That's not how it works. The fact that many companies have benefited from Google's wrongdoing does not make what Google did any less evil. There is no Robin Hood clause that says it's OK that you stole something from Oracle because you gave it away to a bunch of companies that are smaller than Oracle. Especially not when Google did it for their own selfish reasons. Especially not when the thing they stole was available to license for a small fee.
> On another note, is this the reason why Apple is so against Java and other VM-based code running on their system?
I think Apple's position is that whatever you are doing in client-side Java is better done either in Cocoa or HTML5, which are Apple's yin yang of app platforms. The HTML5 app could include running Java on a server of course. On Apple platforms, both Cocoa and HTML5 have 1-click installs and everything just works. Client-side Java essentially cannot compete with the user experience of Cocoa or the cross-platform experience of HTML5. Actually, client-side Java can't even compete with the user experience of HTML5. Apple is all about user experience because their customers are users, not developers, or carriers, or hardware makers, or advertisers. And either Cocoa or HTML5 has more apps by itself than Java.
The existing app base can be dumped right now with much less consequence than in a few years when a court impounds and destroys Dalvik. Google could just refund the extremely small amount of money that users have paid for Android apps thus far and start over. That would be much less time and money wasted than letting this court case hang over Android development for the next few years and then kill a future version of the Dalvik platform.
Google very clearly was relying on Sun being a pushover. Sun foiled that plan by selling itself to Oracle, who are not a pushover. Google gambled, and they lost. Time to move on.
What language should they use? C. Duh. 80% of the mobile app market is C. More than 80% of the PC app market is C.
If you are going to do this, you might as well just go all the way and crate them up like veal. Why not bug their rooms? Cavity searches every night will protect them from the dangers of contraband.
What amazes me is that we don't have a set of parents set on fire literally every night somewhere in the country. Maybe we do and we just don't hear about it.
How fast will Chrome 10 block an ISO H.264 video as it tries to get from HTML to my video playback hardware? I heard they are working on getting that up to instantaneously.
All they have to do is make multiple cuts, one for each rating. Mark one "The Director's Cut" and you are done. Make the money back for investors with the PG version, let the R version live on as the canonical version for true movie fans and for a future, better time. Ideally, this would all be in one digital copy, inside an app that can play whichever version you want, then cinemas could play the PG version by day and have R showings at night. Similarly, home users could buy one iTunes Extra with buttons for each version, and play whichever version they prefer.
Canceling cable TV was one of the best things I ever did. It takes a while to adjust, but pretty soon you enjoy TV more, and life more, because you only watch stuff you really like, and you watch it whenever you like. You have to seek out shows and movies a little more because they're not being shoveled onto you, and you find the ones that you end up really cherishing. If you have a TiVo, you already admitted cable TV is broken. Just get off the pipe.
> Plugins have existed since the earliest days of browsers (like quicktime plugin to > view embedded movies)(or wav plugin to deal with sounds). Why do you think > that is an inferior method?
Because the Web is hardware and platform independent, and plugins are not. Because there is a way now to give the browser the audio or video via HTML and the browser renders it, cutting out the middleman. Because today's Web user is a consumer who doesn't know what a plugin is and doesn't want to manually update it or install a collection of them or be told they don't have the right one. Because there is an almost 10 year old ISO/IEC video standard that is available in the hardware of every PC and mobile, so that they can play the same video that FlashPlayer and QuickTime player play but without having to have the software players. Because hardware playback takes much less battery power and less expensive hardware than software playback. Because little plugin makers like Adobe become tin pot dictators and they to play gatekeeper with Web content that should be universally accessible. Because plugins are an accessibility nightmare compared to HTML. Because plugins are a security nightmare compared to HTML. Because plugins limit hardware innovation, for example, the "smartbook" ARM notebook was rejected by PC makers because it did not have a FlashPlayer, furthering Intel's hegemony. driving up hardware prices and reducing battery life.
That is just off the top of my head. I'm sure I missed some.
> Personally I'd rather have the lightweight browser and then add features (like video) > only as I need them.
Video is a feature of your operating system and hardware. Your lightweight browser just passes the HTML video to the OS. HTML5 just standardizes how to do this. It's more lightweight than plugins.
> However your touting this sending texts to random people thing as a major issue
You missed the point. Yes, the bug itself is bad, even if it only affects a few users, when it bites you, it bites bad, it can be very embarrassing if a text meant for your girlfriend goes to your mother or a co-worker it's a privacy flaw, the privacy of your text conversations is compromised until the bug is fixed. However, the larger issue is how do bugs get patched in the wild on Android? There's no way to patch it overnight because of Android's carrier-style updating. With iPhone's iPod-style updating, Apple would ship iOS v4.2.4 (or whatever) and this bug would be fixed on 75% of handsets within a week, and 90% within a month. Worldwide, every carrier. iOS has had bugs of this severity that were just erased almost overnight. They're gone, they are history, the platform moves forward, the users feel supported.
