Well, obviously, it was so I could trolled by a bunch of haters. Look at that...it worked. (Love the "if you post, you must think it's news!" implication there.)/smh
Go ahead and take one meager slice of the pie and proclaim "Samsung wins!"...until the next iPhone arrives, at least... all you want. It still doesn't make my statements any less correct.
I would bring in the irrational fears surrounding the LHC itself into the movie (adds drama) and call it "Chi-b Chi-b BIG BANG!", but then...there's probably a reason I am not in the film industry.;)
Arguing just to argue? I don't think we're really disagreeing on much here, other than you want to paint it cut and dry.
Simply put: Your dictionary definition is for a pure monopoly. Hell, it even states that. No-one is claiming, or even alleging, that Google is a "pure" monopoly in any market...so...irrelevant?
Name a product in the Search market that isn't "search". Huh...looks like the product is the market. Name a product in the ipad2 market that isn't an ipad2? Market definitions can vary depending on what the person doing the defining wants to include. Try convincing anyone what the "PC" Market is and is not...you will never get everyone to agree. The definition varies.
Market share correlates but does not define dominance. That is what I stated and I stick by it. Market dominance is not solely defined by any specific market share. A majority of 1% could be enough to drive the market. You cannot define a monopoly by simply saying it must have over n percent of the market. All it requires is that the player in question be driving the market.
It is for the feds to decide. You are, obviously, free to question any decision they make....I never claimed otherwise.
Fortunately/unfortunately (depending on ideals/perspective) Anti-trust is more about market dominance than market share (though the two "tend" to go hand-in hand, the correlation is largely irrelevant in terms of abuse).
Me confused? I think you have that backwards. Try this:
Products *are* markets. The "Google Search" product is part of the search market and directly competes in that market with Microsoft's similar search product.
Google uses this product/market to make money in another area, namely; advertising.
"Google needs to have a monopoly. It doesn't,"
So you say. I'd love to know what background you have that would allow you to make such a statement of supposed "fact". The EU has levied anti-trust sanctions against companies with as little as 37% market share. Anti-Trust deals with market dominance, not market share (the correlation is coincidental and irrelevant).
The allegation is that Google is using it's alleged dominance in Search to affect its success in other markets. This, if "Search" is found to be a monopoly and that their ranking of their own products/ads/whatever is found to affect their success in those markets, could be seen as an abuse.
Again, I am not taking sides in this. I am *not* in a position to make any statements of finding on whether Google is a monopoly in any market. That is for the feds to decide...not us.
Being a monopoly is fine. (In this regard, a Monopoly is defined as holding a lion's share of the market, regardless of how many actual competitors there are.)
Being a monopoly, and *using* that market share advantage to take more of a share in other markets (using "search" to steal share in "advertising", for example), is deemed anti-competitive and subject to Anti-Trust laws and penalties.
Note: I am not taking sides in this, simply doing my best at explaining the concept behind what is going on here.
I changed no meaning, just left out misleading, irrelevant cruft....because you're still not getting it.
Hobbyist or not, upgraded or not, guess what? Both Apple and Android phones still work, regardless of patch-level.
Your absurd implication that only hobbyists who want to tinker to make their Android phones "just work" (implying the rest no longer do) is just that...absurd.
Google doesn't...but the carriers/manufacturers do, and require the "new" and "improved" in order to be able to do so. Appearances must be kept up, you see.;)
Already being ported. Most SDK builds are going to suck, but there are one or two dev source builds leaked that are nearly 100% functional at this point....and we still don't have an official ICS device on the market yet...so what's your rush?
Marketing, hype and competition. They need to appeal to the market, meaning they need to be able to constantly have "new" and "improved" splashed on their products.
There are actually people out there that don't know this??
"People who want to use their mobile phones and have them just work... are better of with an iPhone."
How does any phone running Froyo not "just work"?
Do these phones running Froyo start to become non-functional when a new Android update that isn't pushed to that phone comes out?...are you trolling, or were you simply being disingenuous?
Very few devices are locked down completely. It's pretty much just the "Droids" (aka Motorola). SGSII was rooted just days ago (before US release...) and it does not have a locked bootloader iirc. HTC has, I believe also promised not to lock their bootloaders.
There are quite a few really good phones out there that can still haev ROMS flashed on them. Just hit up XDA before buying your phone (or check the CM7 compatibility lists).
There are 3 locations services available on my Android Fascinate.
