Well, TMo goes out of their way to do the exact opposite. It's one reason I stick with them. If they are not supporting users on this phone and claim they have not gotten the support docs, then to me, that's a bad thing.
I've called TMo on two unsupported Palm phones (AT&T and Cingular unlocked ones) and my brother has called on a Blackberry that TMo does not sell or "support", and the conversation always goes:
"Well, we dont support that phone on our network but... " followed by FULL support... every setting I need to change for Internet and phone operations, all the provisioning on their end to make sure the correct data setup is enabled to talk to the phone for web/email/etc and each and every step "click on Preferences, go to Network settings... etc" all the way through.
Once done, it's usually a "ok, turn off and restart the phone, and everything should be working fine..."
If I am not calling from that phone, they hold until it's rebooted and I have tested it.
If I AM calling from that phone... guess what happens? In five minutes THEY call me to see if everything is working...
When I bought my second hand, from ebay, G1, again the support was excellent. By then my brother had bought one from them (we're on a family plan), and they asked "is it 631-xxx-xxxx?" And I said... "Nope... that's my bro's. I bought this off eBay and am switching from the unsupported Palm you so graciously supported for me" - "Oh, ok... then all we need to do is this on our end... done... reset the phone and all should be good!" Two minute call, no holding, and they didnt care in the least that it was a used phone or where I got it from - just like they didnt care that two of my previous phones and one of my brothers was never sold for their network.
So, I am very glad I have TMo and not the company you work for. And, just so you know... nothing personal, I know it's not your decision on what you support... and ATT seems very much the same (like your company) in this respect from my dealings with them. Another reason I pick TMo over ATT.
And another reason it's sad they havent been given access to the support docs for the Nexus One. It could have alleviated a lot of problems. They've always done right by me.
Sure it does. The terms Warranty and Guarantee in the UK are different than the term Warranty in the US.
Such things are apparently covered by a "Guarantee" in the UK - which is from the manufacturer (from the UK site about such):
Generally speaking, guarantees are offered by manufacturers of products. They are free of charge but legally binding under the Sale and Supply of Goods to Consumers Regulations 2002.
In UK law, a guarantee is considered to be “an agreement to provide some benefit for a set period of time in the event of the goods or services being defective”. For example, a vacuum-cleaner manufacturer will usually offer a guarantee with their products that, for a year or more, they will carry out free repairs for problems caused by a manufacturing defect.
It’s important to remember that manufacturers’ guarantees are in addition to your statutory responsibilities as a supplier under the Sale of Goods Act. A supplier cannot, for instance, refuse to deal with a customer’s complaint about a faulty product simply on the grounds that the product is outside its guarantee period.
In law, suppliers are still liable for any breach of contract - for example, if the goods are not fit for their purpose, or of satisfactory quality - for a period of up to six years (five years from the date the problem arises, in Scotland).
As in the above post I responded to, you are confusing the two - probably because the term in the US (and you are looking at the US docs) is WARRANTY and not GUARANTEE. HTC is the manufacturer, and thus responsible for the GUARANTEE (or WARRANTY as it is called in the US).
The UK documents should thusly have that worded as "GUARANTEE" and even if they do not, the guarantees on product fitness, functionality and workmanship are most definitely able to be tied to the manufacturer
Well, I don't know how it is in the US, but here, no matter what fine print are written inside the box, the seller is responsible and has to cover the warranty. At most, they can redirect you (at their charge) toward some subcontractor they may have to deal with problems.
In the US, no warranty needs to be provided (though certain state to state or "lemon law" provisions may apply for a certain time after the purchase), or the warranty can be provided by the seller, the manufacturer or by a third party (such as the numerous extended warranty companies out there or companies that some manufacturers have cover their warranties).
Regardless, is Google selling the phone or processing the transactions for HTC and/or TMo (regardless of the site branding)?
And in the non-US where you live, when that fine print is written OUTSIDE the box (such as on the paperwork you see before buying the phone, or on the box itself - or both) and contingent upon your agreement to purchase, then isn't it binding since you had a chance to review it and agree to it first?
And, how then does where you live handle PC issues related to Windows? From say... HP? As far as I know, just like in the US, HP is responsible for Windows support on machines they sell - not Microsoft...
