Having it be a pure web app is one possibility yes, but it's possible to write HTML5 apps for iOS and Android. I'm not saying that it will necessarily be better than developing a native app for each platform, but it does cut down on development effort for simpler apps. Facebook obviously decided recently that they're better off doing native apps (though when you have the resources they do, I'm not sure why they went HTML5 in the first place).
It's not changing for me. And I think "Many people who develop for Windows 8" is rather wishful thinking. If you're going to write an HTML/Javascript app, why not make it entirely cross platform?
There's plenty that people can say to help or harm you. The right or wrong words can have massive psychological impact. The whole of politics is basically just people trying to persuade other people. You can be falsely accused of things and have your reputation irreparably damaged, or even be put in prison just because of others people's words. Words are a very effective weapon indeed.
Free speech is only meant to apply to being able to say whatever you want about the government. It is illegal to slander, harass, use hate speech etc. in relation to private individuals.
You lack imagination, and are rather ignorant of law and reality.
Yep and perhaps if we eat the same foods as another species, we're more likely to develop similar problems.. I don't know. It seems a very immature field of study, but it certainly is interesting:)
They eat a lot of rice in Japan and that's one of the countries with the longest average life spans, so I don't know if the issue is all that simple. They do tend to eat smaller portions over there though. Personally I'm quite happy to go on eating rice for the moment.
Okay, I'll respond to the questions then (though someone else has already done a better job than I will, it seems).
Why does Google get so low that they need to have proxy patent wars with Microsoft?
How is it "low" to go via the division that owns the patents? The majority of the tech world knows now that Motorola Mobility = Google. It's a whole lot more straightforward than the Microsoft/SCO shenanigans that were going on.
Why can't they leave MS alone or at least sue them themselves?
"Leave them alone"? Seriously? Google are bullying Microsoft are they? By asking them to license technology for which they have the patents? It's not like they're trolling either - they make products that utilise these patents, and many other businesses license the patents too. And again, what is the difference if Google sues directly, other than the hassle that it would take to transfer the patents over to Google. For one thing if they did that, it might make the staff at Motorola Mobility rather skittish and apt to move on because it seems like they are being sucked dry of their assets in preparation for shutting them down, or something along those lines.
If you check the PDF linked in the summary, you'll see that it's something like 11 patents covering the implementation of Wi-Fi. Though since they make it sound like in many cases there are no other sensible ways to implement the standard, it seems kind of crappy to me that they're allowed to patent those implementations..
I'll answer your retarded questions with another question. What low things do MS constantly do that they need to pay people to create hundreds of Slashdot accounts to post whiny little comments to try and improve their public image?
At first I actually meant of your car's computer system (which are pretty different between car makers), but yeah the same applies to driving an actual car. Driving your car an app would be pretty terrible (unless it asked "where do you want to go today, sir?" and then drove you there itself).
That makes perfect sense within a single class of devices - like being aware of pinch-to-zoom on touch screens, or right click to access certain options with a mouse, but right there are two differences that I think we should keep. Tablets and phones displays have to be simple out of necessity. Bold, simple app interfaces that can be operated with a fat, imprecise fingertip or two. Too many hardware buttons and you risk knocking one by mistake. When you have the stability of a laptop or desk though, more densely packed interfaces, more hardware buttons, plus a range of user configurable pointing devices make a lot of sense. Try to cater for both at once in any non-trivial UI, and you will end up with a sub-optimal experience on at least one of the devices.
It has a tremendously innovative interface far more advanced than iOS. For example things like video in icons
I wouldn't call that an innovation. It's a cool feature yes, but the PlayStation 3 has had that in its cross media bar for years - albeit only for actual video files that I've seen.. but it's very cool to see a load of icons animating at once.
That hasn't been my experience. I'm a heavy GPS user for many years. I find functionality quite often hidden and the interfaces terrible
Well that suggests that they were poor interfaces, not that a GPS shouldn't have a simple interface. I've only actually used GPS on Android, but find it very simple. I haven't been trying to say that one device can't have more than one task or interface style - for example it would be pretty cool to hook a phone up to a TV, mouse and keyboard and use it as a desktop device - or use a tablet more as a netbook like you can with the Asus Transformer devices. I'm saying that interfaces should suit the application, and that MS shouldn't try to force one paradigm on everything.
And in a few years when applying for jobs: "oh, you got an A? Good job. But it's a Black A, not an Asian A. So I'm going to call it a C. I'm sorry, but you don't qualify for this job".
Ah crap. It seems my brain tends to autocorrect for mistakes even when I'm looking for them. Didn't notice the missing "that".. and I don't agree with the actual sentiment, of course.
I don't think of it as Apple's theory at all, it's just obvious from observation of the evidence so far. A desktop interface is a poor choice for a watch, a calculator, a GPS, a car, a microwave, a phone, or in fact any device that doesn't have a mouse and keyboard. The learning curve for these interfaces should be quite shallow and job specific.
