Not sure why you find this upsetting or controversial. Is there some other platform variant that is not supported presently by Firefox that you expected to see listed there?
Exactly. The change to calling each one of them "major" versions appears to be simply cosmetic - who cares what the number is, people will use the latest stable version, whichever that happens to be; if there is no stable version, they'll simply move to using Chrome or Safari.
Basically, all Mozilla has done is said, "Everything we would have released in a big chunk next November will be delivered in 4 smaller chunks, one each quarter."
In theory, the releases will be more tightly focused, with shorter durations, and fewer features to implement translating to more thorough bug testing and bug fixing. This is a good thing.
In practice, as you noted... no guarantees. I expect at least 2 of them will be significantly late and / or significantly reduced in scope from their current roadmap.
Your entire post shows a shocking lack of understanding of the facts concerning extradition from Sweden to the US. So, I will now proceed to educate you.
Due to general agreements in the European Arrest Warrant Act, Sweden cannot extradite a person who has been surrendered to Sweden from another country without certain considerations.
Concerning surrender to another country within the European Union, the Act states that the executing country under certain circumstances must approve a further surrender.
On the other hand, if the extradition concerns a country outside the European Union the authorities in the executing country (the country that surrendered the person) must consent such extradition. Sweden cannot, without such consent, extradite a person, for example to the USA.
So, there are three possible ways he'll end up in the US facing trial: 1) Legally - by being extradited directly from the UK; 2) Legally - by being extradited from Sweden, with the approval of the UK required as a condition of extradition; 3) Illegally - by being abducted from the UK or Sweden by the CIA, and brought back to the states to face trial;
1 & 2 are, effectively, identical: The UK, by international treaties, *must* approve of his extradition, either directly from the UK, or via Sweden. If Sweden refuses to ask for that approval, then they will open themselves up to - at the very least - penalties and sanctions from the UK, and most likely, penalties and sanctions on behalf of the entire EU for violating EU laws. So Sweden makes an unpopular move, and jeopardizes their standing in the EU, in return for... what? The US knocks a half a percent off a tariff for Volvo imports? Please.
3 is so far-fetched that it's not even really worth considering. If we're going to engage in illegal means to silence Assange, he'll be found dead in an alley somewhere in the UK or Sweden, a victim of an apparent mugging-gone-wrong. Abducting him and bringing him back to the states from an EU member state would incur the wrath of the *entire* European Union, and likely most of the UN as well. It wouldn't be a secret that we were trying him: it's not like nobody from the outside world gets to see the prisoners at Guantanamo, and they'd have a hell of a hard time publicizing a trial of Assange here in the states, but saying "But make sure you don't tell the Europeans we got him!" No, if silencing him was important enough to risk all of that international fallout, he'd simply be found dead in a London alley.
Frankly, Assange and his supporters seem to have a messianic complex. Would the US government love to throw charges at him and punish him for embarrassing them? Sure. Will they get to? Almost certainly not, unless the UK suddenly (and drastically) changes their tune about extradition for death penalty cases. Would any of those charges stick anyway? Very probably not, unless there's some very solid evidence that he wasn't just a "receiver" of classified data, but in fact instigated the breach and manipulated the alleged leaker, PFC Manning.
So, we won't get him legally (you even suggested that there's "no way the UK would agree"), so the only way the government would get him would be illegally, with all of the fallout that would entail - and frankly, I doubt a loudmouthed misogynist with a web site is all that important, or worth the effort to silence. Wikileaks will continue running without him, and might even - without the liability of his ego - do a better job without him.
Fair enough. I'm not sure Perot would have brought about much lasting change, but looking around the political landscape today, the choices seem even thinner by comparison. And I agree that corruption is an endemic problem in Washington.
I'm left thinking that a lot of the problem is that we're looking for a single galvanizing central figure, rather than focusing on our own communities and local-level politics.
Right, which explains why the UK and the US have such tense, combative relations, and how we can never get anybody extradited from the UK to face prosecution in the US.
If we wanted him extradited, we would have simply requested that he be extradited from the UK. Or simply scooped him up and disappeared him, if you prefer to insist that everything the US government does is sinister and against the law.
I honestly don't see how it's unfair: I was rebutting the assertion that there's "nothing" you can do with an iPad that existing laptops and desktops can't do as well or better, and the point is that the iPad form factor (the "specialized piece of hardware") is exactly what makes *some* operations easier than they would be on their desktop/netbook/laptop counterparts.