So, I speculate (based on those points and no actual knowledge of the law - hence the use of the word "speculate") that things are not so cut and dry as you indicate in your post (or maybe I have researched some of it - and it's the "hidden" agreements that are not binding for these types of issues...).
BTW, in certain US jurisdictions, there is a similar legal protection as well... but it goes like this (in the applicable states)... the warranty and what coverage you are getting/agreeing to must be able to be furnished to you upon your request. Meaning, at the store you purchase it from, you must be able to obtain a copy (via: "Here's a computer... click on this, there is the warranty" or "here's a printed copy of it", etc) - or the warranty specifics must be available online for online purchases from a company who's business is headquartered in the specific state(s).
I so enjoy reading the seemingly obligatory "Well, I don't know how it is in the US, but here..." posts that seem to skip many valid points of law from other countries.
What you've just said is, "Google pulled a Microsoft". You don't call Microsoft with your Windows problems.;)
LoL! Funny as that is, no. You call the hardware manufacturer for hardware support. Makes sense to me. If your car radio is not working, you dont call up WBAB to ask them to help fix it.
Most consumers dont seem to understand that when it comes to anything electronics related.
True... except I'd beg to differ on one point. Boycotts against some monopolies (IE) do seem to work. I drive virtually every tech customer we get to Firefox. 90% of them never revert back to IE.
I suspect such efforts from other tech support people (whether the semi-tech helping the family and friends, or the techs in the field) is part of what is driving Firefox's increasing marketshare at IE's expense. It's taking time, but it is working.
I do hope they don't join just to ruin the standard or offer halfassed support for it.
Why else *would* they join?
I'm all for Microsoft-bashing, but that's over the top. Microsoft realizes that sometimes their interests lie in supporting certain standards. They support lots of standards to the letter.
You havent named any... which ones?
CSS2.1 support in IE8 is as good as any other browser if not better, for instance.
No, it's not. They have made great improvements, that much I will grant them, but they are not compliant. I STILL have to test things in IE8 and find things that do not work. Oddly, 99% of the time, it works in FF, Opera, Chrome and Safari. And I am talking about "standards" based CSS usage taken right from the docs.
Their C and C++ compilers,
Are compliant how? They are tailored to Windows specific things. I prefer GCC and such, where I can write an app for Windows, Linux, OS/2, MacOSX.
Besides, since they (MS's compilers) tend to use non-standard calls for a lot of the code they create, that's bound to their libraries, how important is it that it supports standards as well? How many people hand code all their C/C++ nowadays? That's the only way I could see it being possible to create standards compliant code with their compilers.
SQL database,
Really? Or maybe I missed something in the new release (which I have not tested - so I guess you may have more knowledge in this area than me).
POSIX implementation, and so forth are about as standards-compliant as anyone else's (which is "not very" in some cases, to be fair). They don't do this out of altruism, obviously, but they realize sometimes people want good support for particular standards.
Keep in mind, in the areas that affect users, they are far from compliant in most everything they release, like document formats, the browser (HTML, CSS, Javascript, etc), PNG support, SVG support and so on.
The few areas they have made improvements have been because their battle to make their own implementations the standard is failing (namely browsers) causing them to lose marketshare (well, it's ONE of the reasons anyway).
In other areas, like this one (the article at hand), when they have a competing product they have not yet given up on, I doubt there is any intent to create a standards compliant product - just as in the past. Them adhering to any standards has always (historically) been to try to regain market share when they begin to realize their competing product is losing it due to their non-compliance.
And historically, if they manage to re-gain that marketshare and a sufficient enough lead, they revert to trying to fragment the marketplace by making things incompatible again to lock people into their solutions and their OS.
Sandboxes are a tried and true idea, they work well. It's about time
Ummm... didja mean "Sandboxes are a tried and true idea, they work well if Microsoft doesnt write the code"?
Because it seems to me that it's been of no help with IE and Vista/Windows 7. Yeah, in theory, it's a great plan - and probably will work well everywhere else. But the key problem is it's ineffectiveness on Microsoft platforms/browsers - but then again, their failures keep business coming in for me. No complaints here. Forget what I said above...