I haven't heard anything positive about WIndows 8 yet. All I've seen is people saying that you can get used to it, and it's not so bad. Kinda. Sort of. Hardly glorious praise.
People don't want the exact same interface across all devices any more than they'd want the same type of vehicle in all situations. Sometimes you want something that will keep you comfortable as you eat up the miles. Sometimes you might want a sports car or a motorbike. Sometimes you can only get to where you want with a helicopter. A "one size fits all" mentality generally results in crappy product when compared with a targeted, focused and well implemented product.
I love Android, but I don't want it on my desktop. It would be no use for multitasking. Windows 7 is decent, but I don't want it on my phone when all I really want to do is send/receive messages, play music, maybe browse a little and very occasionally play a game.
All TVs are capable of receiving a broadcast simply by plugging an aerial into the back of them. It doesn't need to be detuned, you just need to not be using it for live TV. You can stream live broadcast TV over the internet too, but if you don't use that facility, you don't have to pay.
Nope. You can own a telly and use it for consoles, DVDs, streaming iPlayer, 4OD, etc and you don't need a license for any of it. You only legally need a license if you watch any live broadcast TV, online or otherwise.
Where does this expectation that a company should support old hardware/software forever on every new OS come from?
From the fact that it's generally quite easy to do so. Not necessarily forever, but something like 10 years is very reasonable for keeping drivers available. Do you really expect everyone to have to buy new hardware every couple of years, when the "old" stuff still works fine in today's world? Would you be happy if your car manufacturer stopped servicing your car after a couple of years and told you to buy a new one?
And why shouldn't a company in business to sell something want you to buy the newest model, their goal is to make money after all.
They can do that if they want, but then why should anyone want to buy from them if they're just going to drop support without notice?
You only get toys with Happy Meals. Not everyone buys Happy Meals. I've seen an episode of Sailor Moon a long time ago. It was shit, so I didn't watch any more. I didn't even know they were called the Sailor Scouts.
They could have just re-oriented the screen so that it was horizontal or at say 30 degrees from horizontal, and it would have been far more comfortable. I had no clue they had such amazing input tech back then.
Slashdot Mirror
Having it be a pure web app is one possibility yes, but it's possible to write HTML5 apps for iOS and Android. I'm not saying that it will necessarily be better than developing a native app for each platform, but it does cut down on development effort for simpler apps. Facebook obviously decided recently that they're better off doing native apps (though when you have the resources they do, I'm not sure why they went HTML5 in the first place).
It's not changing for me. And I think "Many people who develop for Windows 8" is rather wishful thinking. If you're going to write an HTML/Javascript app, why not make it entirely cross platform?
There's plenty that people can say to help or harm you. The right or wrong words can have massive psychological impact. The whole of politics is basically just people trying to persuade other people. You can be falsely accused of things and have your reputation irreparably damaged, or even be put in prison just because of others people's words. Words are a very effective weapon indeed.
Free speech is only meant to apply to being able to say whatever you want about the government. It is illegal to slander, harass, use hate speech etc. in relation to private individuals.
You lack imagination, and are rather ignorant of law and reality.
Yep and perhaps if we eat the same foods as another species, we're more likely to develop similar problems.. I don't know. It seems a very immature field of study, but it certainly is interesting :)
They eat a lot of rice in Japan and that's one of the countries with the longest average life spans, so I don't know if the issue is all that simple. They do tend to eat smaller portions over there though. Personally I'm quite happy to go on eating rice for the moment.
Well, actually.. looky here.
Maybe they could also work on letting us grow our own personal supply of bacon for when we go camping, or can't be bothered going shopping.
Okay, I'll respond to the questions then (though someone else has already done a better job than I will, it seems).
Why does Google get so low that they need to have proxy patent wars with Microsoft?
How is it "low" to go via the division that owns the patents? The majority of the tech world knows now that Motorola Mobility = Google. It's a whole lot more straightforward than the Microsoft/SCO shenanigans that were going on.
Why can't they leave MS alone or at least sue them themselves?
"Leave them alone"? Seriously? Google are bullying Microsoft are they? By asking them to license technology for which they have the patents? It's not like they're trolling either - they make products that utilise these patents, and many other businesses license the patents too. And again, what is the difference if Google sues directly, other than the hassle that it would take to transfer the patents over to Google. For one thing if they did that, it might make the staff at Motorola Mobility rather skittish and apt to move on because it seems like they are being sucked dry of their assets in preparation for shutting them down, or something along those lines.
If you check the PDF linked in the summary, you'll see that it's something like 11 patents covering the implementation of Wi-Fi. Though since they make it sound like in many cases there are no other sensible ways to implement the standard, it seems kind of crappy to me that they're allowed to patent those implementations..
Yes, they really hand out patents for useful inventions. Just because everyone uses the invention, doesn't mean that there can't be a patent on it.
I'll answer your retarded questions with another question. What low things do MS constantly do that they need to pay people to create hundreds of Slashdot accounts to post whiny little comments to try and improve their public image?