The point isn't to say 1 is "better or worse" in all situations. I'd add your replacement as #5, because let's be honest - you *can* do that stuff with a wall-mounted flat panel and a companion cpu/keyboard/mouse hidden somewhere else, but it's a lot more convenient to use something like a tablet, because it combines all of that into a single compact, wall-mountable form factor. Just like the drawing example the form factor lends itself very well to some applications where a traditional computer simply would be a pain in the ass or far more expensive.
Honest question: So who would you suggest is a reasonable leader to look to in these times where we need somebody to stand up and set the bar higher?
Because the left offered us President Obama, and he's done very little to change the tone or the character of the debate 2 years on. At some point we have to concede that the problem wasn't limited to "just George Bush," and vote in some lasting change. Frankly, it seems to me that the only substantial difference between the 2 major parties is that we get to choose the guy who wears the power tie whose color we like the best.
The bonds between the current Swedish government and the US are closer than they would have us believe.
As opposed to the tension, lack of courtesy, and frigid character of the communications that characterize US-UK relations, right?
If the US hasn't asked the UK to extradite him directly, what line of reasoning[1] can you suggest that would make it LIKELY for the US to wait until he's in Sweden to ask for extradition, at which point both the US and Sweden would risk ruining their relations with the UK?
[1] And here, the preference is for a line of reasoning that doesn't sound like batshit-insane conspiracy theorizing.
I am NOT comparing the iPhone line to all of Android. I'm comparing iOS to Android. I never said it was Android's "fault" that some carriers provide substandard experiences with their devices. I did, however, say that it's absolutely fair to compare the two platforms (iOS and Android) with an eye towards which, on average, have better long-term support for new OS releases. You want to compare the Nexus to the iPhone and say that, as a result, "Android is fine." I'm comparing iOS and Android, and saying that the results are tremendously uneven, and that Android *can be* fine, but is *often not fine.* The blame for this mostly lies with Google not putting tighter restrictions on certification of devices to use the Android trademark - not Android's fault, but definitely "Android's" problem.
So, please answer these 2 questions, with simple yes or no:
1) Does every still-functioning Android device released since July of 2008 (phones, tablets, toasters, jetpacks, sex toys, etc) run the latest version of the Android Operating System, 2.3.2, "Gingerbread"?
-- The answer is "no." So why would you expect that the fact that some devices and manufacturers simply will not support it would not count against the general perception of "Android" in the market?
2) Does every still-functioning iOS device released since July of 2008 (iPads, iPod Touches, and iPhones) run the latest version of iOS, 4.2.1?
-- The answer is "yes".
And finally: if "Android" as a marketing term of art is so minimally important, why are you treating it as if it's so important? If it doesn't matter what the public's perception of "Android" is, because it's only part of a solution, then you also have to concede that Android, as a market, is fragmented to such an extent that the term "Android" has ceased to mean much of anything, and the only thing that really matters is the manufacturer's brand & lineup name for their devices which happen to run Android, e.g. "Motorola Droid," "Samsung Galaxy," and "HTC/Google Nexus."
I'm aware that the original iPhone isn't supported on iOS 4. The post i responded to specifically said "you think the iPhone 3g can run the latest OS" - and that is unequivocally true. The iPhone 3G absolutely can, although iOS 4 is (naturally) much slower on iPhone 3G hardware than it is on the iPhone 4, or even the iPhone 3GS. If he meant to say 2G, or "the original iPhone" (without a designator) he'd have been accurate.
But, if that's our frame of reference I suspect there's a lot of Android phones newer than the original iPhone that don't run "the latest Android" and never will, too. Old hardware support gets dropped, and hardware requirements expand over time, this is the nature of the business.
You've made it quite clear you care very much about the Android 'brand' - to the point that you're willing to disregard entire swaths of the ecosystem as "not REALLY Android," to make your point that Android is just as good as iOS.
So, since you want a platform-to-platform comparison: let's compare iOS against Android (both Operating Systems!), with respect to the amount of upgrade support the device manufacturers provide after the sale.
Every iOS device that's been released since the iPod Touch 2G (released September 2008), iPhone 3G (released July 2008), and all iPad (released April 2010) models are upgradable to the latest iOS version, 4.2.1. EVERY one. That's 100%.
How many Android devices (tablets, phones, toasters, whatever you want to lump as an Android device) that have been released since July 2008 can claim that they run the latest Android version, 2.3.2? My guess is that it's significantly less than 100%, unless 100% of the Android phones sold since July of 2008 have been Nexus phones.
