no, it's not done, for the reasons i already stated. lol back at you friend. i'm talking Android and iOS which is what matters.
but hey, don't take my word for it. go and write a simple app that gets the users' location and displays it on a map. see how much you can factor into a shared library. the average app isn't a bunch of generic number crunching algorithms. it's platform specific code. it's interfacing with the file system, maps, databases, keystores, bluetooth, location, and so on. none of that can be shared because the API for using it isn't common across the platform.
and to your point of if it's a simple app then don't bother, i'd say if you *can't* do it for even a simple app, then it sort of indicates a problem in the plan.
It's a common fantasy. It's why things like PhoneGap exist.
Mobile apps aren't just UI code and generic business logic. The platform provides everything: bluetooth, location, account management, database tools, patterns for background tasks and database access, camera, graphics tools... and the list goes on and on. All of these things are specific to the platform. You can generalize them w/ abstractions, but that's a massive, massive effort and is obviously a very different approach than a shared library.
The "learn-once, write-anywhere" paradigm is overrated. How hard is it to learn Java for Android, or Objective-C for iOS?
Well i agree in principle, I've seen Java written by C developers, and Python written by Java developers. There's definitely a knack for doing something in clean way in each language.
Seriously, for shared code, make a C library and it'll run on both Android and iOS. Problem solved. Mobile programmers have been doing this for years.
really?
IMHO, the amount of actual platform-agnostic code is very, very small. for example, you may have to interface w/ location services on both platforms, but the way you go about it is going to very different.
All of our e-banking and credit laws are written so that the banks and credit-card companies get all the benefits of easy credit (issuing new cards), but all of the risks of this ease have been pushed to the owners of the identity. Thus, banks and merchants will issue you credit, and accept cards, with little to no verification (insisted upon by Visa), and if someone uses a stolen card with your name, that's your problem, not theirs. You have to _prove_ that you didn't buy that item, or else you're on the hook.
um, what? i don't know about the laws to be honest, but i've had, and have had many friends and family that have experienced CC fraud. in all cases the issuer completely refunded the loss.
i understand that with a SSC, there's no way to authenticate the identity to who you are transferring your bits.
if you don't see a problem with a major website sporting a SSC, a website where people are pointing people to find safe, secure apps for their phone, i don't know what else to say. it shows that the website is hosted by 12 year olds that don't have $100 to get signed cert.
what's hard to believe is that you are complaining about that. you should buy Apple friend.
the idea that Google could instantly roll out a major OS version upgrade to tens of vastly different devices from 10" tablets to 4.5" phones across at least 4 different manufacturers is really nuts if you have the least inkling of what's involved the engineering process.
p.s., my 2017 N7 Wifi has had Lollipop for over a month, along with my Nexus 10 that was released in 2012.
Here in the US with new devices we're still waiting for 5.0.
Then why do people keep purchasing Android devices from manufacturers that don't provide updates? Buy a Nexus device. It's not perfect but you'll get updates for around 2 years at least, and you'll have the cleanest, most stable, least bloated Android experience.
Google is about the software, so it behooves them to keep their devices running the latest. Manufacturers are about the hardware. Once you buy that device, their revenue stream ends. There's little to no incentive for them to provide you with updates. I've worked at a phone manufacturer, and it's a BFD to get a new version of Android out. Really big. Massive engineering resources.
Google isn't in Nexus to be a player in devices, they are in it to force other manufacturers to adhere to a better business model. They know the manufacturers won't do it until someone shows that it's viable. It's the same thing they did with cheap tablets when everyone was trying to sell them for $700. Buy Nexus, and show the manufacturers that you'll pay to have extended support and updates.
My experience for custom ROMs like CM is hit and miss. Often hard to find dists for your phone unless it's a flagship device, and when you do, they are buggy and unstable. It's a fine choice if you are trying to eek a little more life out of aging hardware, but otherwise you are better off with stock. It's the same reason the only Linux boxes I own are my otherwise outdated ex-Windows machines.
i think you may have double-dosed yourself on testosterone this morning. call a dr. immediately.
