I can not comment on the verizon bing deal, as I've not familiar with it and what ever discussions between the companies where done behind closed doors. My comment is more concerning issue that have come to light, like the motorola deal with skyhook that google objected to and then forced motorola to abandon.
Yeah, except for the fact that Google isn't blocking other search or ad providers on Android phones. The Google hate runs so deep that people like you simply resort to spreading lies. So sad.
Whoo there, let's not get personal. I'm not making personal attacks against you, and I don't expect to be called a liar unless you can point out were I'm factually wrong, and even then that would make me wrong not a liar.
Google blocks others services by forcing it's partners to bundle it's services if they want access to the google app marketplace and other high value assets of android that are closed source and owned by google. Sure anyone can take the base code from the open handset alliance, but without access to google value items then that manufacture would be at a distinct disadvantage. This is right out of MS anti completive playbook, MS never forbid it's partners from using other OSes they just made sure that if they did then they'd lose all the pricing advantages, or in google's term access to the app market and other services to disadvantage them.
you're missing the point, no one can tell google not to tie their products together. what google can't do is dictate what other companies do with their products.
Yes, Apple were wrong to block other ad services. That's why they stopped blocking them, because they knew they'd get sued/investigated. Unfortunately we're talking about Google's on going behaviour here. Two wrongs don't make a right.
because apple and microsoft are not major members. In fact now that you mention it, this is one of the least sensationalist headlines i've seen on slashdot for a awhile. Hope the trend continues.
I'm no license expert, but I don't think that's right. FOSS software can link to non-FOSS components just fine. For example the Firefox source code is is open source, but the icons and artwork in the official build are not openly available. The private API key could be externalised from the source code.
On the other hand, maybe the four-way choice will just confuse and annoy customers who will regard all four ARM platforms as risky investments and buy x86 PCs instead... these being a safe, established choice.
I heard that the two form authentication will involve both your password and verification that you've posted a derogatory story about Google to your blog.
While I agree QT will remain cross-platform. I do want to counter one point. You don't need to strip out all the cross-platform code to make the code base windows only. You only need to introduce windows only elements in to the source and then you've got the situation that will need a fork, one for the official windows build and other other non-official builds.
How exactly do you play 720p content on an XGA screen without scaling?
You already know the answer to the question. You can't without scaling, but you missed the point. Tablets are not all about video playback, Archos has made media tablets for quite some time now and they haven't set the world on fire. 4:3 is a good aspect for general computer usage. When I think of the iPad I'm thinking about a pad of paper, and while it works in any orientation I tend to hold it in portrait mode. 4:3 is close to the 1:SQRT(2) aspect of A4 paper. All the photos from Apple of the iPad also tend to display it in portrait mode so I think Apple had a bias in the way it sees what the iPad is. The iPad is not a video playback device, but a tablet computer that happens to do a decent job at video playback.
Compare that with the competitors and they are nearly always shown in landscape mode (I'm sure they work in portrait mode, but this is about bias). Video seems to be a primary focus, dock connectors are placed for landscape docking and HDMI ports are present.
Go back and look at Android circa 2005, and you'll find it was nothing like what shipped. Back then it was just a rip off of the BlackBerry. It was only when the iPhone was release that Android change who it was copying from.
Well they do in fact have a monopoly on delivering any software what-so-ever to any iOS device.
If that was the definition of a monopoly then every company would have a monopoly on their product.
Just as we should not accept Microsoft being the only supplier of software for Windows, or Oracle being the only supplier of Java applications/tools, Apple should not be allowed to be the only supplier of iOS software.
Well I hope you add to your list that nintendo should not be allowed to be the approver of all Wii & DS software, Sony should not be allowed to be the approver of all PS3 &PSP software and Microsoft should not be allowed to be the approver of all X-box software. However that type of closed system model has been going on for years with little outcry.
I wish that was true. But the Danish tabloid is specifically taking this action because they feel they are discriminated. Larger publishing companies have been allowed to distribute the exact same content that they have been denied.
If that's true then they will have a good case for discrimination then.
I get that many people don't like the closed model of the iOS platform, but that doesn't mean that it's illegal. I think what really incenses some people is that they believe open is the one true way, and Apple being successful with a closed platform is an affront to their core beliefs.
Your view would only be correct if Apple allowed 3rd party Appstores on the iOS platform - which they don't. Apples business model gives them an unprecedented level of control with the distribution channel, and because of that they may (fortunately) be forced to play nice. Antitrust laws and consumer protection laws are there for a reason. This is a good example.