Well, in addition to those reasons, perhaps they want to figure out how best to easily support doing vector graphics from the programming tricks they can learn from others involved with SVG.
It wouldn't be the first time they borrowed code from elsewhere to try to improve their own product...
For instance... Intuit/(Money?), Stac Electronics for disk compression, the BSD stack (which they somehow managed to mangle the use of), much of Stardock's window dressing for XP (and all later versions of Windows), and too many others to list here.
I'm sure they'd be thrilled if they could both (a) make this a learning experience for themselves, and (b) ruin the standard (and thus the competition) in the process.
While I can identify with your position, if boycotts by the technologically conscious were by any means effective, Internet Explorer would have shriveled and died in the '90s.
-Peter
While I agree with you entirely, I am not doing it to boycott it. I simply have no intentions of supporting it, learning it, using it, downloading it or exposing myself to the plethora of security risks caused by installing it (and it's related framework - in Firefox of course, as I dont use IE for anything but web page testing).
This was confirmed in some early Droid promo pictures... (most notably in some earlier TV ads).
And then apparently changed either before release or afterwards, as Google seems to be the search provider.
it was announced that Bing was supposed to be exclusive across all of Verizon products and they paid Millions for that exclusivity.
It appears that Verizon either changed their minds, or Microsoft could not come up with a search app that was as usable (in terms of the cross content phone search) and Verizon left things with Google for the Droid. If memory serves, certain other Droid phones use various Yahoo tools over Google ones... so it's unlikely that this is a permanent thing, or an impossible one to change.
The question is... for how long? I dont know the specifics of Verizon's deal with MS... so I dont have a clue how that will impact things in the future if MS ever comes up with a search tool for Android to replace the Google one.
So, I retract that part of my statement... for now at the least, you are correct. For how long? Notta clue.
Funnily, my mobile phone costs as much as a decent sized TV and for good reason.
While you may buy cheap mobile phones, more people are opting for expensive smartphones such as the plethora of Android phones out there or an iPhone. Battery life not withstanding, I would have no problems with TV being available on my phone.
I think the OP's point was, what makes this a Google phone?
No, he specifically asked how it was better than the Droid/G1. The G1 end of things should be obvious, it being ancient by G1 phone standards.
-Faster CPU
True, and that's plenty for me, but there's always going to be a "fastest" phone and that has nothing to do with Google.
-Better integrated with Google apps and services (ie: no using Bing when the Google Search is better integrated with the phone)
You're making this up.
No, I am not, as an AC pointed out below...
Actually, no he's not. Verizon recently signed a partnership with Microsoft for search. Shortly afterwards, search done on the Droid phone was handled by Bing instead of Google.
One of the big advantages of the integrated Google Search in Android 2.x is that it is integrated across the whole phone (not just the web) and integrated better with the rest of (plethora of?) Google/Android Apps that come with or run on the phone such as Contacts, Maps, web, calendar and the OS itself.
-Runs on something other than Verizon (unlike the Droid), namely ATT & TMo.
Again, hardly unique to Google, but this is probably as close as it gets. Also,
It is unique when comparing to the Droid though.
I specifically did not compare it to the G1 as better phones have come out since then (at least hardware wise)... though I suspect that other than the speed and storage differences, once Android 2.x hits the G1, it will still be a worthwhile phone. I for one am happy with mine...
-Faster CPU
-Better integrated with Google apps and services (ie: no using Bing when the Google Search is better integrated with the phone)
-Runs on something other than Verizon (unlike the Droid), namely ATT & TMo.
-More storage space
-(for those who dont like em or the added bulkiness) it doesnt have a physical keyboard (for me, that's a drawback)
-Android 2.1
-Cheaper overall plans from TMo (since the Droid only runs on Verizon, I think it's a valid comparison point)
Employees from posting on random forums might expose their companies to liability for fraud ("Company X's products are pieces of junk assembled by slave labor in the Far East"), sexual predation, etc. What the do on their home computers is their own business.
While that may be a valid reason, it is even more of a reason to block/.
At least on most forums, comments can be removed... by the forum moderator(s) or the original poster. On/. they are there "forever" and thus continuing the possibility of liability from the post.