Nokia still makes more than 5 times the profit of all the Windows and Android handset makers combined. Nobody has shown how to make PC-style 3rd party operating system phones profitable. Apple, Nokia, and RIM take 90% of all phone profits. Everybody else is working for tips or for free. Motorola made Verizon Droid purely for charitable reasons, and LG has had to pay for the privilege of making Android phones.
The big money is in iPhones. Apple's average selling price is almost triple everyone else, and they take more than half of all handset profits (all handsets, not just smart handsets). The smartphone has moved downmarket and is replacing the feature phone. Android started out talking about freedom, but now the phones are actually free. The feature phone money of today is the smartphone money of tomorrow. The phones are just going to get better browsers, better apps, etc.
It isn't that Nokia is in such a bad place, it's that they were sort of paralyzed, petrified, standing still. All they needed to do was get moving to restore some investor confidence and reclaim some of their lost valuation. But the Microsoft deal isn't really moving so much as continuing to stand still but now they are wearing a sandwich board that says "Windows Phone 7 coming in 2012."
It's actually not that hard to have a 90% customer satisfaction rate when you have zero mainstream users. The small number of people who have bought a Windows Phone 7 device right now own Xbox, Windows 7 Ultimate, have Zune passes, and a pretty good chunk of them actually work for Microsoft or one of their partners. It's like iPhone's 90% customer satisfaction rating in 2007 did not really tell us it would have a 90% customer satisfaction rating today. Apple had to do a ton of work to carry that satisfaction from the 6 million who bought the 2007 iPhone at least in part on faith and the 200 million who use iOS today. Maybe Microsoft will do that work over the next few years, but 2 million licenses sold to handset makers in the first quarter in 2010 smartphone numbers, that is not a lot of faith. That's like 7 days of iOS or 5 days of Android. That is less than Windows Mobile 6. The Nokia deal is already a reboot.
No, Microsoft is doing the same old thing as always: re-implementing experience from an Apple product. The experience is not multitasking of 3rd party apps, it is long battery life due to aggressive management of 3rd party apps, i.e. go to sleep when the user dismisses you.
As for Android, there are 10,000 complaints about its shitty battery life for every compliment on its multitasking.
> but then you have to keep the phone's radio powered up to maintain the > connection and stay open for notifications
The baseband is always talking to the tower anyway, so that you can stay open for calls. A push notification is just an app calling you when it needs your attention. It makes perfect sense on a phone.
> They didn't seem to have a problem with multitasking on previous windows mobile devices.
Really? You got 10 hours of talk time, Web browsing, and video playback on a single charge on your Windows Mobile 6 phone? Cause nobody else got that until iPhone.
Please, your content-based explanation of the actual issue is reducing the opportunity for freetard trolling. Explaining that running a NeXT box on a battery you can hide in your hand necessitated some new design thinking really gets in the way of trolls explaining that iPhone can't multitask because it is "closed" and is a "toy." Obviously, the 1337 user wants to run 10 apps in parallel for 1 hour, not 50 apps in serial for 10 hours like some kind of CS retard.
When Apple improves the quality of their native mobile app platform by arbitrarily leaving some apps out of their store, that is "closed", but when Google arbitrarily removes some websites from their Web index, that is "improving the quality of search results"? Isn't there more of an imperative that the Web index be open and on equal terms? Am I really going to Google.com to see what Chrome users haven't voted down yet? Are they going to vote down articles that say Chrome is a shitty browser? That Google is a shitty company?
If your app is de-indexed by Apple you have many alternatives. What is the alternative if you are de-indexed by Google? Retire?
We already have Digg, right? Do we need Google.com to be another Digg?
No, the working life of iPad is 2 years. They expect you to buy one every 2 years. There is a 1 year warranty you can extend to 2 with AppleCare and always be under warranty if you buy a new iPad every 2 years. However you get free software updates for 3 years.
iPad has a 10-12 hour battery. If you charge it once a day, that is 8760 hours over 2 years, making a $599 iPad about 14 cents per hour. It is a good deal.
Resale value on a 2 year old iOS device is about 30%. That lowers the price to about the same as a netbook.
iPad is actually cheaper than paper and ink printing for many users. These devices pay for themselves very easily.
It's only first-gen products that get announced and ship later. They'll have millions of iPad 2's built before they introduce them. They will ship "today!" same as MacBook Air recently.
Slashdot Mirror
WebM has the same problem versus H.264. Nonstandard stuff is not going to show up in hardware.
Yet I bet you would be the first one to complain if Google launched a free clone of your website.