Bottom line: no one has a right to earn a living in any particular way.
we're not talking about laws. we're talking about you deciding to take something you want with compensating the producer in a way that they've set up. you decided that since technology has allowed you to bypass it, that it's okay.
these type of moral quandaries are easy to figure out. you just have to ask yourself what would happen if everyone acted like you... what would the situation be like? in this case, we'd have 97% (or whatever) less content on the web because the vast, vast majority of websites that could never survive with paywall model. we'd have major news sites just like all we used to have was major newspapers. personally, an ecosystem where minor plays can survive and compete is good.
you're actions depend on the rest of the world that views the ads, occasionally clicks on them, and earns a meager income for the site owner. if we didn't load those ads, you'd have no content. that's called mooching.
No one is "stealing" products by viewing web pages without ads.
yep, keep telling yourself that.
This is as stupid as having a shop open to the public, putting up ads in the shop, and then bitching when someone walks in and refuses to look at your ads and doesn't buy anything either.
if you viewed the content, you bought something right? why did you even come in the shop in the first place otherwise? the website has an understanding that they provide content, and if you want to view their content, you view the ads which earns them income. you are denying them that income.
There's nothing "immoral" about it, or about blocking ads, just like there's nothing immoral about me refusing to look at freeway billboards.
man, that's such a terrible analogy i don't know where to start. the billboard isn't offering anything but the ad. so yes, if it hasn't offered you any content other than the ad, you have no obligation.
it's simple. you like the content. you want it. but you aren't willing to compensate anyone for providing the content. the content on that site is someone's job. it's how they feed their family and pay their bills. it's no different than consuming any other service and deciding to not pay for it. if you don't like the way the content is delivered, don't consume it. your aren't willing to surf around a little bit to find a site that offers what you want without ads?
it's not like these websites have an option. if you have a blog, or a small news site, no one is going to pay for it. ads are the business model that works, like it or not.
You want to keep an Android device from calling home to Google (or whoever made it), remove its battery. Otherwise, I'd not be so sure it's not.
on newer versions of android, the google-ness of the device is factored out into the "google services" APK, by design. this allows them to update critical code without requiring a vendor-blessed OTA. if you don't have that installed, your device isn't phoning home.
lots of companies take AOSP and build solutions on top of it that have no connection at all to google.
Serious question: But how do I totally block Google?
don't use google apps or search (on iOS)? what's the confusion here? or are you asking how to take advantage of the incredible web and mobile ecosystem google has created without compensating them?
while you are at it, ask yourself how to drive a BMW without paying, and to enjoy your favorite food without buying it. there are ways to do so right?
Just because someone thinks that some business model or business tactic is ok does not make it so
your choices are to buy my product, or not. your choices do not include stealing my product. if you can't get past that, then you are hopeless friend.
it's the same argument that media pirates take. it's all a rationalization for them to get free shit.
i've viewed pirated content, and i block ads... but i don't make up some convoluted argument about how what i'm doing is morally justified. i'm just taking things i don't want to pay for.
but also sucks to be LOTS of people. I have my problems and don't expect anyone to care about my income issues. I could give a rats ass about their problems, as well.
it's the difference between inaction and negative action. i'm not taking any action to reduce your income, but you are taking specific actions to reduce the income of website authors. it's not even indirect action.
if you don't like their ads, don't visit the site. that's the ethical thing to do. as it stands you are taking the product that they worked hard to produce and denying them any compensation. it doesn't matter that you think they should be using a micropayment model over ads. that's not your choice. they get to choose their business model - fail of succeed. if you don't like how someone chooses to sell you something or for how much, you don't just take it if you disagree. that logic is just a license to steal everything you want- just rationalize it by claiming something is wrong with the business model.
i'm sure it makes it easier for you that the people behind the sites are nameless, faceless nobodies that you'll never meet in person in a hundred years. that doesn't change the fact that they are people struggling to make ends meet just like you.
in these situations, ask yourself what life would be like if everyone acted like you. well, we'd have about 97% less content on the web. you are essentially letting the masses subsidize your browsing.