As was determined in the Psystar vs Apple case, you can not just define a market as you please. Back then Psystar tried to claim Apple was a monopoly on OS X compatible hardware. The judge quickly threw that claim out as the market is personal computers. Similarly you can not just claim Apple has a monopoly on iOS software distribution, the market is mobile software and Apple does not have a monopoly on that.
Your other point about discrimination, as far as I'm aware Apple applies the same rules to everyone. If Apple let some developers flout the rules and not others then that would be discrimination, but simply having rules is not discrimination.
After a lot of flag waving, I bet this "new" OS will be a cutdown, pre-configured distribution of windows. When non-techincal people are speaking it's worth taking what they say with a grain of salt.
Nokia has a webkit based browser for their phones. Clearly Apple & Nokia have a large install of phones currently able to use h.264 via hardware acceleration but can't add support for other formats as there CPUs aren't powerful enough to decode in software.
Mozilla isn't a penny-less organization working out of someone's garage. They earn a non-trivial revenue stream from the google searches in the browser and could easily have got a license from the MPEG group. Then we could have had a true standard for video for the web, one that's already in common use.
For real people that aren't watching copyleft movies in between sessions of tux racer, this will mean the continuation of flash video ironically in h.264 now increasingly.
Except it isn't just Apple blocking it. Nokia also sided against Ogg Theora, but then I guess that wouldn't be sensationalist enough for the/. crowd. Neither is h.264 Apple's codec. apart from patents apples only other contribution was to give the MPEG group the MOV container for use as the MP4 container file format.
Slashdot Mirror
I can not comment on the verizon bing deal, as I've not familiar with it and what ever discussions between the companies where done behind closed doors. My comment is more concerning issue that have come to light, like the motorola deal with skyhook that google objected to and then forced motorola to abandon.
Yeah, except for the fact that Google isn't blocking other search or ad providers on Android phones. The Google hate runs so deep that people like you simply resort to spreading lies. So sad.
Whoo there, let's not get personal. I'm not making personal attacks against you, and I don't expect to be called a liar unless you can point out were I'm factually wrong, and even then that would make me wrong not a liar.
Google blocks others services by forcing it's partners to bundle it's services if they want access to the google app marketplace and other high value assets of android that are closed source and owned by google. Sure anyone can take the base code from the open handset alliance, but without access to google value items then that manufacture would be at a distinct disadvantage. This is right out of MS anti completive playbook, MS never forbid it's partners from using other OSes they just made sure that if they did then they'd lose all the pricing advantages, or in google's term access to the app market and other services to disadvantage them.
you're missing the point, no one can tell google not to tie their products together. what google can't do is dictate what other companies do with their products.
Yes, Apple were wrong to block other ad services. That's why they stopped blocking them, because they knew they'd get sued/investigated. Unfortunately we're talking about Google's on going behaviour here. Two wrongs don't make a right.
because apple and microsoft are not major members. In fact now that you mention it, this is one of the least sensationalist headlines i've seen on slashdot for a awhile. Hope the trend continues.
I'm no license expert, but I don't think that's right. FOSS software can link to non-FOSS components just fine. For example the Firefox source code is is open source, but the icons and artwork in the official build are not openly available. The private API key could be externalised from the source code.
What do you mean resell the kidney? Mr Jobs needs to feast on little children's kidneys to survive.
On the other hand, maybe the four-way choice will just confuse and annoy customers who will regard all four ARM platforms as risky investments and buy x86 PCs instead... these being a safe, established choice.
I thought ARM was all about RISC.
I heard that the two form authentication will involve both your password and verification that you've posted a derogatory story about Google to your blog.
Maybe we could call it the iMac II ?
Or alternatively the iMac ][
The Labour government passed bad and dangerous legislation.
Fixed it for you. Now you can apply it to the whole disastrous 13 years.
While I agree QT will remain cross-platform. I do want to counter one point. You don't need to strip out all the cross-platform code to make the code base windows only. You only need to introduce windows only elements in to the source and then you've got the situation that will need a fork, one for the official windows build and other other non-official builds.
How exactly do you play 720p content on an XGA screen without scaling?