That's not how it works. The fact that many companies have benefited from Google's wrongdoing does not make what Google did any less evil. There is no Robin Hood clause that says it's OK that you stole something from Oracle because you gave it away to a bunch of companies that are smaller than Oracle. Especially not when Google did it for their own selfish reasons. Especially not when the thing they stole was available to license for a small fee.
> On another note, is this the reason why Apple is so against Java and other VM-based code running on their system?
I think Apple's position is that whatever you are doing in client-side Java is better done either in Cocoa or HTML5, which are Apple's yin yang of app platforms. The HTML5 app could include running Java on a server of course. On Apple platforms, both Cocoa and HTML5 have 1-click installs and everything just works. Client-side Java essentially cannot compete with the user experience of Cocoa or the cross-platform experience of HTML5. Actually, client-side Java can't even compete with the user experience of HTML5. Apple is all about user experience because their customers are users, not developers, or carriers, or hardware makers, or advertisers. And either Cocoa or HTML5 has more apps by itself than Java.
The existing app base can be dumped right now with much less consequence than in a few years when a court impounds and destroys Dalvik. Google could just refund the extremely small amount of money that users have paid for Android apps thus far and start over. That would be much less time and money wasted than letting this court case hang over Android development for the next few years and then kill a future version of the Dalvik platform.
Google very clearly was relying on Sun being a pushover. Sun foiled that plan by selling itself to Oracle, who are not a pushover. Google gambled, and they lost. Time to move on.
What language should they use? C. Duh. 80% of the mobile app market is C. More than 80% of the PC app market is C.
> I have never heard of anyone being sued for "Java IP anything". Something smells fishy.
You never heard of Microsoft being sued over Java? Microsoft lost.
I bet these same parents would be so pissed if the kids keylogged them and for example revealed Daddy's porno habits or occasional affairs.
If you are going to do this, you might as well just go all the way and crate them up like veal. Why not bug their rooms? Cavity searches every night will protect them from the dangers of contraband.
What amazes me is that we don't have a set of parents set on fire literally every night somewhere in the country. Maybe we do and we just don't hear about it.
This is all off-topic. There weren't even any children involved here, let alone any being abused.
But ... but ... we have a constitution! And this is the greatest, best country that dog ever gave man!
How fast will Chrome 10 block an ISO H.264 video as it tries to get from HTML to my video playback hardware? I heard they are working on getting that up to instantaneously.
All they have to do is make multiple cuts, one for each rating. Mark one "The Director's Cut" and you are done. Make the money back for investors with the PG version, let the R version live on as the canonical version for true movie fans and for a future, better time. Ideally, this would all be in one digital copy, inside an app that can play whichever version you want, then cinemas could play the PG version by day and have R showings at night. Similarly, home users could buy one iTunes Extra with buttons for each version, and play whichever version they prefer.
Canceling cable TV was one of the best things I ever did. It takes a while to adjust, but pretty soon you enjoy TV more, and life more, because you only watch stuff you really like, and you watch it whenever you like. You have to seek out shows and movies a little more because they're not being shoveled onto you, and you find the ones that you end up really cherishing. If you have a TiVo, you already admitted cable TV is broken. Just get off the pipe.
> Plugins have existed since the earliest days of browsers (like quicktime plugin to
> view embedded movies)(or wav plugin to deal with sounds). Why do you think
> that is an inferior method?
Because the Web is hardware and platform independent, and plugins are not. Because there is a way now to give the browser the audio or video via HTML and the browser renders it, cutting out the middleman. Because today's Web user is a consumer who doesn't know what a plugin is and doesn't want to manually update it or install a collection of them or be told they don't have the right one. Because there is an almost 10 year old ISO/IEC video standard that is available in the hardware of every PC and mobile, so that they can play the same video that FlashPlayer and QuickTime player play but without having to have the software players. Because hardware playback takes much less battery power and less expensive hardware than software playback. Because little plugin makers like Adobe become tin pot dictators and they to play gatekeeper with Web content that should be universally accessible. Because plugins are an accessibility nightmare compared to HTML. Because plugins are a security nightmare compared to HTML. Because plugins limit hardware innovation, for example, the "smartbook" ARM notebook was rejected by PC makers because it did not have a FlashPlayer, furthering Intel's hegemony. driving up hardware prices and reducing battery life.
That is just off the top of my head. I'm sure I missed some.
> Personally I'd rather have the lightweight browser and then add features (like video)
> only as I need them.
Video is a feature of your operating system and hardware. Your lightweight browser just passes the HTML video to the OS. HTML5 just standardizes how to do this. It's more lightweight than plugins.