Each one must be *explicitly* enabled. Each one gives you it's own separate, readable, intelligible, and concise warning regarding the usage of the location data.
One is Google, one is Verizon, and one is Stand-alone.
If you disable both Google's *and* VZW's...you can still use your location-based apps.
He... would be me....and "he" never compared it to the iPhone.
Not once. Re-read "his" original reply. It was in reference to all of the new Android phones being crippled....at which point he made an example of how not-crippled "his" phone was.
Anything can be unlocked. Being locked doesn't cripple it. Nothing locked has never been unlocked....and the ease with which these (including, if you will, the iPhone) can be unlocked makes the alleged "crippling" for all practical purposes, irrelevant.
So no: Neither the iPhone nor the Android phone in question are "crippled" by lockdown...as both can easily be unlocked.
They are crippled (or not) merely by the what one can do with them after the unlocking.
That was what "his" post was about. The fact that it is most certainly not crippled by lack of choices once it is unlocked...kind of like the iPhone having many more options open to it once it is unlocked.
The fact that everyone took it as a "rip" on the iPhone, or wants to somehow turn it into some confrontation or comparison is by far one of the funniest things I've seen in ages...and one of the reasons I so dearly love Slashdot.:)
Slashdot Mirror
"Disagree? then why the hell did you post?"
Well, obviously, it was so I could trolled by a bunch of haters. Look at that...it worked. (Love the "if you post, you must think it's news!" implication there.) /smh
Go ahead and take one meager slice of the pie and proclaim "Samsung wins!"...until the next iPhone arrives, at least... all you want. It still doesn't make my statements any less correct.
Wrong?
About what, exactly?
You said I was wrong, and simply restated my post with a hefty dose of anti-apple personal bias.
Get over it. Apple is a company. They didn't kill your dog.
Judging by sales? No. The 3.7" iPhone is outselling every device on the planet.
That said, among non iDevices, the larger models seem to be selling much better, so if Apple ever offers a larger size, who knows.
Of course, this is all pointless conjecture regarding a purely subjective preference. How this makes "news for nerds" is truly confounding.
Thank you!
I would bring in the irrational fears surrounding the LHC itself into the movie (adds drama) and call it "Chi-b Chi-b BIG BANG!", but then...there's probably a reason I am not in the film industry. ;)
*laughing*
Arguing just to argue? I don't think we're really disagreeing on much here, other than you want to paint it cut and dry.
Simply put: Your dictionary definition is for a pure monopoly. Hell, it even states that. No-one is claiming, or even alleging, that Google is a "pure" monopoly in any market...so...irrelevant?
Name a product in the Search market that isn't "search". Huh...looks like the product is the market. Name a product in the ipad2 market that isn't an ipad2? Market definitions can vary depending on what the person doing the defining wants to include. Try convincing anyone what the "PC" Market is and is not...you will never get everyone to agree. The definition varies.
Market share correlates but does not define dominance. That is what I stated and I stick by it. Market dominance is not solely defined by any specific market share. A majority of 1% could be enough to drive the market. You cannot define a monopoly by simply saying it must have over n percent of the market. All it requires is that the player in question be driving the market.
It is for the feds to decide. You are, obviously, free to question any decision they make....I never claimed otherwise.
In most cases, I would agree with you. ;)
Fortunately/unfortunately (depending on ideals/perspective) Anti-trust is more about market dominance than market share (though the two "tend" to go hand-in hand, the correlation is largely irrelevant in terms of abuse).
Wow.
Me confused? I think you have that backwards. Try this:
Products *are* markets. The "Google Search" product is part of the search market and directly competes in that market with Microsoft's similar search product.
Google uses this product/market to make money in another area, namely; advertising.
"Google needs to have a monopoly. It doesn't,"
So you say. I'd love to know what background you have that would allow you to make such a statement of supposed "fact". The EU has levied anti-trust sanctions against companies with as little as 37% market share. Anti-Trust deals with market dominance, not market share (the correlation is coincidental and irrelevant).
The allegation is that Google is using it's alleged dominance in Search to affect its success in other markets. This, if "Search" is found to be a monopoly and that their ranking of their own products/ads/whatever is found to affect their success in those markets, could be seen as an abuse.
Again, I am not taking sides in this. I am *not* in a position to make any statements of finding on whether Google is a monopoly in any market. That is for the feds to decide...not us.
Monopoly does not, in fact mean "only one". Not in today's markets, and not in US or EU law.
