closed off.
Note that this is not strange. I have an Android phone, which is supposed to be the open platform, but I can't simply go around installing whatever I want.
Problem is, neither Danger nor MS anticipated the impact of the iPhone.
This is what it comes down to. The Sidekick was a pretty good platform for the pre-iPhone days, as were Windows, Palm, and Blackberry. However, the iPhone pretty well blew everyone out of the water in the consumer market. Blackberry held its own in the enterprise market, but they're faltering. Everyone else realized that they had to revamp to take on the iPhone, which resulted in Android phones.
Sorry to the Apple haters, but they really did change the mobile landscape. Microsoft hasn't kept up.
Well, I know there are applications that I want that have been rejected (e.g. Google Voice). I know that the application was built and Google wanted to distribute it for free, and Apple prevented that.
It's not uninformed because my point is that I don't *care* what the actual process is like. It's enough of a problem that there is a process.
The inability of apps to run in the background isn't such a bit deal for chat. Even before iOS4, iPhone OS could do notifications, which is really all a chat program needs. However, I agree that having pop-ups isn't as good as having a proper notification system.
The question of Flash plugins is a totally separate problem decoupled from H264.
It's not. Many sites are using Flash to publish H264 videos, which means your Flash player needs to support decrypting H264. Either Gnash isn't going to help you there, or else the people distributing Gnash will have the same licensing issues that Mozilla has in supporting H264 decryption.
Flash doesn't really solve the patent-encumbered-codec problem; it just covers it up so that, if you don't understand the issue, you can ignore that it exists.
I'm not a developer, and I don't know what the "App Store approval process" is like. However, I'm not happy that an "App Store approval process" is required to get an application installed on my iPad.
3) File management. Getting files on and off or deleting files requires manual intervention in iTunes. It works, but it's a bit lame. There are other applications that aim to address this, but it should be handled in a comprehensive and systematic way.
4) Safari's handling of tabs. Switching tabs is slow, and when you revisit a background tab it will probably reload the page (which kind of defeats the purpose). There are other browsers that do a better job, but it's silly that Apple released a browser that works this way.
5) Needs better chat. I'm using IM+, but surely someone can do a better job?
Otherwise, I'm relatively happy. I'm not quite getting as much use out of it as I'd hoped, but I am finding it to be genuinely useful. Knowing what I know now, I might have waited a year for the next revision, but I don't regret the purchase.
once hardware acceleration has been finished for Mac OS its performance will be on par with Windows and it performs better than HTML 5.
The issue isn't just hardware acceleration. It's a poor performer all around. I can't run any Flash on my laptop without the fans kicking on. Sometimes banner ads do it.
I think its been proven that Flash reliability isn't that bad either.
Adobe can claim "Flash doesn't crash" all they want, but it doesn't change the facts. Maybe it doesn't crash on Windows, but I've supported many Macs and it crashes constantly. Apple's crash reports show the same thing. Flash is probably the most unstable software on most people's Macs.
I think its also been proven its an open spec.
Whether the spec is open, the player is closed. And it stinks.
Does Gnash play H264 movies? If not, then we're back to it being insufficient for playing movies on the Internet. If it does play H264 movies, then we're back to needing a license.
Gnash might be interesting, but it doesn't solve any of the relevant problems.
I think you miss the point. Flash is a poorly performing closed POS that makes video on the Internet beholden to a single vendor. That is a problem any way you slice it. It's unlikely that adobe will actually fix the situation unless they're absolutely backed into a corner.
Yes, the new unfinished standard doesn't have complete support in browsers yet. Whoop-dee-doo. The "no agreed upon video codec" thing is a bit of red herring. Safari, IE, and Chrome are all supporting H264 already, and unless WebM takes off, H264 is the de facto video codec standard of the decade. Whining about how much you love DivX isn't going to change that. Even Flash is supporting H264 (That's right! If you're arguing in favor of Flash, you're arguing in favor of H264 being the de facto standard). Blaming Apple for this is also silly. They made a choice based on what they believed would provide their customers with the best product. Going by their rate of sales, I don't think their customers disagree with Apple's views all that much.