I'll start by saying that I completely agree with your views. That said... you know, there's more to the Internet than productivity sites and gay furry porn. There's a host of sites in between those categories, it is all the rage these days.
you can blame the fact that the websense ceo is the same guy who was ceo of Mcafee during the time when Mcafee was known to be a piece of shit software that wasn't complete or accurate.
Why? What is McAfee considered now? Just curious, because lately I've seen a lot of infected machines coming into our shop with fully updated and running McAfee suites...
Optical audio port. There's one in my old laptop too. It tended to be switched on when I installed a new system. Since he mentions a broken OS, he's probably reinstalled and doesn't have the right drivers.
Or MAYBE, the TSA infected him with the HAL 9000 virus.
"I'm sorry Steven, I can't let you listen to that."
Ah yes... forgot about optical audio ports... most of our customers dont have such high end machines.
"We didn't realize our dick move would receive so much public attention."
I am not quite sure that was their motivation. Possibly paranoia, possibly reality, I suspect the laptop was modified just a wee bit...
Frischling says the laptop was returned to him with “tons and tons of bad sectors” and a corrupt operating system. The audio on his computer has also stopped working, and a red light glows from the audio jack.
I am not exactly sure what audio jack on what laptop has a red light in it that glows... weird...
if your business revolves around programming and engineering... you are less likely to have serious issues that IT needs to address
I'd have to disagree, if your running a heavy development shop your going to be doing a lot more work than maintaining a bunch of apps on limited user accounts fully managed by active directory on homogenized hardware.
True... but again, it all depends on the setup. The last big place I worked, all updates were pushed from the main servers. We could even do a complete re-image that way. Made maintaining the client machines very easy and required very little staff. "Oh, you hosed something? No problem, reboot and come back in a few hours."
Hundreds of machines, all across the nation, 2 or 3 support people.
But I did mention that in my original post, if in different words...;-)
if your business revolves around programming and engineering, and thus your workers are from those fields (as opposed to tons of avg computer users in a non computer/technical field), you are less likely to have serious issues that IT needs to address,
BS. Tech people are more picky about how their computers are setup and often cause more problems. I'm guess the 900 workstations are stuffed into a call center and the users have very limited access to any of the system resources.
Well, if it is a tech oriented company, then most of those things are set up in images and maintained on central servers. That's how for instance, CompUSA did it. There was virtually no "on site" (ie: per store) support, and all updates, new software, patches etc, were simply pushed from the servers to the various workstations in the store.
So no, it isn't BS... it's dependent on the setup and the expenses outlaid (and plans implemented) when everything was installed and configured.
But, oh, wait! I already said that in my original post.;-)
yeah, maybe someone should ask why management isn't wearing department specific garments that say "management" on them.
All those garment suggestions do spell out, however, is "mismanagement".
While seemingly true... it also spells out "perception" - it's actually good management.
The key, as always, is that customer perception trumps the needs of reality (at least where it comes to the bottom line). I could be sitting at a HelpDesk dressed in ripped jeans and a heavy metal t-shirt - or a uniform... either way, the service I provide will be identical (or perhaps better with me wearing comfortable clothing of my choice)...
But in the first clothing scenario, I am unlikely to be instilling faith in my customers - and may even scare them away. So, the second is a better option, as the customer feels comfortable and like they are talking to someone who knows what they are doing. Sadly, people get/make their "first impressions" on such things on... well, the first impression. And oddly mis-link clothing and hair style and whatever to such unrelated things like technical knowledge.
This is why a decent amount of larger companies (involved in customer support) actually spend money studying these things to determine what types of uniforms make the customer feel more at ease or more confident off the employees' abilities.
Slashdot Mirror
Well, TMo goes out of their way to do the exact opposite. It's one reason I stick with them. If they are not supporting users on this phone and claim they have not gotten the support docs, then to me, that's a bad thing.
I've called TMo on two unsupported Palm phones (AT&T and Cingular unlocked ones) and my brother has called on a Blackberry that TMo does not sell or "support", and the conversation always goes:
"Well, we dont support that phone on our network but... " followed by FULL support... every setting I need to change for Internet and phone operations, all the provisioning on their end to make sure the correct data setup is enabled to talk to the phone for web/email/etc and each and every step "click on Preferences, go to Network settings... etc" all the way through.