Bottom line is this: if Google cares about making Android successful, then they should care VERY MUCH about whether manufacturers are building or cheapening their "brand". If "Android" gets a reputation for being flaky, having lousy support, not being upgradable - nobody will see the use of Android as a positive. They'll simply buy a "Motorola Droid / Samsung Galaxy / HTC Nexus, because that's what I have already, or an Apple iPhone because I hear it works better." And to head off your probable next objection -- if the use of Android isn't worth mentioning... why in god's name are we subjected to "ANDROID SHIPS MORE UNITS THAN IPHONE IN Q1" stories? If we're not supposed to care about Android as a brand... why is anybody counting units sold?
Interestingly, though, most of the "iOS vs. Android" market share stats we see flogged here omit iPod Touch and iPad figures from the OS totals, even though those are both first-class 'iOS devices'. When that's pointed out, the Android fans are quick to assert that Android "isn't currently designed for tablets, so of course you can't compare an entire category of devices where Android doesn't even compete."
But then when a comparison is made that suggests the "average" Android experience is worse than the "average" iOS experience, we're asked to omit all of the bad Android experiences, and only concentrate on two specific models of Android hardware which represent the unequivocal best-possible Android experience.
Why is that, do you suppose?
And here is the heart of the fragmentation argument: Apple's "average" experience is pretty much equivalent to their "best" experience: you buy an iPhone, or an iPad, or an iPod Touch, and you know what you're getting. There's a very narrow range of experience there, by design: same OS, same hardware features (give or take a phone chip or larger screen), very consistent interfaces & operation. By comparison, Android's "average" experience is much lower than Android's "best" experience: you buy a Nexus S, and compare it to a cheaper, year-old Sony-Ericsson phone, and there's a rather large gap in what you can expect for features, interfaces, operation, and general performance, look and feel.
Imagine if Apple decided to release cheap plastic iPod and iPad and iPhone knockoffs with bad long-term support and flaky hardware: would this build or cheapen the iOS 'brand'? Then consider what that same situation is doing to the Android 'brand': if the Nexus line is, as you suggest, "Android done right," then almost every other Android unit sold is simply lowering the average for the market's expectations of Android. And as a result, you hear about how the market is fragmented and uneven and lacks long-term support from lots of vendors: this is the "average" experience, and it isn't particularly good.
So bumping the version number frequently somehow *speeds up* the 6-18 month upgrade lag?
If I'm Motorola, or Samsung, that's simply going to make me slow down the upgrades, and only upgrade my phones with every other or every third Android release. Or just ignore the updates, and not spend the engineering time on supporting old versions because I've already gotten my money from the customer, and long term support is simply reducing my profit margin. Let the customer hack their phone themselves if they want an upgrade so badly, amirite?
If anything, you should compare the iPhone to a specific brand or manufacturer, for instance the HTC Nexus One
Right, you should compare it to the single Android phone which makes Android look good, rather than the vast majority of Android phones that make the iPhone look good by comparison.
Let's be honest: The *average* Android handset experience is *nothing* like the experience of people running a Nexus One or Nexus S.
How can you compare 1 type of handset with about a THOUSAND different handsets from different manufacturers running Android?
We'll be using this same metric when it comes to platform market share, too, right? Comparing specific models from specific companies, rather than 1 model from 1 company, and a lump of "every phone which runs some version of this OS"? (That question's rhetorical - I know you won't use that measure.)
It's sad that misinformation has to be the key tactic to make apple look good.
Pot, meet kettle. (Bonus round pro tip: they're both black!)
You think the original iphone 3g can run the latest OS?
Yes, actually, I do. The iPhone 3G, 3GS, and 4 are all supported by iOS 4.2, the latest release of iOS, as well as the iPod Touch 2nd, 3rd, and 4th generation devices, and the iPad. Did you think the original iPhone 3G didn't run the latest iOS?
There's pretty much nothing that a tablet does better at the moment other than simply being in a different form factor.
You can drive a fucking Kia down a logging trail, too. That doesn't mean it's the best choice for offroading.
You realize that the different form factor is the entire raison d'etre of a tablet, right? The different form factor makes certain categories of tasks easier and more efficient than a desktop or a laptop. If you can't think of anything a tablet does better, here's a few:
1) Try using a netbook for ANYTHING while walking around or standing upright without a stationary surface to put your netbook on. Then try it with a tablet. 2) Try laying on the couch while reading a book from your 24" desktop monitor. Then try it on a tablet. 3) Try playing a (musical) keyboard synthesizer on a desktop or laptop. Then try it on a tablet: you can actually "play" the tablet. Not so the others. Certainly useful for musicians who get an idea or want to record a rough melody that comes to them as soon as the inspiration strikes, wouldn't you say? 4) Try sketching or drawing anything more than stick figures without a specialized piece of hardware (Wacom or similar) on a desktop or laptop. Then try it on a tablet: you can actually do some pretty sophisticated artwork with just an iPad, your finger, and a decent drawing program.