Yes, they're complaining about an unfinished spec, but that's a completely sensible thing to do. If you don't talk about all the problems with an unfinished spec, then how would you expect the problems to be fixed in the finished spec?
Flash will continue to be an important part of Youtube-- at least until HTML's "video" tag addresses some of these issues. Fair enough.
There have been rumors of a Verizon iPhone since before the first iPhone was released. Every time the supposed release date lapses, it gets pushed back 6 months.
Now of course, sooner or later these rumors are bound to be right. Eventually, most carriers are moving to LTE so you might not even need different phone models for each carrier. But until there's something in the way of evidence or a reliable source, this isn't news.
And in that sense, I think this could work, assuming they get a big enough catalog available for Hulu Plus. Off hand, the idea of buying a subscription and being forced to watch ads sounds bad, but the question is, will this service be able to replace cable?
Right now, a lot of people are spending $40/month on cable and being forced to watch ads. If you could have every show available on-demand as well as a large back-catalog, you might be getting better service at 1/4 of the price. Not too shabby.
Of course, what I really want is a service like Netflix (everything on-demand, no ads) but with a complete catalog, including the most recent shows. I'd be willing to pay a decent subscription fee for that.
Honestly? I'm going to engage in a little Slashdot heresy here, but I have to say that for my business purposes, Outlook is the best email application out there. I'm not going to get into all the reasons here, since there are tons of discussions everywhere. Some of the benefits are a superior UI, but I wouldn't even call that "superficial". The UI matters. UI is not just pretty colors and fancy icons.
But even Gmail and Postbox (based on Thunderbird) do a better job of handling email. Thunderbird doesn't do as good a job of looking native on various platforms as Firefox does, and it takes up screen real-estate with tabs that are absolutely useless.
I feel like Thunderbird is sort of the baseline mail client. Not bad, but nothing special either. It's basically doing the same stuff mail clients have been doing for 15 years, without significant innovation and without a lot of polish. Or maybe I'm missing some kind of whiz-bang features somewhere. I remember reading that some people were really excited about tagging, but without storing them server-side, that's damned near useless for me.
To be fair, Firefox is still a great browser. No, it's not as fast as Chrome, but I think that's the worst thing that can be said about it. Compared to IE, it's a marvel of engineering. It's not particularly bloated or crash prone. It's just... slower than Chrome.
I find Thunderbird to be a little more disappointing, but I don't think anyone other than Microsoft is actually interested in building a good mail client these days. Too many people are moving to web mail, so mail clients seem passé.
a doc could work for 20 years, not screw up but run into a jury that likes the patient who the doc couldn't help, the insurance company finds a way off the hook (which sometimes happens), and suddenly the doc and his family have nothing.
Well let's not confuse things. You're talking about a miscarriage of justice, which is a whole different topic. Having limited liability doesnt prevent miscarriages of justice.
The purpose of corporations shoulding be "A jury might go crazy, so we have to make sure rich people are above the law.". The purpose certainly shouldn't be so that businessmen can act irresponsibly without worrying about the consequences.
Slashdot Mirror
Yes, when you buy a carrier locked phone you have to expect that it will take some work to root it.
Yes, so in short, these phones are not open devices. Just like the iPhone, you are only permitted to do a specific set of things; beyond that, you need to hack the device.
I bought the Nexus One
Great. Well gee, thanks. A single phone model that costs 3 times as much, doesn't support Verizon, and even that still needs to be hacked-- it's just that it's easier to hack. Plus, it's being discontinued.
If you think Android phones are really more open than the iPhone, you're in denial.
I don't think that anyone disbelieved Microsoft when they claimed that IE had been made part of the OS. No one is really calling that a myth. The supposed myth is that it had to be part of the OS, and that Microsoft could not make a meaningful distinction between the browser and the OS.
Still, we can argue about whether Microsoft claimed such a thing or whether it really is a "myth".
Uh... Yeah, I tried that, but there isn't a good root available. There is one group that has been able to root the thing, but it's a fairly tricky process and is far more difficult that rooting an iPhone.
