Linked by Thom Holwerda on Thu 20th May 2010 18:29 UTC
Google At the Google I/O conference, Google just held its second keynote address, which focussed on Android. The talk was held by Vic Gundotra, and he unveiled a number of new features coming in Android 2.2 "Froyo", as well as some features coming in Froyo+1. The main theme of the entire keynote? Openness and choice, and a whole bucketload of not-so-subtle jabs at Apple. I'd like to apologise upfront for a possible lack of critical notes in this article - I'm still handing out the brownie points to Google for yesterday.
Order by: Score:
at least google...
by macUser on Thu 20th May 2010 18:35 UTC
macUser
Member since:
2006-12-15

...puts the blame on bad battery life squarely where it belongs: users and developers.

http://androinica.com/2010/05/19/google-blames-android-battery-woes...

Reply Score: 1

Finally?
by emilsedgh on Thu 20th May 2010 18:35 UTC
emilsedgh
Member since:
2007-06-21

The year of FOSS and Linux on desktop?
Who needs that, free software already rules your cell phone.

Reply Score: 6

RE: Finally?
by mtzmtulivu on Thu 20th May 2010 20:23 UTC in reply to "Finally?"
mtzmtulivu Member since:
2006-11-14

Free software works on local content and the world seem to move toward contents hosted on the cloud.What good does it do you if you access facebook content with free software? Your content on facebook is out of your hands and on theirs and free software wont help you one bit.

Reply Score: 3

RE[2]: Finally?
by emilsedgh on Thu 20th May 2010 20:35 UTC in reply to "RE: Finally?"
emilsedgh Member since:
2007-06-21

First of all, what are saying is irrevelant to my post. I expressed my joy about the fact that mobile phone market is dominated by free software. Thats it.

However, i dont like the current status of cloud-based tooservices. I hope it will be fixed sooner than later with identica-like approaches.

Reply Score: 1

RE: Finally?
by WorknMan on Fri 21st May 2010 03:31 UTC in reply to "Finally?"
WorknMan Member since:
2005-11-13

The year of FOSS and Linux on desktop?
Who needs that, free software already rules your cell phone.


My question is, if Android is so open, how come the Droid Incredible hasn't been rooted yet? Why can't I just format it and put the stock Android 2.1 on it?

Reply Score: 3

RE[2]: Finally?
by mtilsted on Fri 21st May 2010 06:32 UTC in reply to "RE: Finally?"
mtilsted Member since:
2006-01-15

"The year of FOSS and Linux on desktop?
Who needs that, free software already rules your cell phone.


My question is, if Android is so open, how come the Droid Incredible hasn't been rooted yet? Why can't I just format it and put the stock Android 2.1 on it?
"

Because 2.1/2.2 don't contain the needed drivers for that hardware. It's the same reason I can install a different 1.5 rom on my HTC Magic but I can't install 2.1* because it lack drivers.

*Well I can install it, but it will not boot due to missing drivers, so no point in trying :}

Reply Score: 1

RE[3]: Finally?
by WorknMan on Fri 21st May 2010 07:49 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: Finally?"
WorknMan Member since:
2005-11-13

Because 2.1/2.2 don't contain the needed drivers for that hardware. It's the same reason I can install a different 1.5 rom on my HTC Magic but I can't install 2.1* because it lack drivers.

*Well I can install it, but it will not boot due to missing drivers, so no point in trying :}


But you can do it on the HTC Desire, which (IRIC) has the same hadware as the Droid Incredible?

Reply Score: 2

RE[2]: Finally?
by Akabander on Sat 22nd May 2010 14:07 UTC in reply to "RE: Finally?"
Akabander Member since:
2008-03-10

Because Android is an OS released by Google, and your handset is a device made by someone else. Google doesn't dictate the terms of use of Android to the handset manufacturers; if they did, you'd no doubt be bitching about that and saying it shows how not-open Android is.

Reply Score: 1

Enterprises listen up
by REM2000 on Thu 20th May 2010 18:51 UTC
REM2000
Member since:
2006-07-25

Improve exchange support is really going to make some inroads.

I do love Microsoft Exchange Server, it's a really good business collaboration tool. Activesync works really well with exchange server.