Once done, it's usually a "ok, turn off and restart the phone, and everything should be working fine..."
If I am not calling from that phone, they hold until it's rebooted and I have tested it.
If I AM calling from that phone... guess what happens? In five minutes THEY call me to see if everything is working...
When I bought my second hand, from ebay, G1, again the support was excellent. By then my brother had bought one from them (we're on a family plan), and they asked "is it 631-xxx-xxxx?" And I said... "Nope... that's my bro's. I bought this off eBay and am switching from the unsupported Palm you so graciously supported for me" - "Oh, ok... then all we need to do is this on our end... done... reset the phone and all should be good!" Two minute call, no holding, and they didnt care in the least that it was a used phone or where I got it from - just like they didnt care that two of my previous phones and one of my brothers was never sold for their network.
So, I am very glad I have TMo and not the company you work for. And, just so you know... nothing personal, I know it's not your decision on what you support... and ATT seems very much the same (like your company) in this respect from my dealings with them. Another reason I pick TMo over ATT.
And another reason it's sad they havent been given access to the support docs for the Nexus One. It could have alleviated a lot of problems. They've always done right by me.
Sure it does. The terms Warranty and Guarantee in the UK are different than the term Warranty in the US.
Such things are apparently covered by a "Guarantee" in the UK - which is from the manufacturer (from the UK site about such):
Generally speaking, guarantees are offered by manufacturers of products. They are free of charge but legally binding under the Sale and Supply of Goods to Consumers Regulations 2002.
In UK law, a guarantee is considered to be “an agreement to provide some benefit for a set period of time in the event of the goods or services being defective”. For example, a vacuum-cleaner manufacturer will usually offer a guarantee with their products that, for a year or more, they will carry out free repairs for problems caused by a manufacturing defect.
It’s important to remember that manufacturers’ guarantees are in addition to your statutory responsibilities as a supplier under the Sale of Goods Act. A supplier cannot, for instance, refuse to deal with a customer’s complaint about a faulty product simply on the grounds that the product is outside its guarantee period.
In law, suppliers are still liable for any breach of contract - for example, if the goods are not fit for their purpose, or of satisfactory quality - for a period of up to six years (five years from the date the problem arises, in Scotland).
As in the above post I responded to, you are confusing the two - probably because the term in the US (and you are looking at the US docs) is WARRANTY and not GUARANTEE. HTC is the manufacturer, and thus responsible for the GUARANTEE (or WARRANTY as it is called in the US).
The UK documents should thusly have that worded as "GUARANTEE" and even if they do not, the guarantees on product fitness, functionality and workmanship are most definitely able to be tied to the manufacturer
Well, I don't know how it is in the US, but here, no matter what fine print are written inside the box, the seller is responsible and has to cover the warranty. At most, they can redirect you (at their charge) toward some subcontractor they may have to deal with problems.
In the US, no warranty needs to be provided (though certain state to state or "lemon law" provisions may apply for a certain time after the purchase), or the warranty can be provided by the seller, the manufacturer or by a third party (such as the numerous extended warranty companies out there or companies that some manufacturers have cover their warranties).
Regardless, is Google selling the phone or processing the transactions for HTC and/or TMo (regardless of the site branding)?
And in the non-US where you live, when that fine print is written OUTSIDE the box (such as on the paperwork you see before buying the phone, or on the box itself - or both) and contingent upon your agreement to purchase, then isn't it binding since you had a chance to review it and agree to it first?
And, how then does where you live handle PC issues related to Windows? From say... HP? As far as I know, just like in the US, HP is responsible for Windows support on machines they sell - not Microsoft...
So, I speculate (based on those points and no actual knowledge of the law - hence the use of the word "speculate") that things are not so cut and dry as you indicate in your post (or maybe I have researched some of it - and it's the "hidden" agreements that are not binding for these types of issues...).
