It depends on your definition of "platform," I believe.
Android is open software platform in that you can do whatever you want within Android. But that doesn't make the G1 an open hardware platform, where you could install a different operating system.
OpenMoko is an open hardware platform.
Now, personally, I see no reason why T-Mobile would care whether you're running Android or Debian. Google might care because they want you running those nice Android apps which interface with Google because that's how they're paying for Android development. But I'm not sure that they have any kind of agreement which would require the makers of the G1 to make sure that the phones are tamper-proof.
Actually, I discovered that the V-Chip on my TV will let you block any channels. So I can cut out all those stupid TV-Y and TV-G shows and just show me the TV-MA shows!
Part of the reason for this, in my opinion, is that some parents don't want to be the "responsible" one--the "heavy", if that term is still used. They hate to tell their kids that they can't do something or watch something.
You turn on the V-Chip and you have to explain to little Bobby why you won't let him watch "Hollywood Chainsaw Hookers." But if we can get the Government to not show such things, the parents don't have to play the heavy. "We'd have no problem if little Bobby watched that movie but, gosh darn it, the Government won't let it be shown on the TV. Oh well..."
According to the article, Google will refund your money if they use the kill switch. Apple has been mum about what will happen if they use the kill switch.
The Tetris folks are going after iPhone apps that bear a resemblance to Tetris. If I developed a Tetris-like app for the iPhone and Tetris complains, Apple shuts it down and that's it. Apple is not going to fight for some little developer.
In the Google marketplace, Google can shut me down but I can still sell the application on my own. If Tetris wants to shut me down, they can take me to court and we have a judge on the public payroll who will decide these things.
Apple already has banned apps for no discernable reason whatsoever ("I Am Rich").
Apple has banned applications like "I Am Rich" from their App Store, which effectively means they are no longer available. However, Apple did not use the kill switch, which means that if I bought the application before Apple stopped selling it, it still works.
A better example is the application which allowed you to share your 3G Internet access on your iPhone via WiFi. Apple banned that application as well because use of that application here in the US would be breaking your terms of agreement with AT&T. Yet Apple didn't use the kill switch and if you are among the lucky few who got the app, you're still able to use it.
So this argument is sort of about two different things. First is the never used "Kill Switch" which would be used to remove an application which I possibly purchased (the app may have been free) from a phone which I purchased. The other is the policies of the companies in regards to distributing applications.
People bitch and moan about the high cost of fuel, and yet they don't do anything about driving slower.
Actually, I believe people with the big-honkin' SUVs started driving slower when gas was over $4.00 per gallon.
The problem was that they wouldn't get out of the left-hand lane! I appreciate them doing their part to save gasoline, but do they have to do it right in front oh me?!
Well, according to TFA, the problem is that Ford would have to build a new factory to do so--at a cost of about $350 million. They'd have to sell 350,000 a year in the US for it to be profitable.
The question is, could they do so?
The argument is that the car would cost the consumer a little more than a Prius (TFA says around $25,000 vs. $24,000 for the Prius). If you were going to spend money for a fuel-efficient car, would you rather spend $25,000 and pay more for gasoline or would you rather spend a thousand dollars less and pay less for gasoline?
It would be a marketing challenge, that's for sure.
Are we complaining that Bose stores refuse to sell anything but Bose, or that Dell stores refuse to sell computers other than Dells, or that Ford opts not to distribute Daewoo parts at its stores?
The problem with this analogy is that Apple is not selling Apple's software--they're selling my software. Apple does not handle support for my software. Apple does not handle refunds for my software. Apple just distributes my software and takes a certain percentage of the initial sale for doing so.
To carry your analogy further and since this is slashdot and we must use car analogies (it's in the terms of service), I'll use your Ford analogy.
Let's say I come of with an amazing way to double the gas mileage of any Ford car. It won't work with GM cars, Chrysler cars, Toyota cars, or whatnot (though with some work, I could probably "port" it to those other cars). Well, needless to say, I want to make money off of this invention. I have a few ways to do this.