Now the iPhone does use Activesync and works incredibly well, remote wipe, excellent sync of everything email, calendar etc, whats stops me rolling it out across my company, battery life. We have had to stick to blackberrys as they last much longer in the field. Many use the train and other public transportation so charging on the go is out of the question. I would truely love to use the iPhone as i hate the blackberrys useless software and would prefer native exchange connectivity. Well this looks likes it going to be delivered on the Android platform, so i will be watching these products and hopefully will find a happy medium.

Reply Score: 2

RE: Enterprises listen up
by TemporalBeing on Fri 21st May 2010 17:06 UTC in reply to "Enterprises listen up"
TemporalBeing Member since:
2007-08-22

Obviously you have never tried to troubleshoot Exchange problems, and if you've managed an Exchange server it's been a very simple setup.

Most Exchange server installs are not simple setups.

Reply Score: 2

another bad flash beta
by mckill on Thu 20th May 2010 19:07 UTC
mckill
Member since:
2007-06-12

http://www.engadget.com/2010/05/20/android-2-2-froyo-beta-hands-on-...

As for video, the stream is good quality but gets fairly choppy -- especially when you check out something "not optimized for mobile viewing." Some of the HTML5 footage we've seen via the same device shows up in crisper detail and fluidity. Battery and heat are also of concern: the pre-release beta we have, according to Adobe, lacks hardware acceleration. Ergo, our beloved handset got piping hot after about 30 minutes of heavy video watching, and the battery indicator in the upper right had a sizable dent.

Reply Score: 2

RE: another bad flash beta
by vaette on Thu 20th May 2010 19:54 UTC in reply to "another bad flash beta"
vaette Member since:
2008-08-09

the pre-release beta we have, according to Adobe, lacks hardware acceleration.

Well, it is pretty much a no-brainer that it will run slowly and inefficiently without the hardware acceleration. I would expect that they get that in for the final release though, if not they have really messed up.

Reply Score: 1

RE[2]: another bad flash beta
by mckill on Thu 20th May 2010 20:23 UTC in reply to "RE: another bad flash beta"
mckill Member since:
2007-06-12

"the pre-release beta we have, according to Adobe, lacks hardware acceleration.

Well, it is pretty much a no-brainer that it will run slowly and inefficiently without the hardware acceleration. I would expect that they get that in for the final release though, if not they have really messed up.
"

why demo something that is missing the one thing that the entire world has been asking and requiring for mobile devices when they are apparently 'so close' at releasing Flash for mobiles/Android?

everyone knows Flash can run on mobiles, it could run on a pentium 100 too. however what it can't do is run smoothly and not burn your phone or cause it to only have 30 mins of battery life.

Edited 2010-05-20 20:25 UTC

Reply Score: 3

RE[3]: another bad flash beta
by vaette on Thu 20th May 2010 21:12 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: another bad flash beta"
vaette Member since:
2008-08-09

Beta demos often miss stuff, as long as people don't go out of their way of reading meaning into the details I think it is better than companies being all secretive. Relax and wait, you will have plenty of opportunity to complain about Flash on Android once released if it turns out bad ;)

Reply Score: 1

RE[4]: another bad flash beta
by robojerk on Thu 20th May 2010 21:25 UTC in reply to "RE[3]: another bad flash beta"
robojerk Member since:
2006-01-10

I'm just concerned about how annoying the flash ads will be. Thank god Fennec is coming to Android so I can hopefully block them.

Reply Score: 2

RE[5]: another bad flash beta
by vaette on Thu 20th May 2010 22:44 UTC in reply to "RE[4]: another bad flash beta"
vaette Member since:
2008-08-09

Well, I have some bad news for you about HTML5... Ads will become far more annoying and much harder to block. It is really one of those vaguely comical things that people seem to miss, they talk about poor performance and annoyance of flash overuse, but seem to somehow miss that once we get animated HTML5 sites with all the bells and whistles they will be just as annoying for much the same reasons. It is not like the HTML5 stuff has really ímpressed with high performance or anything, quite the opposite.