At first I actually meant of your car's computer system (which are pretty different between car makers), but yeah the same applies to driving an actual car. Driving your car an app would be pretty terrible (unless it asked "where do you want to go today, sir?" and then drove you there itself).
That makes perfect sense within a single class of devices - like being aware of pinch-to-zoom on touch screens, or right click to access certain options with a mouse, but right there are two differences that I think we should keep. Tablets and phones displays have to be simple out of necessity. Bold, simple app interfaces that can be operated with a fat, imprecise fingertip or two. Too many hardware buttons and you risk knocking one by mistake. When you have the stability of a laptop or desk though, more densely packed interfaces, more hardware buttons, plus a range of user configurable pointing devices make a lot of sense. Try to cater for both at once in any non-trivial UI, and you will end up with a sub-optimal experience on at least one of the devices.
It has a tremendously innovative interface far more advanced than iOS. For example things like video in icons
I wouldn't call that an innovation. It's a cool feature yes, but the PlayStation 3 has had that in its cross media bar for years - albeit only for actual video files that I've seen.. but it's very cool to see a load of icons animating at once.
That hasn't been my experience. I'm a heavy GPS user for many years. I find functionality quite often hidden and the interfaces terrible
Well that suggests that they were poor interfaces, not that a GPS shouldn't have a simple interface. I've only actually used GPS on Android, but find it very simple. I haven't been trying to say that one device can't have more than one task or interface style - for example it would be pretty cool to hook a phone up to a TV, mouse and keyboard and use it as a desktop device - or use a tablet more as a netbook like you can with the Asus Transformer devices. I'm saying that interfaces should suit the application, and that MS shouldn't try to force one paradigm on everything.
And in a few years when applying for jobs: "oh, you got an A? Good job. But it's a Black A, not an Asian A. So I'm going to call it a C. I'm sorry, but you don't qualify for this job".
Ah crap. It seems my brain tends to autocorrect for mistakes even when I'm looking for them. Didn't notice the missing "that".. and I don't agree with the actual sentiment, of course.
I don't think of it as Apple's theory at all, it's just obvious from observation of the evidence so far. A desktop interface is a poor choice for a watch, a calculator, a GPS, a car, a microwave, a phone, or in fact any device that doesn't have a mouse and keyboard. The learning curve for these interfaces should be quite shallow and job specific.
I haven't heard anything positive about WIndows 8 yet. All I've seen is people saying that you can get used to it, and it's not so bad. Kinda. Sort of. Hardly glorious praise.
People don't want the exact same interface across all devices any more than they'd want the same type of vehicle in all situations. Sometimes you want something that will keep you comfortable as you eat up the miles. Sometimes you might want a sports car or a motorbike. Sometimes you can only get to where you want with a helicopter. A "one size fits all" mentality generally results in crappy product when compared with a targeted, focused and well implemented product.
I love Android, but I don't want it on my desktop. It would be no use for multitasking. Windows 7 is decent, but I don't want it on my phone when all I really want to do is send/receive messages, play music, maybe browse a little and very occasionally play a game.
All TVs are capable of receiving a broadcast simply by plugging an aerial into the back of them. It doesn't need to be detuned, you just need to not be using it for live TV. You can stream live broadcast TV over the internet too, but if you don't use that facility, you don't have to pay.
Nope. You can own a telly and use it for consoles, DVDs, streaming iPlayer, 4OD, etc and you don't need a license for any of it. You only legally need a license if you watch any live broadcast TV, online or otherwise.
I can completely understand Microsoft's drive to unify the user experience across phones, tablets, laptops, desktops, and servers
This is what MS have done every time they've brought out a mobile OS.
And guess what? Desktop interfaces are shit on PDAs/tablets/phones, and these devices never sold that well.
And guess what else? Mobile interfaces are shit on the desktop, and they're not going to sell that well.
Where does this expectation that a company should support old hardware/software forever on every new OS come from?
From the fact that it's generally quite easy to do so. Not necessarily forever, but something like 10 years is very reasonable for keeping drivers available. Do you really expect everyone to have to buy new hardware every couple of years, when the "old" stuff still works fine in today's world? Would you be happy if your car manufacturer stopped servicing your car after a couple of years and told you to buy a new one?
And why shouldn't a company in business to sell something want you to buy the newest model, their goal is to make money after all.
They can do that if they want, but then why should anyone want to buy from them if they're just going to drop support without notice?
I see no error there. Please elaborate.
You only get toys with Happy Meals. Not everyone buys Happy Meals. I've seen an episode of Sailor Moon a long time ago. It was shit, so I didn't watch any more. I didn't even know they were called the Sailor Scouts.
Why? If Samsung can make money from iPhone sales, why would they want to stop the sales completely?
If Samsung caused the cessation of iPhone sales altogether, iPhone customers might move to a brand that doesn't use Samsung parts at all.
"What do you mean I wasn't at your Halloween party? I was Invisibility Cloak Harry!"
They could have just re-oriented the screen so that it was horizontal or at say 30 degrees from horizontal, and it would have been far more comfortable. I had no clue they had such amazing input tech back then.