That was why I asked you. You seem to think that it's trivial to root Android devices, whereas everyone else on the Internet is having a hard time of it. Thanks, though, for the misinformation. It's people like you that lead me to buy this stupid locked-down phone in the first place. I foolishly believed that it was more open than the iPhone.
Perhaps your evil mobile carrier has locked your phone but with Android, it is easy to get around.
Yeah? How do I get root with the HTC Incredible?
I think Apple distinguishes mobile platforms from everything else, and view mobile platforms as requiring a certain amount of closed-ness to manage resources carefully and prevent malware. Their desktop stuff is open, but their mobile stuff is a bit closed off.
Note that this is not strange. I have an Android phone, which is supposed to be the open platform, but I can't simply go around installing whatever I want.
Problem is, neither Danger nor MS anticipated the impact of the iPhone.
This is what it comes down to. The Sidekick was a pretty good platform for the pre-iPhone days, as were Windows, Palm, and Blackberry. However, the iPhone pretty well blew everyone out of the water in the consumer market. Blackberry held its own in the enterprise market, but they're faltering. Everyone else realized that they had to revamp to take on the iPhone, which resulted in Android phones.
Sorry to the Apple haters, but they really did change the mobile landscape. Microsoft hasn't kept up.
"Blackberry" is a verb? Did I miss this? Does it mean "to have Google and Apple drink your milkshake"?
Well, I know there are applications that I want that have been rejected (e.g. Google Voice). I know that the application was built and Google wanted to distribute it for free, and Apple prevented that.
It's not uninformed because my point is that I don't *care* what the actual process is like. It's enough of a problem that there is a process.
The inability of apps to run in the background isn't such a bit deal for chat. Even before iOS4, iPhone OS could do notifications, which is really all a chat program needs. However, I agree that having pop-ups isn't as good as having a proper notification system.
I have Atomic Browser and don't like Beejive any better than IM+. Still, these are both things that Apple should handle better.
The question of Flash plugins is a totally separate problem decoupled from H264.
It's not. Many sites are using Flash to publish H264 videos, which means your Flash player needs to support decrypting H264. Either Gnash isn't going to help you there, or else the people distributing Gnash will have the same licensing issues that Mozilla has in supporting H264 decryption.
Flash doesn't really solve the patent-encumbered-codec problem; it just covers it up so that, if you don't understand the issue, you can ignore that it exists.
I'm not a developer, and I don't know what the "App Store approval process" is like. However, I'm not happy that an "App Store approval process" is required to get an application installed on my iPad.
I'd also like to add:
3) File management. Getting files on and off or deleting files requires manual intervention in iTunes. It works, but it's a bit lame. There are other applications that aim to address this, but it should be handled in a comprehensive and systematic way.
4) Safari's handling of tabs. Switching tabs is slow, and when you revisit a background tab it will probably reload the page (which kind of defeats the purpose). There are other browsers that do a better job, but it's silly that Apple released a browser that works this way.
5) Needs better chat. I'm using IM+, but surely someone can do a better job?
Otherwise, I'm relatively happy. I'm not quite getting as much use out of it as I'd hoped, but I am finding it to be genuinely useful. Knowing what I know now, I might have waited a year for the next revision, but I don't regret the purchase.
once hardware acceleration has been finished for Mac OS its performance will be on par with Windows and it performs better than HTML 5.
The issue isn't just hardware acceleration. It's a poor performer all around. I can't run any Flash on my laptop without the fans kicking on. Sometimes banner ads do it.
I think its been proven that Flash reliability isn't that bad either.
Adobe can claim "Flash doesn't crash" all they want, but it doesn't change the facts. Maybe it doesn't crash on Windows, but I've supported many Macs and it crashes constantly. Apple's crash reports show the same thing. Flash is probably the most unstable software on most people's Macs.
I think its also been proven its an open spec.
Whether the spec is open, the player is closed. And it stinks.
Does Gnash play H264 movies? If not, then we're back to it being insufficient for playing movies on the Internet. If it does play H264 movies, then we're back to needing a license.
Gnash might be interesting, but it doesn't solve any of the relevant problems.
Free browsers don't support Flash either. You need a proprietary plugin.