Really, so where in the article do they report that we're stealing classified Chinese military & diplomatic documents, and publishing them for the entire world to look at with this software?
It's already happened once, in a law passed nearly 100 years ago, and repealed in 1920? Well then, I think they've definitely established a tremendously scary pattern of censoring everything they don't like, both in terms of the frequency of the abuse, and in the severity! This jackbooted thuggery cannot be allowed to stand - Katie bar the door, pass the gunpowder, and PRAISE THE LORD!
What was it I was reading about in another article about how people have a difficult time comparing the impacts of things with a very small likelihood of actually occurring? I wish I could remember, because I'm sure it would be topical here.
Sorry, is this the same Dr. Hadwen who is known for his "denial of the germ theory of disease"? The same Dr. Hadwen who spoke in the late 1800's and early 1900's against vaccination?
Yes, I'm sure he has a lot of relevant medical opinions. Maybe he can tell us all about how the Black Bile Humor causes most of our diseases, and recommend Bloodletting by leeches as a remedy for every ailment we get, as well?
Sorry, pal, but questioning his medical opinion today is pretty much mandatory for anybody who professes to have an understanding of science, biology, and disease.
So cost savings are *inherently* unethical? Reducing the price of a good or service is *inherently* unethical? I don't think you can make an absolute statement like that.
What if those cost savings from off-shoring a call center also create a dozen on-shore engineering jobs, because you can staff and run your call center for significantly cheaper than you could onshore, and thus have more money to plow into R&D, which makes the company stronger & more competitive, thus insulating employees from layoffs? Support is an operating cost - reducing those costs frees up more money which can be used for research, acquisitions, marketing, and other things that will make the company healthier, or allows the product/service to be sold for less, benefiting consumers. I don't think the net results are as negative (and therefore unethical) as you paint them, and you have to weigh this type of issue in context.
If the money saved is simply going to be put into the C*O's pocket, then perhaps it would be an unethical move, but these things rarely happen in a vacuum, where the money spent is zero-sum, and one country's gain is another country's loss.
I suppose we'll never know, but I do find it curious that Apple would choose not to implement it that way - "not bothering to try hard enough" simply doesn't seem typical of Apple's product design philosophy, so I'd find it interesting to hear whether they felt there were usability or technological limitations to implementing expose-like functionality, or if they truly did "just not bother."
My sense is that shots of how an app looked at the time you switched away would have been oddly un-compelling on ~3 inch phone screen, since over time, you'll end up with 10-12 apps running easily (currently running on mine at this moment: phone, sms, mail, facebook, ipod, sirius, pandora, safari, camera, maps, blizzard authenticator, and a weather app...) -- displaying each of those "as they looked when I swapped out" would result in a lot of very tiny screen shots that simply wouldn't be helpful. On an iPad, it might be a little more useful, but it's possible they opted for consistency rather than varying look and feel between the two.
I have to wonder about your "expose-like UI for multitasking" comment - given that that's a pretty popular feature in Mac OS, wouldn't you think that they considered implementing a similar UI for the iOS multitasking, but opted not to for some reason?
Excellent point. If Google says "And we're never going to merge the two because it's just impossible," then there's a problem. Until then, it's quite reasonable assume that this is an intermediate step between "phones-only" and "tablets-only" releases, on the way to a "phones and tablets" release.
And I say this as someone who really likes Apple's offerings. I'm looking forward to seeing what Honeycomb has to offer - even if it doesn't sway my preference away from iOS, I know that it's going to force Apple to continue improving iOS functionality, which means I win anyway.
No, map reading isn't that hard. But route planning can be if you don't know the quality of the roads, or the conditions in which you'll be safe to drive on them until you're on that road and aware of the weather conditions. And map reading at 70 mph when you're in too much of a hurry to stop and look is pretty tough.
PLDC land navigation instruction is good training, but it doesn't put information on the maps that simply isn't available. Most maps simply don't really indicate that "this road washes out in rainy weather" or "this road doesn't get plowed because it's only used during the summer."