You already know the answer to the question. You can't without scaling, but you missed the point. Tablets are not all about video playback, Archos has made media tablets for quite some time now and they haven't set the world on fire. 4:3 is a good aspect for general computer usage. When I think of the iPad I'm thinking about a pad of paper, and while it works in any orientation I tend to hold it in portrait mode. 4:3 is close to the 1:SQRT(2) aspect of A4 paper. All the photos from Apple of the iPad also tend to display it in portrait mode so I think Apple had a bias in the way it sees what the iPad is. The iPad is not a video playback device, but a tablet computer that happens to do a decent job at video playback.
Compare that with the competitors and they are nearly always shown in landscape mode (I'm sure they work in portrait mode, but this is about bias). Video seems to be a primary focus, dock connectors are placed for landscape docking and HDMI ports are present.
*cough* Google *cough*
No, Microsoft added a plugin to complement the existing h.264 playing flash plugin that ships with chrome.
Go back and look at Android circa 2005, and you'll find it was nothing like what shipped. Back then it was just a rip off of the BlackBerry. It was only when the iPhone was release that Android change who it was copying from.
http://gizmodo.com/334909/google-android-prototype-in-the-wild
Well they do in fact have a monopoly on delivering any software what-so-ever to any iOS device.
If that was the definition of a monopoly then every company would have a monopoly on their product.
Just as we should not accept Microsoft being the only supplier of software for Windows, or Oracle being the only supplier of Java applications/tools, Apple should not be allowed to be the only supplier of iOS software.
Well I hope you add to your list that nintendo should not be allowed to be the approver of all Wii & DS software, Sony should not be allowed to be the approver of all PS3 &PSP software and Microsoft should not be allowed to be the approver of all X-box software. However that type of closed system model has been going on for years with little outcry.
I wish that was true. But the Danish tabloid is specifically taking this action because they feel they are discriminated. Larger publishing companies have been allowed to distribute the exact same content that they have been denied.
If that's true then they will have a good case for discrimination then.
I get that many people don't like the closed model of the iOS platform, but that doesn't mean that it's illegal. I think what really incenses some people is that they believe open is the one true way, and Apple being successful with a closed platform is an affront to their core beliefs.
Your view would only be correct if Apple allowed 3rd party Appstores on the iOS platform - which they don't. Apples business model gives them an unprecedented level of control with the distribution channel, and because of that they may (fortunately) be forced to play nice. Antitrust laws and consumer protection laws are there for a reason. This is a good example.
As was determined in the Psystar vs Apple case, you can not just define a market as you please. Back then Psystar tried to claim Apple was a monopoly on OS X compatible hardware. The judge quickly threw that claim out as the market is personal computers. Similarly you can not just claim Apple has a monopoly on iOS software distribution, the market is mobile software and Apple does not have a monopoly on that.
Your other point about discrimination, as far as I'm aware Apple applies the same rules to everyone. If Apple let some developers flout the rules and not others then that would be discrimination, but simply having rules is not discrimination.
After a lot of flag waving, I bet this "new" OS will be a cutdown, pre-configured distribution of windows.
When non-techincal people are speaking it's worth taking what they say with a grain of salt.
because it's made available under reasonable and non-discriminatory terms, see Open Standard, as opposed to Open Source.
HTML5 does not specify Ogg Theora. In fact HTML5 does not specify any codec, you know like it doesn't specify what types of images a browser should support. http://news.slashdot.org/story/09/07/02/184251/Browser-Vendors-Force-W3C-To-Scrap-HTML-5-Codecs
Mod up parent!
If you don't already, you should right articles professionally. Your comment is better than most of the tech press stories.
Nokia has a webkit based browser for their phones. Clearly Apple & Nokia have a large install of phones currently able to use h.264 via hardware acceleration but can't add support for other formats as there CPUs aren't powerful enough to decode in software.
Adobe must be ecstatic with this.
Mozilla isn't a penny-less organization working out of someone's garage. They earn a non-trivial revenue stream from the google searches in the browser and could easily have got a license from the MPEG group. Then we could have had a true standard for video for the web, one that's already in common use.
For real people that aren't watching copyleft movies in between sessions of tux racer, this will mean the continuation of flash video ironically in h.264 now increasingly.
Except it isn't just Apple blocking it. Nokia also sided against Ogg Theora, but then I guess that wouldn't be sensationalist enough for the /. crowd.
Neither is h.264 Apple's codec. apart from patents apples only other contribution was to give the MPEG group the MOV container for use as the MP4 container file format.