> However your touting this sending texts to random people thing as a major issue
You missed the point. Yes, the bug itself is bad, even if it only affects a few users, when it bites you, it bites bad, it can be very embarrassing if a text meant for your girlfriend goes to your mother or a co-worker it's a privacy flaw, the privacy of your text conversations is compromised until the bug is fixed. However, the larger issue is how do bugs get patched in the wild on Android? There's no way to patch it overnight because of Android's carrier-style updating. With iPhone's iPod-style updating, Apple would ship iOS v4.2.4 (or whatever) and this bug would be fixed on 75% of handsets within a week, and 90% within a month. Worldwide, every carrier. iOS has had bugs of this severity that were just erased almost overnight. They're gone, they are history, the platform moves forward, the users feel supported.
Nokia still makes more than 5 times the profit of all the Windows and Android handset makers combined. Nobody has shown how to make PC-style 3rd party operating system phones profitable. Apple, Nokia, and RIM take 90% of all phone profits. Everybody else is working for tips or for free. Motorola made Verizon Droid purely for charitable reasons, and LG has had to pay for the privilege of making Android phones.
The big money is in iPhones. Apple's average selling price is almost triple everyone else, and they take more than half of all handset profits (all handsets, not just smart handsets). The smartphone has moved downmarket and is replacing the feature phone. Android started out talking about freedom, but now the phones are actually free. The feature phone money of today is the smartphone money of tomorrow. The phones are just going to get better browsers, better apps, etc.
It isn't that Nokia is in such a bad place, it's that they were sort of paralyzed, petrified, standing still. All they needed to do was get moving to restore some investor confidence and reclaim some of their lost valuation. But the Microsoft deal isn't really moving so much as continuing to stand still but now they are wearing a sandwich board that says "Windows Phone 7 coming in 2012."
It's actually not that hard to have a 90% customer satisfaction rate when you have zero mainstream users. The small number of people who have bought a Windows Phone 7 device right now own Xbox, Windows 7 Ultimate, have Zune passes, and a pretty good chunk of them actually work for Microsoft or one of their partners. It's like iPhone's 90% customer satisfaction rating in 2007 did not really tell us it would have a 90% customer satisfaction rating today. Apple had to do a ton of work to carry that satisfaction from the 6 million who bought the 2007 iPhone at least in part on faith and the 200 million who use iOS today. Maybe Microsoft will do that work over the next few years, but 2 million licenses sold to handset makers in the first quarter in 2010 smartphone numbers, that is not a lot of faith. That's like 7 days of iOS or 5 days of Android. That is less than Windows Mobile 6. The Nokia deal is already a reboot.
No, Microsoft is doing the same old thing as always: re-implementing experience from an Apple product. The experience is not multitasking of 3rd party apps, it is long battery life due to aggressive management of 3rd party apps, i.e. go to sleep when the user dismisses you.
As for Android, there are 10,000 complaints about its shitty battery life for every compliment on its multitasking.
> but then you have to keep the phone's radio powered up to maintain the
> connection and stay open for notifications
The baseband is always talking to the tower anyway, so that you can stay open for calls. A push notification is just an app calling you when it needs your attention. It makes perfect sense on a phone.
> They didn't seem to have a problem with multitasking on previous windows mobile devices.
Really? You got 10 hours of talk time, Web browsing, and video playback on a single charge on your Windows Mobile 6 phone? Cause nobody else got that until iPhone.
Please, your content-based explanation of the actual issue is reducing the opportunity for freetard trolling. Explaining that running a NeXT box on a battery you can hide in your hand necessitated some new design thinking really gets in the way of trolls explaining that iPhone can't multitask because it is "closed" and is a "toy." Obviously, the 1337 user wants to run 10 apps in parallel for 1 hour, not 50 apps in serial for 10 hours like some kind of CS retard.
When Apple improves the quality of their native mobile app platform by arbitrarily leaving some apps out of their store, that is "closed", but when Google arbitrarily removes some websites from their Web index, that is "improving the quality of search results"? Isn't there more of an imperative that the Web index be open and on equal terms? Am I really going to Google.com to see what Chrome users haven't voted down yet? Are they going to vote down articles that say Chrome is a shitty browser? That Google is a shitty company?
If your app is de-indexed by Apple you have many alternatives. What is the alternative if you are de-indexed by Google? Retire?
We already have Digg, right? Do we need Google.com to be another Digg?
No, the working life of iPad is 2 years. They expect you to buy one every 2 years. There is a 1 year warranty you can extend to 2 with AppleCare and always be under warranty if you buy a new iPad every 2 years. However you get free software updates for 3 years.
iPad has a 10-12 hour battery. If you charge it once a day, that is 8760 hours over 2 years, making a $599 iPad about 14 cents per hour. It is a good deal.
Resale value on a 2 year old iOS device is about 30%. That lowers the price to about the same as a netbook.
iPad is actually cheaper than paper and ink printing for many users. These devices pay for themselves very easily.
It's good for anything you can do with your hands (touch) or your eyes (screen). Pretty much everything.
It's only first-gen products that get announced and ship later. They'll have millions of iPad 2's built before they introduce them. They will ship "today!" same as MacBook Air recently.