BTW, in certain US jurisdictions, there is a similar legal protection as well... but it goes like this (in the applicable states)... the warranty and what coverage you are getting/agreeing to must be able to be furnished to you upon your request. Meaning, at the store you purchase it from, you must be able to obtain a copy (via: "Here's a computer... click on this, there is the warranty" or "here's a printed copy of it", etc) - or the warranty specifics must be available online for online purchases from a company who's business is headquartered in the specific state(s).
I so enjoy reading the seemingly obligatory "Well, I don't know how it is in the US, but here..." posts that seem to skip many valid points of law from other countries.
What you've just said is, "Google pulled a Microsoft". You don't call Microsoft with your Windows problems. ;)
LoL! Funny as that is, no. You call the hardware manufacturer for hardware support. Makes sense to me. If your car radio is not working, you dont call up WBAB to ask them to help fix it.
Most consumers dont seem to understand that when it comes to anything electronics related.
Okay, sir, since I can't accomodate you, I'll cancel your service right now. Hang on a moment and I'll get your confirmation number.
If only! Half the times I've had to complain to a company it has been because I already cancelled, but they mysteriously "forgot" and kept billing me.
It's your own damn fault for signing up for AOL! You get what you deserve for that one!!!
True... except I'd beg to differ on one point. Boycotts against some monopolies (IE) do seem to work. I drive virtually every tech customer we get to Firefox. 90% of them never revert back to IE.
I suspect such efforts from other tech support people (whether the semi-tech helping the family and friends, or the techs in the field) is part of what is driving Firefox's increasing marketshare at IE's expense. It's taking time, but it is working.
I do hope they don't join just to ruin the standard or offer halfassed support for it.
Why else *would* they join?
I'm all for Microsoft-bashing, but that's over the top. Microsoft realizes that sometimes their interests lie in supporting certain standards. They support lots of standards to the letter.
You havent named any... which ones?
CSS2.1 support in IE8 is as good as any other browser if not better, for instance.
No, it's not. They have made great improvements, that much I will grant them, but they are not compliant. I STILL have to test things in IE8 and find things that do not work. Oddly, 99% of the time, it works in FF, Opera, Chrome and Safari. And I am talking about "standards" based CSS usage taken right from the docs.
Their C and C++ compilers,
Are compliant how? They are tailored to Windows specific things. I prefer GCC and such, where I can write an app for Windows, Linux, OS/2, MacOSX.
Besides, since they (MS's compilers) tend to use non-standard calls for a lot of the code they create, that's bound to their libraries, how important is it that it supports standards as well? How many people hand code all their C/C++ nowadays? That's the only way I could see it being possible to create standards compliant code with their compilers.
SQL database,
Really? Or maybe I missed something in the new release (which I have not tested - so I guess you may have more knowledge in this area than me).
POSIX implementation, and so forth are about as standards-compliant as anyone else's (which is "not very" in some cases, to be fair). They don't do this out of altruism, obviously, but they realize sometimes people want good support for particular standards.
Keep in mind, in the areas that affect users, they are far from compliant in most everything they release, like document formats, the browser (HTML, CSS, Javascript, etc), PNG support, SVG support and so on.
The few areas they have made improvements have been because their battle to make their own implementations the standard is failing (namely browsers) causing them to lose marketshare (well, it's ONE of the reasons anyway).
In other areas, like this one (the article at hand), when they have a competing product they have not yet given up on, I doubt there is any intent to create a standards compliant product - just as in the past. Them adhering to any standards has always (historically) been to try to regain market share when they begin to realize their competing product is losing it due to their non-compliance.
And historically, if they manage to re-gain that marketshare and a sufficient enough lead, they revert to trying to fragment the marketplace by making things incompatible again to lock people into their solutions and their OS.
Sandboxes are a tried and true idea, they work well. It's about time
Ummm... didja mean "Sandboxes are a tried and true idea, they work well if Microsoft doesnt write the code"?
Because it seems to me that it's been of no help with IE and Vista/Windows 7. Yeah, in theory, it's a great plan - and probably will work well everywhere else. But the key problem is it's ineffectiveness on Microsoft platforms/browsers - but then again, their failures keep business coming in for me. No complaints here. Forget what I said above...
Well, in addition to those reasons, perhaps they want to figure out how best to easily support doing vector graphics from the programming tricks they can learn from others involved with SVG.