First, I could sell the invention--my "intellectual property", if you will--to Ford for lots of money. They could integrate it into every car they sell so that all Ford cars would get twice the gas mileage.
Second, I could create a doohickey which would hook up to any Ford car. I could then sell the rights to make that doohickey to some company and let them worry about how to distribute it and take a cut of each sale they make. Or I could distribute it myself. If I distributed it myself, I could try to do so through Ford dealers who could add it to a sold car or I could sell it to mechanics as an aftermarket part that people could install on their old Ford car or I could sell it directly to whoever wanted to buy it and install it on their Ford car. I could even conceivably do various combinations of the above--perhaps find a distributor in one part of the world and sell it myself through another part of the world.
In short, I have numerous ways to make money off my amazing invention.
To bring the analogy back to Apple, If the world worked the way Apple is doing with the iTunes Store, I would only be able to sell my doohickey through Ford dealers. Ford would decide on the terms. If I didn't like the terms Ford offered, too bad. I would not be allowed to distribute my amazing doohickey. My only other option would be to sell it myself to 100 people.
The iTunes Store is the only way to distribute applications to everyone. However, there are two other ways.
First is what Apple calls "Ad hoc" distribution. You can write an app and give (or, I assume, sell) it to whoever you want. However, Ad hoc distribution is only allowed for 100 people. This was mostly meant for testing--so that developers could bless a batch of beta testers to try out their apps.
Second, Apple has a "corporate" distribution. If you are a company of over 500 people, you can distribute your application for internal use only. This way, a company like IBM (or Apple) could develop an app that accesses some internal database or something and distribute it to their employees.
So there are other ways to distribute your application. However, if you are a commercial software developer, the only way to sell your application to a large number of people is via the Apple Store. "Ad hoc" is too small a customer base and "Corporate" will only allow you to distribute within your organization.
Well, they called AT&T and asked about the service, but I'm sure they neglected to mention the part where their son was going to be in Vancouver, Canada. So why would the AT&T person feel a need to bring up international rates?
One nice thing about tales like this, though, is that it lets us know to be wary of such things and to contact a network representative before traveling to another country to find out the rules. I took a trip to Mexico a few months back and I stopped at my local Verizon store to find out what the rates would be if I used my phone down there because, frankly, I didn't know.
I tend to agree with the GP, though, that it is good customer service to notify your customers when you see billing patterns which are out of the ordinary. Sometimes things happen. If my bill topped $1,000, I'd appreciate a call from Verizon saying, "Hey, we're noticing this and we'd like to let you know..." By doing that, you have customers who are happy with you rather than customers who are annoyed when they get a huge bill and have to call you to find out what's going on (and what can be done about it).
I've been a Sprint long-distance customer for years and one thing that impressed me back in my youth was the time I got back from a vacation and there was a call from Sprint asking whether or not I'd made a bunch of very expensive phone calls to the middle-east and South America. Very proactive, versus waiting for me to get an enormous bill and having me have to call and complain. I appreciate service like that.
Yeah. I mean, after all, it's not like everybody comes in at the same time and turns on their computer and expects their application to launch immediately...
Slashdot Mirror
Seeing the tag "Airstrike" got me thinking...
I'm not sure. As the article points out, Godzilla stands erect while these beasties do not.
The pain in the ass comes in when you start dealing with reflected signals in urban areas.
What part of Ponca City, OK don't you understand?
Maybe if we made a really big incubator...
I'm not sure there's a whole lot of room inside a Soyuz craft to carry enough oxygen to matter.
One other possibility, though, would be to use a Progress drone.
It depends on your definition of "platform," I believe.
Android is open software platform in that you can do whatever you want within Android. But that doesn't make the G1 an open hardware platform, where you could install a different operating system.
OpenMoko is an open hardware platform.