Reply Score: 1

RE[6]: another bad flash beta
by Kroc on Fri 21st May 2010 07:25 UTC in reply to "RE[5]: another bad flash beta"
Kroc Member since:
2005-11-10

And I have some news for you. HTML5 is easy to block and there’s much more flexibility. Try the Element Hiding Helper add-on for AdBlock Plus.

Reply Score: 1

...the iPhone's market share...
by mrhasbean on Thu 20th May 2010 21:23 UTC
mrhasbean
Member since:
2006-04-03

...will settle somewhere around the 10%.


A nice manageable size if you're the only one making the devices. ;)

Reply Score: 2

RE: ...the iPhone's market share...
by tf123 on Fri 21st May 2010 00:10 UTC in reply to "...the iPhone's market share..."
tf123 Member since:
2010-01-28

And presumably that is ignoring iPod touches and iPads. iPads alone are already approaching the sales numbers of the iPhone.

Reply Score: 1

daveak Member since:
2008-12-29

And according to a story on the register the iPad is outselling the Mac 2-1

Reply Score: 1

skingers6894 Member since:
2005-08-10

Indeed and as Apple has proven, you can make awfully good money on even single digit market share if it's the right demographic.

Reply Score: 2

Google V Apple
by Tony Swash on Thu 20th May 2010 21:40 UTC
Tony Swash
Member since:
2009-08-22

“If we did not act, we faced a draconian future. Where one man, one company, one carrier was the future.”

– Google Vice-President of Engineering Vic Gundotra explains why the company made Android.

But we’re just fine with the Two Men, One Company, One Search Engine Model

Reply Score: 0

RE: Google V Apple
by Thom_Holwerda on Thu 20th May 2010 22:04 UTC in reply to "Google V Apple"
Thom_Holwerda Member since:
2005-06-29
RE: Google V Apple
by ricegf on Thu 20th May 2010 22:09 UTC in reply to "Google V Apple"
ricegf Member since:
2007-04-25

But that's not what we have with Android. It's free software - *any* company can use it to build a phone*. If you try to build another product with Apple's OS/X, even if you pay for a retail license, you get a thundering herd of lawyers. Ask Psystar.


(* But if you want to use Google *trademarks*, that's different - you'll need a license, as well you should.)

Reply Score: 1

Comment by phoenix
by phoenix on Thu 20th May 2010 22:21 UTC
phoenix
Member since:
2005-07-11

One of the features that really stood out is an internet-to-device messaging service, which, according to Google, is "much more than a push notification service designed to make up for a lack of basic features like multitasking". This new service can perform some interesting tricks, such as send navigation instructions looked up on your PC to your Android device - which will automatically open the navigation application and set up the route. Or, you can send a link to your phone, and the link will be automatically opened on the phone's browser. The possibilities are endless here.


I'll reserve judgment on this until I see exactly how it's implemented, but right now it sounds scary. Do you really want some random <thing> on the Internet to send a message to your phone, and have the phone start an application based on that info? Sounds like a security nightmare waiting to happen.

However, if they've thought about it long and hard enough, maybe they've come up with a way to make it safe. We'll see when it hits devices.

There are more internet-based features in Froyo, such as the ability to stream your entire music collection from your desktop or laptop computer to your phone. You can play the music on your phone as if it is stored on the device, while it's actually being streamed. Pretty cool.


Stream the uncompressed WAV? Or transfer the MP3 and play it on the phone? Hopefully it's the latter, or else everyone's data charges are going to go through the roof. ;)

Android is moving fast - very fast. In fact, it is developing at a pace that far exceeds its competitors. Android has been out there for 18 months, and has already seen seven new versions. Between now and the end of this year, we'll see two major new versions (Froyo today, Gingerbread in Q4). Apple can manage about one release a year, and already, Froyo adds a lot of tricks iPhone users (like myself) can only dream of; can you imagine what Gingerbread is going to do?


That's actually one of the biggest problems with Android: development is happening too fast.

2.2 is about to be released ... and there are still 1.5 phones (LG Eve) being sold, and new 1.6 phones (Sony Ericsson Xperia X10 and X10 mini) hitting the market.