Burn it to the ground and little of value will be lost
i know. how about you use the for-pay adverts-less services you want, and let other people make whatever choice they want? the idea that you need to "burn to the ground" things you don't agree with is pretty sad.
personally, i feel like google is giving me an incredible value. really, all of their web services, android, google android apps + services... for what? for them to know various trivialities about my life?
Let content come from hobbyists, supported by donations.
that's naive. adverts have driven the growth of the internet. it's not just the end user websites. the infrastructure is paid for by companies that pay other companies to build upgrade and maintain it.
If you don't take a stand against unlimited advertising now, the internet will look a lot like Cable TV does eventually.
why don't you "take a stand" by not visiting those sites? websites have a right to include ads. there's no other viable method to earn a profit for most. do you think google search would have been successful in any way if they'd charged even some nominal fee for usage?
If your company exists and relies solely on advertising to fund operational costs, you're doing it wrong.
adverts have primarily driven the growth of the internet. ads allow us to consume many services where we'd otherwise we micro-paymented to death. it's not the micropayment amount, it's that people are (rightly) wary of having tens or hundreds of different services billing their card. it gets out of control and hard to manage.
like most things, the truth is somewhere in the middle here. popup malware is bad, but taking a black and white view of advertising is naive.
yes, and generalizing about the many based on your experience with the few is a good way to go about life.
you are saying that since some websites run by some people have annoying ads, you are going to deny ALL websites the ability to support themselves. great.
Slashdot Mirror
OK, so you don't do it lol.
no, it's not done, for the reasons i already stated. lol back at you friend. i'm talking Android and iOS which is what matters.
but hey, don't take my word for it. go and write a simple app that gets the users' location and displays it on a map. see how much you can factor into a shared library. the average app isn't a bunch of generic number crunching algorithms. it's platform specific code. it's interfacing with the file system, maps, databases, keystores, bluetooth, location, and so on. none of that can be shared because the API for using it isn't common across the platform.
and to your point of if it's a simple app then don't bother, i'd say if you *can't* do it for even a simple app, then it sort of indicates a problem in the plan.
Yeah, it's a common strategy.
It's a common fantasy. It's why things like PhoneGap exist.
Mobile apps aren't just UI code and generic business logic. The platform provides everything: bluetooth, location, account management, database tools, patterns for background tasks and database access, camera, graphics tools ... and the list goes on and on. All of these things are specific to the platform. You can generalize them w/ abstractions, but that's a massive, massive effort and is obviously a very different approach than a shared library.
The "learn-once, write-anywhere" paradigm is overrated. How hard is it to learn Java for Android, or Objective-C for iOS?
Well i agree in principle, I've seen Java written by C developers, and Python written by Java developers. There's definitely a knack for doing something in clean way in each language.
Seriously, for shared code, make a C library and it'll run on both Android and iOS. Problem solved. Mobile programmers have been doing this for years.
really?
IMHO, the amount of actual platform-agnostic code is very, very small. for example, you may have to interface w/ location services on both platforms, but the way you go about it is going to very different.
can you give examples? what "real mail services"?
which makes it absolutely clear that they store all passwords in plaintext
they may be rejecting if your password hashes to any used / previously used hash.
what do "tech-savy" people use? the SMTP server running in their mom's basement?
All of our e-banking and credit laws are written so that the banks and credit-card companies get all the benefits of easy credit (issuing new cards), but all of the risks of this ease have been pushed to the owners of the identity. Thus, banks and merchants will issue you credit, and accept cards, with little to no verification (insisted upon by Visa), and if someone uses a stolen card with your name, that's your problem, not theirs. You have to _prove_ that you didn't buy that item, or else you're on the hook.
um, what? i don't know about the laws to be honest, but i've had, and have had many friends and family that have experienced CC fraud. in all cases the issuer completely refunded the loss.