Monopoly simply means commanding the market. I believe the EU has brought penalties against "Monoplolies" holding a measly 37% market share.
The idea is this:
Being a monopoly is fine. (In this regard, a Monopoly is defined as holding a lion's share of the market, regardless of how many actual competitors there are.)
Being a monopoly, and *using* that market share advantage to take more of a share in other markets (using "search" to steal share in "advertising", for example), is deemed anti-competitive and subject to Anti-Trust laws and penalties.
Note: I am not taking sides in this, simply doing my best at explaining the concept behind what is going on here.
Wow. You have absolutely no idea what you are talking about, do you?
You're, um...doing it wrong.
I changed no meaning, just left out misleading, irrelevant cruft. ...because you're still not getting it.
Hobbyist or not, upgraded or not, guess what? Both Apple and Android phones still work, regardless of patch-level.
Your absurd implication that only hobbyists who want to tinker to make their Android phones "just work" (implying the rest no longer do) is just that...absurd.
Google doesn't...but the carriers/manufacturers do, and require the "new" and "improved" in order to be able to do so. Appearances must be kept up, you see. ;)
O RLY?
http://www.xda-developers.com/tag/samsung-nexus-s/
Already being ported. Most SDK builds are going to suck, but there are one or two dev source builds leaked that are nearly 100% functional at this point. ...and we still don't have an official ICS device on the market yet...so what's your rush?
Sure you can. If you or anyone else is willing and interested in porting it.
...and last updated July 25th, 2011.
Your point?
Marketing, hype and competition. They need to appeal to the market, meaning they need to be able to constantly have "new" and "improved" splashed on their products.
There are actually people out there that don't know this??
"People who want to use their mobile phones and have them just work... are better of with an iPhone."
How does any phone running Froyo not "just work"?
Do these phones running Froyo start to become non-functional when a new Android update that isn't pushed to that phone comes out? ...are you trolling, or were you simply being disingenuous?
Form future reference: The more smug you are, the more likely it is that you've forgotten something crucial.
In this instance, you missed a crucial point in the lore of the Matrix:
They blocked the sun because the machines were using solar energy to power themselves...not people.
That smugness...it'll get ya every time. ;)
Uh...no?
This is about SUA being booted out of the OS.
The other "issue" wasn't even hinted at by the commenters above you.
Honestly, if you're going to take a completely different track, start a new thread instead of trying to derail the current one?
Very few devices are locked down completely. It's pretty much just the "Droids" (aka Motorola). SGSII was rooted just days ago (before US release...) and it does not have a locked bootloader iirc. HTC has, I believe also promised not to lock their bootloaders.
There are quite a few really good phones out there that can still haev ROMS flashed on them. Just hit up XDA before buying your phone (or check the CM7 compatibility lists).
Really.
There are 3 locations services available on my Android Fascinate.
Each one must be *explicitly* enabled. Each one gives you it's own separate, readable, intelligible, and concise warning regarding the usage of the location data.
One is Google, one is Verizon, and one is Stand-alone.
If you disable both Google's *and* VZW's...you can still use your location-based apps.
There is nothing to see here.. Move along...
*laughing*
"Shut up...or *pay* for it!"
Gotta love the free-software folks. They're so silly...
Um..
He ... would be me. ...and "he" never compared it to the iPhone.
Not once. Re-read "his" original reply. It was in reference to all of the new Android phones being crippled. ...at which point he made an example of how not-crippled "his" phone was.
Anything can be unlocked. Being locked doesn't cripple it. Nothing locked has never been unlocked. ...and the ease with which these (including, if you will, the iPhone) can be unlocked makes the alleged "crippling" for all practical purposes, irrelevant.
So no: Neither the iPhone nor the Android phone in question are "crippled" by lockdown...as both can easily be unlocked.
They are crippled (or not) merely by the what one can do with them after the unlocking.
That was what "his" post was about. The fact that it is most certainly not crippled by lack of choices once it is unlocked...kind of like the iPhone having many more options open to it once it is unlocked.
The fact that everyone took it as a "rip" on the iPhone, or wants to somehow turn it into some confrontation or comparison is by far one of the funniest things I've seen in ages...and one of the reasons I so dearly love Slashdot. :)
You guys are an odd bunch...
Does rooting or jailbreaking actually mean anything to you? Should it?
There are no popular consumer devices that cannot be unlocked, therefore the unlocking of them is irrelevant.
It is not that they can be unlocked...but what you can do with them after they are unlocked that defines any current product's capabilities.