I think you miss the point. Flash is a poorly performing closed POS that makes video on the Internet beholden to a single vendor. That is a problem any way you slice it. It's unlikely that adobe will actually fix the situation unless they're absolutely backed into a corner.
Yes, the new unfinished standard doesn't have complete support in browsers yet. Whoop-dee-doo. The "no agreed upon video codec" thing is a bit of red herring. Safari, IE, and Chrome are all supporting H264 already, and unless WebM takes off, H264 is the de facto video codec standard of the decade. Whining about how much you love DivX isn't going to change that. Even Flash is supporting H264 (That's right! If you're arguing in favor of Flash, you're arguing in favor of H264 being the de facto standard). Blaming Apple for this is also silly. They made a choice based on what they believed would provide their customers with the best product. Going by their rate of sales, I don't think their customers disagree with Apple's views all that much.
Yes, they're complaining about an unfinished spec, but that's a completely sensible thing to do. If you don't talk about all the problems with an unfinished spec, then how would you expect the problems to be fixed in the finished spec?
Flash will continue to be an important part of Youtube-- at least until HTML's "video" tag addresses some of these issues. Fair enough.
There have been rumors of a Verizon iPhone since before the first iPhone was released. Every time the supposed release date lapses, it gets pushed back 6 months.
Now of course, sooner or later these rumors are bound to be right. Eventually, most carriers are moving to LTE so you might not even need different phone models for each carrier. But until there's something in the way of evidence or a reliable source, this isn't news.
I suppose I am an Apple "fanboy" and I like hearing interesting Apple news as much as the next guy, but there is no news here.
And in that sense, I think this could work, assuming they get a big enough catalog available for Hulu Plus. Off hand, the idea of buying a subscription and being forced to watch ads sounds bad, but the question is, will this service be able to replace cable?
Right now, a lot of people are spending $40/month on cable and being forced to watch ads. If you could have every show available on-demand as well as a large back-catalog, you might be getting better service at 1/4 of the price. Not too shabby.
Of course, what I really want is a service like Netflix (everything on-demand, no ads) but with a complete catalog, including the most recent shows. I'd be willing to pay a decent subscription fee for that.
Honestly? I'm going to engage in a little Slashdot heresy here, but I have to say that for my business purposes, Outlook is the best email application out there. I'm not going to get into all the reasons here, since there are tons of discussions everywhere. Some of the benefits are a superior UI, but I wouldn't even call that "superficial". The UI matters. UI is not just pretty colors and fancy icons.
But even Gmail and Postbox (based on Thunderbird) do a better job of handling email. Thunderbird doesn't do as good a job of looking native on various platforms as Firefox does, and it takes up screen real-estate with tabs that are absolutely useless.
I feel like Thunderbird is sort of the baseline mail client. Not bad, but nothing special either. It's basically doing the same stuff mail clients have been doing for 15 years, without significant innovation and without a lot of polish. Or maybe I'm missing some kind of whiz-bang features somewhere. I remember reading that some people were really excited about tagging, but without storing them server-side, that's damned near useless for me.
To be fair, Firefox is still a great browser. No, it's not as fast as Chrome, but I think that's the worst thing that can be said about it. Compared to IE, it's a marvel of engineering. It's not particularly bloated or crash prone. It's just... slower than Chrome.
I find Thunderbird to be a little more disappointing, but I don't think anyone other than Microsoft is actually interested in building a good mail client these days. Too many people are moving to web mail, so mail clients seem passé.
I'm not sure that's a fair distinction. He was executed for teaching the youth things that were disruptive to conventional beliefs. That's heresy.
a doc could work for 20 years, not screw up but run into a jury that likes the patient who the doc couldn't help, the insurance company finds a way off the hook (which sometimes happens), and suddenly the doc and his family have nothing.
Well let's not confuse things. You're talking about a miscarriage of justice, which is a whole different topic. Having limited liability doesnt prevent miscarriages of justice.
The purpose of corporations shoulding be "A jury might go crazy, so we have to make sure rich people are above the law.". The purpose certainly shouldn't be so that businessmen can act irresponsibly without worrying about the consequences.