Facebook engineers said they're rejecting the "write-once, run-anywhere pipe dream" in favor of a "learn-once, write-anywhere" paradigm
I'm sure that is Facebook's dream: an oversupply of software developers with the skills required for employment at Facebook.
i understand that with a SSC, there's no way to authenticate the identity to who you are transferring your bits.
if you don't see a problem with a major website sporting a SSC, a website where people are pointing people to find safe, secure apps for their phone, i don't know what else to say. it shows that the website is hosted by 12 year olds that don't have $100 to get signed cert.
what's hard to believe is that you are complaining about that. you should buy Apple friend.
the idea that Google could instantly roll out a major OS version upgrade to tens of vastly different devices from 10" tablets to 4.5" phones across at least 4 different manufacturers is really nuts if you have the least inkling of what's involved the engineering process.
p.s., my 2017 N7 Wifi has had Lollipop for over a month, along with my Nexus 10 that was released in 2012.
Your Nexus 4 has 2x the RAM of those devices.
It's not that I'm displeased, but I'd expect it to be A LOT faster on a Nexus 6 than say a Nexus 5. In reality there's almost no difference.
Here in the US with new devices we're still waiting for 5.0.
Then why do people keep purchasing Android devices from manufacturers that don't provide updates? Buy a Nexus device. It's not perfect but you'll get updates for around 2 years at least, and you'll have the cleanest, most stable, least bloated Android experience.
Google is about the software, so it behooves them to keep their devices running the latest. Manufacturers are about the hardware. Once you buy that device, their revenue stream ends. There's little to no incentive for them to provide you with updates. I've worked at a phone manufacturer, and it's a BFD to get a new version of Android out. Really big. Massive engineering resources.
Google isn't in Nexus to be a player in devices, they are in it to force other manufacturers to adhere to a better business model. They know the manufacturers won't do it until someone shows that it's viable. It's the same thing they did with cheap tablets when everyone was trying to sell them for $700. Buy Nexus, and show the manufacturers that you'll pay to have extended support and updates.
My experience for custom ROMs like CM is hit and miss. Often hard to find dists for your phone unless it's a flagship device, and when you do, they are buggy and unstable. It's a fine choice if you are trying to eek a little more life out of aging hardware, but otherwise you are better off with stock. It's the same reason the only Linux boxes I own are my otherwise outdated ex-Windows machines.
... if Lollipop runs smoothly on a 1.3GHz processor. it doesn't even run smoothly on my 2.7GHz Nexus 6.
You are so full of shit.
i think you may have double-dosed yourself on testosterone this morning. call a dr. immediately.
Bottom line: no one has a right to earn a living in any particular way.
we're not talking about laws. we're talking about you deciding to take something you want with compensating the producer in a way that they've set up. you decided that since technology has allowed you to bypass it, that it's okay.
these type of moral quandaries are easy to figure out. you just have to ask yourself what would happen if everyone acted like you ... what would the situation be like? in this case, we'd have 97% (or whatever) less content on the web because the vast, vast majority of websites that could never survive with paywall model. we'd have major news sites just like all we used to have was major newspapers. personally, an ecosystem where minor plays can survive and compete is good.
you're actions depend on the rest of the world that views the ads, occasionally clicks on them, and earns a meager income for the site owner. if we didn't load those ads, you'd have no content. that's called mooching.
moral quandary solved.
No one is "stealing" products by viewing web pages without ads.
yep, keep telling yourself that.
This is as stupid as having a shop open to the public, putting up ads in the shop, and then bitching when someone walks in and refuses to look at your ads and doesn't buy anything either.
if you viewed the content, you bought something right? why did you even come in the shop in the first place otherwise? the website has an understanding that they provide content, and if you want to view their content, you view the ads which earns them income. you are denying them that income.
There's nothing "immoral" about it, or about blocking ads, just like there's nothing immoral about me refusing to look at freeway billboards.
man, that's such a terrible analogy i don't know where to start. the billboard isn't offering anything but the ad. so yes, if it hasn't offered you any content other than the ad, you have no obligation.
it's simple. you like the content. you want it. but you aren't willing to compensate anyone for providing the content. the content on that site is someone's job. it's how they feed their family and pay their bills. it's no different than consuming any other service and deciding to not pay for it. if you don't like the way the content is delivered, don't consume it. your aren't willing to surf around a little bit to find a site that offers what you want without ads?
it's not like these websites have an option. if you have a blog, or a small news site, no one is going to pay for it. ads are the business model that works, like it or not.