Now, personally, I see no reason why T-Mobile would care whether you're running Android or Debian. Google might care because they want you running those nice Android apps which interface with Google because that's how they're paying for Android development. But I'm not sure that they have any kind of agreement which would require the makers of the G1 to make sure that the phones are tamper-proof.
Sir, you are my hero.
...and, more precisely, why do you hate fairness?
And since, as the world knows, America is nothing but fair to everybody, and you hate fairness, then you must hate America! Why do you hate America?!?
Actually, I discovered that the V-Chip on my TV will let you block any channels. So I can cut out all those stupid TV-Y and TV-G shows and just show me the TV-MA shows!
Thanks, V-Chip!
Parents don't RTFM and they don't use the V-Chip.
Part of the reason for this, in my opinion, is that some parents don't want to be the "responsible" one--the "heavy", if that term is still used. They hate to tell their kids that they can't do something or watch something.
You turn on the V-Chip and you have to explain to little Bobby why you won't let him watch "Hollywood Chainsaw Hookers." But if we can get the Government to not show such things, the parents don't have to play the heavy. "We'd have no problem if little Bobby watched that movie but, gosh darn it, the Government won't let it be shown on the TV. Oh well..."
Or a toga party.
It's actually 32 feet/sec^2. The Europeans stole it and converted it to the metric system to cover their tracks.
Uh, look again at Apple's Store. When you click on that iPhone 3G, they tell you to visit an Apple or AT&T store.
So, no, you can only buy an iPhone in-person at an AT&T or Apple Store, which is why you have lines.
According to the article, Google will refund your money if they use the kill switch. Apple has been mum about what will happen if they use the kill switch.
The Tetris folks are going after iPhone apps that bear a resemblance to Tetris. If I developed a Tetris-like app for the iPhone and Tetris complains, Apple shuts it down and that's it. Apple is not going to fight for some little developer.
In the Google marketplace, Google can shut me down but I can still sell the application on my own. If Tetris wants to shut me down, they can take me to court and we have a judge on the public payroll who will decide these things.
Apple already has banned apps for no discernable reason whatsoever ("I Am Rich").
Apple has banned applications like "I Am Rich" from their App Store, which effectively means they are no longer available. However, Apple did not use the kill switch, which means that if I bought the application before Apple stopped selling it, it still works.
A better example is the application which allowed you to share your 3G Internet access on your iPhone via WiFi. Apple banned that application as well because use of that application here in the US would be breaking your terms of agreement with AT&T. Yet Apple didn't use the kill switch and if you are among the lucky few who got the app, you're still able to use it.
So this argument is sort of about two different things. First is the never used "Kill Switch" which would be used to remove an application which I possibly purchased (the app may have been free) from a phone which I purchased. The other is the policies of the companies in regards to distributing applications.
The first US space walk was June 3, 1965 and the first landing on the moon was July 20, 1969. So we could see the Chinese on the moon by 2012?
It did end. This is Hell.
People bitch and moan about the high cost of fuel, and yet they don't do anything about driving slower.
Actually, I believe people with the big-honkin' SUVs started driving slower when gas was over $4.00 per gallon.
The problem was that they wouldn't get out of the left-hand lane! I appreciate them doing their part to save gasoline, but do they have to do it right in front oh me?!
Save gas on your own time! :^)
Well, according to TFA, the problem is that Ford would have to build a new factory to do so--at a cost of about $350 million. They'd have to sell 350,000 a year in the US for it to be profitable.
The question is, could they do so?
The argument is that the car would cost the consumer a little more than a Prius (TFA says around $25,000 vs. $24,000 for the Prius). If you were going to spend money for a fuel-efficient car, would you rather spend $25,000 and pay more for gasoline or would you rather spend a thousand dollars less and pay less for gasoline?
It would be a marketing challenge, that's for sure.
Are we complaining that Bose stores refuse to sell anything but Bose, or that Dell stores refuse to sell computers other than Dells, or that Ford opts not to distribute Daewoo parts at its stores?