It wouldn't be the first time they borrowed code from elsewhere to try to improve their own product...
For instance... Intuit/(Money?), Stac Electronics for disk compression, the BSD stack (which they somehow managed to mangle the use of), much of Stardock's window dressing for XP (and all later versions of Windows), and too many others to list here.
I'm sure they'd be thrilled if they could both (a) make this a learning experience for themselves, and (b) ruin the standard (and thus the competition) in the process.
While I can identify with your position, if boycotts by the technologically conscious were by any means effective, Internet Explorer would have shriveled and died in the '90s.
-Peter
While I agree with you entirely, I am not doing it to boycott it. I simply have no intentions of supporting it, learning it, using it, downloading it or exposing myself to the plethora of security risks caused by installing it (and it's related framework - in Firefox of course, as I dont use IE for anything but web page testing).
Your point is well taken. But don't count Silverlight out yet. The sole fact that Netflix uses it for their streaming service is reason enough.
-Peter
Which is the sole reason I dont use NetFlix. Or watch videos on Microsoft's site.
No, he did not make it up...
Verizon forces all smartphone users to use Bing
This was confirmed in some early Droid promo pictures... (most notably in some earlier TV ads).
And then apparently changed either before release or afterwards, as Google seems to be the search provider.
it was announced that Bing was supposed to be exclusive across all of Verizon products and they paid Millions for that exclusivity.
It appears that Verizon either changed their minds, or Microsoft could not come up with a search app that was as usable (in terms of the cross content phone search) and Verizon left things with Google for the Droid. If memory serves, certain other Droid phones use various Yahoo tools over Google ones... so it's unlikely that this is a permanent thing, or an impossible one to change.
The question is... for how long? I dont know the specifics of Verizon's deal with MS... so I dont have a clue how that will impact things in the future if MS ever comes up with a search tool for Android to replace the Google one.
So, I retract that part of my statement... for now at the least, you are correct. For how long? Notta clue.
Google wins round 1
Funnily, my mobile phone costs as much as a decent sized TV and for good reason.
While you may buy cheap mobile phones, more people are opting for expensive smartphones such as the plethora of Android phones out there or an iPhone. Battery life not withstanding, I would have no problems with TV being available on my phone.
I think the OP's point was, what makes this a Google phone?
No, he specifically asked how it was better than the Droid/G1. The G1 end of things should be obvious, it being ancient by G1 phone standards.
-Faster CPU
True, and that's plenty for me, but there's always going to be a "fastest" phone and that has nothing to do with Google.
-Better integrated with Google apps and services (ie: no using Bing when the Google Search is better integrated with the phone)
You're making this up.
No, I am not, as an AC pointed out below...
Actually, no he's not. Verizon recently signed a partnership with Microsoft for search. Shortly afterwards, search done on the Droid phone was handled by Bing instead of Google.
One of the big advantages of the integrated Google Search in Android 2.x is that it is integrated across the whole phone (not just the web) and integrated better with the rest of (plethora of?) Google/Android Apps that come with or run on the phone such as Contacts, Maps, web, calendar and the OS itself.
-Runs on something other than Verizon (unlike the Droid), namely ATT & TMo.
Again, hardly unique to Google, but this is probably as close as it gets. Also,
It is unique when comparing to the Droid though.
I specifically did not compare it to the G1 as better phones have come out since then (at least hardware wise)... though I suspect that other than the speed and storage differences, once Android 2.x hits the G1, it will still be a worthwhile phone. I for one am happy with mine...
-Faster CPU
-Better integrated with Google apps and services (ie: no using Bing when the Google Search is better integrated with the phone)
-Runs on something other than Verizon (unlike the Droid), namely ATT & TMo.
-More storage space
-(for those who dont like em or the added bulkiness) it doesnt have a physical keyboard (for me, that's a drawback)
-Android 2.1
-Cheaper overall plans from TMo (since the Droid only runs on Verizon, I think it's a valid comparison point)
Running something is better than nothing...
Yes, but wouldn't "running something better be better than simply running something?"