The "death by GPS" issue being talked about here isn't so much identifying an issue with the maps as it is identifying a problem with people's lack of situational awareness: If you see that the road looks lightly travelled and is covered in snow, maybe it's not the road to take if you're in unfamiliar territory; if the road in front of you looks like a dirt road leading you further from civilization in the desert, maybe it's not the road to take without a lot of spare gas, water, and a radio or phone. People are putting blind faith in the directions being given by the GPS unit, rather than using it to augment what they're seeing through the windshield.
Slashdot Mirror
Not sure why you find this upsetting or controversial. Is there some other platform variant that is not supported presently by Firefox that you expected to see listed there?
Exactly. The change to calling each one of them "major" versions appears to be simply cosmetic - who cares what the number is, people will use the latest stable version, whichever that happens to be; if there is no stable version, they'll simply move to using Chrome or Safari.
Basically, all Mozilla has done is said, "Everything we would have released in a big chunk next November will be delivered in 4 smaller chunks, one each quarter."
In theory, the releases will be more tightly focused, with shorter durations, and fewer features to implement translating to more thorough bug testing and bug fixing. This is a good thing.
In practice, as you noted... no guarantees. I expect at least 2 of them will be significantly late and / or significantly reduced in scope from their current roadmap.
Your entire post shows a shocking lack of understanding of the facts concerning extradition from Sweden to the US. So, I will now proceed to educate you.
From the Swedish Prosecution Authority's web site, concerning extradition:
So, there are three possible ways he'll end up in the US facing trial:
1) Legally - by being extradited directly from the UK;
2) Legally - by being extradited from Sweden, with the approval of the UK required as a condition of extradition;
3) Illegally - by being abducted from the UK or Sweden by the CIA, and brought back to the states to face trial;
1 & 2 are, effectively, identical: The UK, by international treaties, *must* approve of his extradition, either directly from the UK, or via Sweden. If Sweden refuses to ask for that approval, then they will open themselves up to - at the very least - penalties and sanctions from the UK, and most likely, penalties and sanctions on behalf of the entire EU for violating EU laws. So Sweden makes an unpopular move, and jeopardizes their standing in the EU, in return for... what? The US knocks a half a percent off a tariff for Volvo imports? Please.
3 is so far-fetched that it's not even really worth considering. If we're going to engage in illegal means to silence Assange, he'll be found dead in an alley somewhere in the UK or Sweden, a victim of an apparent mugging-gone-wrong. Abducting him and bringing him back to the states from an EU member state would incur the wrath of the *entire* European Union, and likely most of the UN as well. It wouldn't be a secret that we were trying him: it's not like nobody from the outside world gets to see the prisoners at Guantanamo, and they'd have a hell of a hard time publicizing a trial of Assange here in the states, but saying "But make sure you don't tell the Europeans we got him!" No, if silencing him was important enough to risk all of that international fallout, he'd simply be found dead in a London alley.
Frankly, Assange and his supporters seem to have a messianic complex. Would the US government love to throw charges at him and punish him for embarrassing them? Sure. Will they get to? Almost certainly not, unless the UK suddenly (and drastically) changes their tune about extradition for death penalty cases. Would any of those charges stick anyway? Very probably not, unless there's some very solid evidence that he wasn't just a "receiver" of classified data, but in fact instigated the breach and manipulated the alleged leaker, PFC Manning.
So, we won't get him legally (you even suggested that there's "no way the UK would agree"), so the only way the government would get him would be illegally, with all of the fallout that would entail - and frankly, I doubt a loudmouthed misogynist with a web site is all that important, or worth the effort to silence. Wikileaks will continue running without him, and might even - without the liability of his ego - do a better job without him.
Fair enough. I'm not sure Perot would have brought about much lasting change, but looking around the political landscape today, the choices seem even thinner by comparison. And I agree that corruption is an endemic problem in Washington.
I'm left thinking that a lot of the problem is that we're looking for a single galvanizing central figure, rather than focusing on our own communities and local-level politics.
Right, which explains why the UK and the US have such tense, combative relations, and how we can never get anybody extradited from the UK to face prosecution in the US.
If we wanted him extradited, we would have simply requested that he be extradited from the UK. Or simply scooped him up and disappeared him, if you prefer to insist that everything the US government does is sinister and against the law.
I honestly don't see how it's unfair: I was rebutting the assertion that there's "nothing" you can do with an iPad that existing laptops and desktops can't do as well or better, and the point is that the iPad form factor (the "specialized piece of hardware") is exactly what makes *some* operations easier than they would be on their desktop/netbook/laptop counterparts.