The problem with this analogy is that Apple is not selling Apple's software--they're selling my software. Apple does not handle support for my software. Apple does not handle refunds for my software. Apple just distributes my software and takes a certain percentage of the initial sale for doing so.
To carry your analogy further and since this is slashdot and we must use car analogies (it's in the terms of service), I'll use your Ford analogy.
Let's say I come of with an amazing way to double the gas mileage of any Ford car. It won't work with GM cars, Chrysler cars, Toyota cars, or whatnot (though with some work, I could probably "port" it to those other cars). Well, needless to say, I want to make money off of this invention. I have a few ways to do this.
First, I could sell the invention--my "intellectual property", if you will--to Ford for lots of money. They could integrate it into every car they sell so that all Ford cars would get twice the gas mileage.
Second, I could create a doohickey which would hook up to any Ford car. I could then sell the rights to make that doohickey to some company and let them worry about how to distribute it and take a cut of each sale they make. Or I could distribute it myself. If I distributed it myself, I could try to do so through Ford dealers who could add it to a sold car or I could sell it to mechanics as an aftermarket part that people could install on their old Ford car or I could sell it directly to whoever wanted to buy it and install it on their Ford car. I could even conceivably do various combinations of the above--perhaps find a distributor in one part of the world and sell it myself through another part of the world.
In short, I have numerous ways to make money off my amazing invention.
To bring the analogy back to Apple, If the world worked the way Apple is doing with the iTunes Store, I would only be able to sell my doohickey through Ford dealers. Ford would decide on the terms. If I didn't like the terms Ford offered, too bad. I would not be allowed to distribute my amazing doohickey. My only other option would be to sell it myself to 100 people.
Does this sound like a good thing to you?
Well, yes and no.
The iTunes Store is the only way to distribute applications to everyone. However, there are two other ways.
First is what Apple calls "Ad hoc" distribution. You can write an app and give (or, I assume, sell) it to whoever you want. However, Ad hoc distribution is only allowed for 100 people. This was mostly meant for testing--so that developers could bless a batch of beta testers to try out their apps.
Second, Apple has a "corporate" distribution. If you are a company of over 500 people, you can distribute your application for internal use only. This way, a company like IBM (or Apple) could develop an app that accesses some internal database or something and distribute it to their employees.
So there are other ways to distribute your application. However, if you are a commercial software developer, the only way to sell your application to a large number of people is via the Apple Store. "Ad hoc" is too small a customer base and "Corporate" will only allow you to distribute within your organization.
Is it this one? And did it cost you 99 cents?
Well, they called AT&T and asked about the service, but I'm sure they neglected to mention the part where their son was going to be in Vancouver, Canada. So why would the AT&T person feel a need to bring up international rates?
One nice thing about tales like this, though, is that it lets us know to be wary of such things and to contact a network representative before traveling to another country to find out the rules. I took a trip to Mexico a few months back and I stopped at my local Verizon store to find out what the rates would be if I used my phone down there because, frankly, I didn't know.
I tend to agree with the GP, though, that it is good customer service to notify your customers when you see billing patterns which are out of the ordinary. Sometimes things happen. If my bill topped $1,000, I'd appreciate a call from Verizon saying, "Hey, we're noticing this and we'd like to let you know..." By doing that, you have customers who are happy with you rather than customers who are annoyed when they get a huge bill and have to call you to find out what's going on (and what can be done about it).
I've been a Sprint long-distance customer for years and one thing that impressed me back in my youth was the time I got back from a vacation and there was a call from Sprint asking whether or not I'd made a bunch of very expensive phone calls to the middle-east and South America. Very proactive, versus waiting for me to get an enormous bill and having me have to call and complain. I appreciate service like that.
Yeah. I mean, after all, it's not like everybody comes in at the same time and turns on their computer and expects their application to launch immediately...