Just a thought... ;-)
Employees from posting on random forums might expose their companies to liability for fraud ("Company X's products are pieces of junk assembled by slave labor in the Far East"), sexual predation, etc. What the do on their home computers is their own business.
While that may be a valid reason, it is even more of a reason to block /.
At least on most forums, comments can be removed... by the forum moderator(s) or the original poster. On /. they are there "forever" and thus continuing the possibility of liability from the post.
I'll start by saying that I completely agree with your views. That said... you know, there's more to the Internet than productivity sites and gay furry porn. There's a host of sites in between those categories, it is all the rage these days.
Wow! I learn something new every day!!! ;-)
you can blame the fact that the websense ceo is the same guy who was ceo of Mcafee during the time when Mcafee was known to be a piece of shit software that wasn't complete or accurate.
Why? What is McAfee considered now? Just curious, because lately I've seen a lot of infected machines coming into our shop with fully updated and running McAfee suites...
Optical audio port. There's one in my old laptop too. It tended to be switched on when I installed a new system. Since he mentions a broken OS, he's probably reinstalled and doesn't have the right drivers.
Or MAYBE, the TSA infected him with the HAL 9000 virus.
"I'm sorry Steven, I can't let you listen to that."
Ah yes... forgot about optical audio ports... most of our customers dont have such high end machines.
"We didn't realize our dick move would receive so much public attention."
I am not quite sure that was their motivation. Possibly paranoia, possibly reality, I suspect the laptop was modified just a wee bit...
Frischling says the laptop was returned to him with “tons and tons of bad sectors” and a corrupt operating system. The audio on his computer has also stopped working, and a red light glows from the audio jack.
I am not exactly sure what audio jack on what laptop has a red light in it that glows... weird...
if your business revolves around programming and engineering ... you are less likely to have serious issues that IT needs to address
I'd have to disagree, if your running a heavy development shop your going to be doing a lot more work than maintaining a bunch of apps on limited user accounts fully managed by active directory on homogenized hardware.
True... but again, it all depends on the setup. The last big place I worked, all updates were pushed from the main servers. We could even do a complete re-image that way. Made maintaining the client machines very easy and required very little staff. "Oh, you hosed something? No problem, reboot and come back in a few hours."
Hundreds of machines, all across the nation, 2 or 3 support people.
But I did mention that in my original post, if in different words... ;-)
if your business revolves around programming and engineering, and thus your workers are from those fields (as opposed to tons of avg computer users in a non computer/technical field), you are less likely to have serious issues that IT needs to address,
BS. Tech people are more picky about how their computers are setup and often cause more problems. I'm guess the 900 workstations are stuffed into a call center and the users have very limited access to any of the system resources.
Well, if it is a tech oriented company, then most of those things are set up in images and maintained on central servers. That's how for instance, CompUSA did it. There was virtually no "on site" (ie: per store) support, and all updates, new software, patches etc, were simply pushed from the servers to the various workstations in the store.
So no, it isn't BS... it's dependent on the setup and the expenses outlaid (and plans implemented) when everything was installed and configured.
But, oh, wait! I already said that in my original post. ;-)
You do it your way... I'll do it my way.
I also prefer to kill two stones with one bird. And, that takes a lot more skill than the other way around...
yeah, maybe someone should ask why management isn't wearing department specific garments that say "management" on them.
All those garment suggestions do spell out, however, is "mismanagement".
While seemingly true... it also spells out "perception" - it's actually good management.
The key, as always, is that customer perception trumps the needs of reality (at least where it comes to the bottom line). I could be sitting at a HelpDesk dressed in ripped jeans and a heavy metal t-shirt - or a uniform... either way, the service I provide will be identical (or perhaps better with me wearing comfortable clothing of my choice)...
But in the first clothing scenario, I am unlikely to be instilling faith in my customers - and may even scare them away. So, the second is a better option, as the customer feels comfortable and like they are talking to someone who knows what they are doing. Sadly, people get/make their "first impressions" on such things on... well, the first impression. And oddly mis-link clothing and hair style and whatever to such unrelated things like technical knowledge.
This is why a decent amount of larger companies (involved in customer support) actually spend money studying these things to determine what types of uniforms make the customer feel more at ease or more confident off the employees' abilities.