The point isn't to say 1 is "better or worse" in all situations. I'd add your replacement as #5, because let's be honest - you *can* do that stuff with a wall-mounted flat panel and a companion cpu/keyboard/mouse hidden somewhere else, but it's a lot more convenient to use something like a tablet, because it combines all of that into a single compact, wall-mountable form factor. Just like the drawing example the form factor lends itself very well to some applications where a traditional computer simply would be a pain in the ass or far more expensive.
"tripe" can also be used to mean "nonsensical talk, rubbish" - its use in the GP's post is perfectly sensible.
Honest question: So who would you suggest is a reasonable leader to look to in these times where we need somebody to stand up and set the bar higher?
Because the left offered us President Obama, and he's done very little to change the tone or the character of the debate 2 years on. At some point we have to concede that the problem wasn't limited to "just George Bush," and vote in some lasting change. Frankly, it seems to me that the only substantial difference between the 2 major parties is that we get to choose the guy who wears the power tie whose color we like the best.
As opposed to the tension, lack of courtesy, and frigid character of the communications that characterize US-UK relations, right?
If the US hasn't asked the UK to extradite him directly, what line of reasoning[1] can you suggest that would make it LIKELY for the US to wait until he's in Sweden to ask for extradition, at which point both the US and Sweden would risk ruining their relations with the UK?
[1] And here, the preference is for a line of reasoning that doesn't sound like batshit-insane conspiracy theorizing.
I am NOT comparing the iPhone line to all of Android. I'm comparing iOS to Android. I never said it was Android's "fault" that some carriers provide substandard experiences with their devices. I did, however, say that it's absolutely fair to compare the two platforms (iOS and Android) with an eye towards which, on average, have better long-term support for new OS releases. You want to compare the Nexus to the iPhone and say that, as a result, "Android is fine." I'm comparing iOS and Android, and saying that the results are tremendously uneven, and that Android *can be* fine, but is *often not fine.* The blame for this mostly lies with Google not putting tighter restrictions on certification of devices to use the Android trademark - not Android's fault, but definitely "Android's" problem.
So, please answer these 2 questions, with simple yes or no:
1) Does every still-functioning Android device released since July of 2008 (phones, tablets, toasters, jetpacks, sex toys, etc) run the latest version of the Android Operating System, 2.3.2, "Gingerbread"?
-- The answer is "no." So why would you expect that the fact that some devices and manufacturers simply will not support it would not count against the general perception of "Android" in the market?
2) Does every still-functioning iOS device released since July of 2008 (iPads, iPod Touches, and iPhones) run the latest version of iOS, 4.2.1?
-- The answer is "yes".
And finally: if "Android" as a marketing term of art is so minimally important, why are you treating it as if it's so important? If it doesn't matter what the public's perception of "Android" is, because it's only part of a solution, then you also have to concede that Android, as a market, is fragmented to such an extent that the term "Android" has ceased to mean much of anything, and the only thing that really matters is the manufacturer's brand & lineup name for their devices which happen to run Android, e.g. "Motorola Droid," "Samsung Galaxy," and "HTC/Google Nexus."
I'm aware that the original iPhone isn't supported on iOS 4. The post i responded to specifically said "you think the iPhone 3g can run the latest OS" - and that is unequivocally true. The iPhone 3G absolutely can, although iOS 4 is (naturally) much slower on iPhone 3G hardware than it is on the iPhone 4, or even the iPhone 3GS. If he meant to say 2G, or "the original iPhone" (without a designator) he'd have been accurate.
But, if that's our frame of reference I suspect there's a lot of Android phones newer than the original iPhone that don't run "the latest Android" and never will, too. Old hardware support gets dropped, and hardware requirements expand over time, this is the nature of the business.
You've made it quite clear you care very much about the Android 'brand' - to the point that you're willing to disregard entire swaths of the ecosystem as "not REALLY Android," to make your point that Android is just as good as iOS.
So, since you want a platform-to-platform comparison: let's compare iOS against Android (both Operating Systems!), with respect to the amount of upgrade support the device manufacturers provide after the sale.
Every iOS device that's been released since the iPod Touch 2G (released September 2008), iPhone 3G (released July 2008), and all iPad (released April 2010) models are upgradable to the latest iOS version, 4.2.1. EVERY one. That's 100%.
How many Android devices (tablets, phones, toasters, whatever you want to lump as an Android device) that have been released since July 2008 can claim that they run the latest Android version, 2.3.2? My guess is that it's significantly less than 100%, unless 100% of the Android phones sold since July of 2008 have been Nexus phones.