From there install https://fdroid.org/ [fdroid.org] as your repository and download adaway
the same fdroid that has a self-signed (or otherwise invalid, i'm not sure) certificate on their https website?
awesome idea.
You want to keep an Android device from calling home to Google (or whoever made it), remove its battery. Otherwise, I'd not be so sure it's not.
on newer versions of android, the google-ness of the device is factored out into the "google services" APK, by design. this allows them to update critical code without requiring a vendor-blessed OTA. if you don't have that installed, your device isn't phoning home.
lots of companies take AOSP and build solutions on top of it that have no connection at all to google.
Serious question: But how do I totally block Google?
don't use google apps or search (on iOS)? what's the confusion here? or are you asking how to take advantage of the incredible web and mobile ecosystem google has created without compensating them?
while you are at it, ask yourself how to drive a BMW without paying, and to enjoy your favorite food without buying it. there are ways to do so right?
Just because someone thinks that some business model or business tactic is ok does not make it so
your choices are to buy my product, or not. your choices do not include stealing my product. if you can't get past that, then you are hopeless friend.
it's the same argument that media pirates take. it's all a rationalization for them to get free shit.
i've viewed pirated content, and i block ads ... but i don't make up some convoluted argument about how what i'm doing is morally justified. i'm just taking things i don't want to pay for.
but also sucks to be LOTS of people. I have my problems and don't expect anyone to care about my income issues. I could give a rats ass about their problems, as well.
it's the difference between inaction and negative action. i'm not taking any action to reduce your income, but you are taking specific actions to reduce the income of website authors. it's not even indirect action.
if you don't like their ads, don't visit the site. that's the ethical thing to do. as it stands you are taking the product that they worked hard to produce and denying them any compensation. it doesn't matter that you think they should be using a micropayment model over ads. that's not your choice. they get to choose their business model - fail of succeed. if you don't like how someone chooses to sell you something or for how much, you don't just take it if you disagree. that logic is just a license to steal everything you want- just rationalize it by claiming something is wrong with the business model.
i'm sure it makes it easier for you that the people behind the sites are nameless, faceless nobodies that you'll never meet in person in a hundred years. that doesn't change the fact that they are people struggling to make ends meet just like you.
in these situations, ask yourself what life would be like if everyone acted like you. well, we'd have about 97% less content on the web. you are essentially letting the masses subsidize your browsing.
really? do tell what other things about the future you failed to predict?
Burn it to the ground and little of value will be lost
i know. how about you use the for-pay adverts-less services you want, and let other people make whatever choice they want? the idea that you need to "burn to the ground" things you don't agree with is pretty sad.
personally, i feel like google is giving me an incredible value. really, all of their web services, android, google android apps + services ... for what? for them to know various trivialities about my life?
Let content come from hobbyists, supported by donations.
that's naive. adverts have driven the growth of the internet. it's not just the end user websites. the infrastructure is paid for by companies that pay other companies to build upgrade and maintain it.
If you don't take a stand against unlimited advertising now, the internet will look a lot like Cable TV does eventually.
why don't you "take a stand" by not visiting those sites? websites have a right to include ads. there's no other viable method to earn a profit for most. do you think google search would have been successful in any way if they'd charged even some nominal fee for usage?
If your company exists and relies solely on advertising to fund operational costs, you're doing it wrong.
adverts have primarily driven the growth of the internet. ads allow us to consume many services where we'd otherwise we micro-paymented to death. it's not the micropayment amount, it's that people are (rightly) wary of having tens or hundreds of different services billing their card. it gets out of control and hard to manage.
like most things, the truth is somewhere in the middle here. popup malware is bad, but taking a black and white view of advertising is naive.
yes, and generalizing about the many based on your experience with the few is a good way to go about life.
you are saying that since some websites run by some people have annoying ads, you are going to deny ALL websites the ability to support themselves. great.
Apple's not in that business. They don't want to be in that business. They need a data center for their core business.