Bottom line is this: if Google cares about making Android successful, then they should care VERY MUCH about whether manufacturers are building or cheapening their "brand". If "Android" gets a reputation for being flaky, having lousy support, not being upgradable - nobody will see the use of Android as a positive. They'll simply buy a "Motorola Droid / Samsung Galaxy / HTC Nexus, because that's what I have already, or an Apple iPhone because I hear it works better." And to head off your probable next objection -- if the use of Android isn't worth mentioning... why in god's name are we subjected to "ANDROID SHIPS MORE UNITS THAN IPHONE IN Q1" stories? If we're not supposed to care about Android as a brand... why is anybody counting units sold?
Interestingly, though, most of the "iOS vs. Android" market share stats we see flogged here omit iPod Touch and iPad figures from the OS totals, even though those are both first-class 'iOS devices'. When that's pointed out, the Android fans are quick to assert that Android "isn't currently designed for tablets, so of course you can't compare an entire category of devices where Android doesn't even compete."
But then when a comparison is made that suggests the "average" Android experience is worse than the "average" iOS experience, we're asked to omit all of the bad Android experiences, and only concentrate on two specific models of Android hardware which represent the unequivocal best-possible Android experience.
Why is that, do you suppose?
And here is the heart of the fragmentation argument: Apple's "average" experience is pretty much equivalent to their "best" experience: you buy an iPhone, or an iPad, or an iPod Touch, and you know what you're getting. There's a very narrow range of experience there, by design: same OS, same hardware features (give or take a phone chip or larger screen), very consistent interfaces & operation. By comparison, Android's "average" experience is much lower than Android's "best" experience: you buy a Nexus S, and compare it to a cheaper, year-old Sony-Ericsson phone, and there's a rather large gap in what you can expect for features, interfaces, operation, and general performance, look and feel.
Imagine if Apple decided to release cheap plastic iPod and iPad and iPhone knockoffs with bad long-term support and flaky hardware: would this build or cheapen the iOS 'brand'? Then consider what that same situation is doing to the Android 'brand': if the Nexus line is, as you suggest, "Android done right," then almost every other Android unit sold is simply lowering the average for the market's expectations of Android. And as a result, you hear about how the market is fragmented and uneven and lacks long-term support from lots of vendors: this is the "average" experience, and it isn't particularly good.
So bumping the version number frequently somehow *speeds up* the 6-18 month upgrade lag?
If I'm Motorola, or Samsung, that's simply going to make me slow down the upgrades, and only upgrade my phones with every other or every third Android release. Or just ignore the updates, and not spend the engineering time on supporting old versions because I've already gotten my money from the customer, and long term support is simply reducing my profit margin. Let the customer hack their phone themselves if they want an upgrade so badly, amirite?
Right, you should compare it to the single Android phone which makes Android look good, rather than the vast majority of Android phones that make the iPhone look good by comparison.
Let's be honest: The *average* Android handset experience is *nothing* like the experience of people running a Nexus One or Nexus S.
We'll be using this same metric when it comes to platform market share, too, right? Comparing specific models from specific companies, rather than 1 model from 1 company, and a lump of "every phone which runs some version of this OS"? (That question's rhetorical - I know you won't use that measure.)
Pot, meet kettle. (Bonus round pro tip: they're both black!)
Yes, actually, I do. The iPhone 3G, 3GS, and 4 are all supported by iOS 4.2, the latest release of iOS, as well as the iPod Touch 2nd, 3rd, and 4th generation devices, and the iPad. Did you think the original iPhone 3G didn't run the latest iOS?
You can drive a fucking Kia down a logging trail, too. That doesn't mean it's the best choice for offroading.
You realize that the different form factor is the entire raison d'etre of a tablet, right? The different form factor makes certain categories of tasks easier and more efficient than a desktop or a laptop. If you can't think of anything a tablet does better, here's a few:
1) Try using a netbook for ANYTHING while walking around or standing upright without a stationary surface to put your netbook on. Then try it with a tablet.
2) Try laying on the couch while reading a book from your 24" desktop monitor. Then try it on a tablet.
3) Try playing a (musical) keyboard synthesizer on a desktop or laptop. Then try it on a tablet: you can actually "play" the tablet. Not so the others. Certainly useful for musicians who get an idea or want to record a rough melody that comes to them as soon as the inspiration strikes, wouldn't you say?
4) Try sketching or drawing anything more than stick figures without a specialized piece of hardware (Wacom or similar) on a desktop or laptop. Then try it on a tablet: you can actually do some pretty sophisticated artwork with just an iPad, your finger, and a decent drawing program.
Really, so where in the article do they report that we're stealing classified Chinese military & diplomatic documents, and publishing them for the entire world to look at with this software?
I must've missed that "ironic" part!
It's already happened once, in a law passed nearly 100 years ago, and repealed in 1920? Well then, I think they've definitely established a tremendously scary pattern of censoring everything they don't like, both in terms of the frequency of the abuse, and in the severity! This jackbooted thuggery cannot be allowed to stand - Katie bar the door, pass the gunpowder, and PRAISE THE LORD!
What was it I was reading about in another article about how people have a difficult time comparing the impacts of things with a very small likelihood of actually occurring? I wish I could remember, because I'm sure it would be topical here.
Sorry, is this the same Dr. Hadwen who is known for his "denial of the germ theory of disease"? The same Dr. Hadwen who spoke in the late 1800's and early 1900's against vaccination?
Yes, I'm sure he has a lot of relevant medical opinions. Maybe he can tell us all about how the Black Bile Humor causes most of our diseases, and recommend Bloodletting by leeches as a remedy for every ailment we get, as well?
Sorry, pal, but questioning his medical opinion today is pretty much mandatory for anybody who professes to have an understanding of science, biology, and disease.
So cost savings are *inherently* unethical? Reducing the price of a good or service is *inherently* unethical? I don't think you can make an absolute statement like that.
What if those cost savings from off-shoring a call center also create a dozen on-shore engineering jobs, because you can staff and run your call center for significantly cheaper than you could onshore, and thus have more money to plow into R&D, which makes the company stronger & more competitive, thus insulating employees from layoffs? Support is an operating cost - reducing those costs frees up more money which can be used for research, acquisitions, marketing, and other things that will make the company healthier, or allows the product/service to be sold for less, benefiting consumers. I don't think the net results are as negative (and therefore unethical) as you paint them, and you have to weigh this type of issue in context.
If the money saved is simply going to be put into the C*O's pocket, then perhaps it would be an unethical move, but these things rarely happen in a vacuum, where the money spent is zero-sum, and one country's gain is another country's loss.
I suppose we'll never know, but I do find it curious that Apple would choose not to implement it that way - "not bothering to try hard enough" simply doesn't seem typical of Apple's product design philosophy, so I'd find it interesting to hear whether they felt there were usability or technological limitations to implementing expose-like functionality, or if they truly did "just not bother."
My sense is that shots of how an app looked at the time you switched away would have been oddly un-compelling on ~3 inch phone screen, since over time, you'll end up with 10-12 apps running easily (currently running on mine at this moment: phone, sms, mail, facebook, ipod, sirius, pandora, safari, camera, maps, blizzard authenticator, and a weather app...) -- displaying each of those "as they looked when I swapped out" would result in a lot of very tiny screen shots that simply wouldn't be helpful. On an iPad, it might be a little more useful, but it's possible they opted for consistency rather than varying look and feel between the two.
I have to wonder about your "expose-like UI for multitasking" comment - given that that's a pretty popular feature in Mac OS, wouldn't you think that they considered implementing a similar UI for the iOS multitasking, but opted not to for some reason?
Excellent point. If Google says "And we're never going to merge the two because it's just impossible," then there's a problem. Until then, it's quite reasonable assume that this is an intermediate step between "phones-only" and "tablets-only" releases, on the way to a "phones and tablets" release.
And I say this as someone who really likes Apple's offerings. I'm looking forward to seeing what Honeycomb has to offer - even if it doesn't sway my preference away from iOS, I know that it's going to force Apple to continue improving iOS functionality, which means I win anyway.
I asked "what basis would they sue on?" Not "do they have lots of money?"
No, map reading isn't that hard. But route planning can be if you don't know the quality of the roads, or the conditions in which you'll be safe to drive on them until you're on that road and aware of the weather conditions. And map reading at 70 mph when you're in too much of a hurry to stop and look is pretty tough.
PLDC land navigation instruction is good training, but it doesn't put information on the maps that simply isn't available. Most maps simply don't really indicate that "this road washes out in rainy weather" or "this road doesn't get plowed because it's only used during the summer."
The "death by GPS" issue being talked about here isn't so much identifying an issue with the maps as it is identifying a problem with people's lack of situational awareness: If you see that the road looks lightly travelled and is covered in snow, maybe it's not the road to take if you're in unfamiliar territory; if the road in front of you looks like a dirt road leading you further from civilization in the desert, maybe it's not the road to take without a lot of spare gas, water, and a radio or phone. People are putting blind faith in the directions being given by the GPS unit, rather than using it to augment what they're seeing through the windshield.