There's also a bazillion different CPUs, GPUs, chipsets, screen sizes, screen resolutions out there. On the one hand, you can get a device with the specific hardware features you want. On the other hand, it's a royal pain to develop for (especially to optimise for), as everything gets written "for the lowest common denominator".

Sure, Apple only releases upgrades once a year, and there's only 1 form factor and hardware version to choose from. But at least it's stable and easy to target.

I'll be happy when Android development starts to slow, with only 1 or 2 major updates per year, and vendors can actually start to provide updates for existing phones. There's nothing worse than buying a phone today with 1.5 or 1.6 on it, only to find out tomorrow you can't upgrade it, or you can only upgrade to 2.0.

Edited 2010-05-20 22:41 UTC

Reply Score: 3

RE: Comment by phoenix
by Kroc on Thu 20th May 2010 22:32 UTC in reply to "Comment by phoenix"
Kroc Member since:
2005-11-10

It’s absolutely frustrating that the SDK doesn’t come with any emulator templates. I just want to test stuff, I just want to select a handset model and know that it is equivalent to the real hardware, including H.264 limits—which I cannot test! Absolutely maddening.

HTML5 video playback is currently as good as useless in Android and I’ll be damned if I can test as the Emulator bares absolutely no relation to actual hardware. At least the iPhone emulator is simple and largely accurate.

head => desk.

Reply Score: 1

RE: Comment by phoenix
by ricegf on Thu 20th May 2010 22:55 UTC in reply to "Comment by phoenix"
ricegf Member since:
2007-04-25

I believe that's frustrating to a geek, but I doubt it's frustrating to a normal person.

My wife (a normal person) has a Cliq (Android 1.5), and she's never mentioned it. I doubt she even knows what version of the OS her phone runs.

What she *does* know is that (for example) the Kindle for Android page on Amazon says "works with Motorola Cliq". THAT's significant!

Reply Score: 2

RE[2]: Comment by phoenix
by nt_jerkface on Fri 21st May 2010 06:37 UTC in reply to "RE: Comment by phoenix"
nt_jerkface Member since:
2009-08-26

I believe that's frustrating to a geek, but I doubt it's frustrating to a normal person.


Some applications have been broken by updates and some phones can't be updated to 2.1 which limits what users can buy.

Reply Score: 2

RE[3]: Comment by phoenix
by ricegf on Fri 21st May 2010 09:58 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: Comment by phoenix"
ricegf Member since:
2007-04-25

So? If new phones are being introduced that run 1.5 or 1.6, and those phones are selling well, it's because non-geek people *don't care* about operating system version. They like the physical features, or the color, or a specific capability, or the "feel".

Look, just as a test, I asked a few of my iPhone using friends what version of the OS they were running. All of them looked at me like I was an alien; one said "They have OS versions?" and another said, "George, you're such a geek!"

You and I know that phone updates can break apps, and that apps can be written to specific OS versions or to require certain phone features. Maybe it's the triumph of Microsoft, but user's just don't *care*. If the phone does what they want, and has a nice slew of apps plus the mainstream ones they care about (like Kindle with my wife), it's all a non-issue.

Have you noticed how many Symbian phones are sold nowadays? 44.5% of all smartphones? Something like 35% of all phones? When was the last time an existing Symbian phone received a brand new OS version? Still selling, and still predicted by both Gartner and IDC to be the best selling smartphone in *2012*.

Normal people just don't care.

And it's not that much of an issue with a lot of geeks, including me. Android has 50,000 apps. If only 40,000 work with my OS upgrade (pretending I use Android for the moment), even *I* don't care. We'll get 10,000 new ones next week, and they *will* work with the new OS. Plus I get all the shiny new features. Win!

And I've had computers all my *life* that couldn't be upgraded to the latest version of the OS; do you think most computers are going to 7? Do you think my Nokia 770 went to Maemo 5? Heck, it didn't even go to 4! These devices use the OS that came with them, and only update if I believe it's a *big* win (because upgrading always carries both risk and a bit of hassle), and that's ok - they run what I bought, and do what I bought them to do.

Some iPhones can't be updated to 4, and some can but don't get all the new features like the pseudo-multi-tasking, and some apps will certainly break. I haven't condemned Apple for that. It's par for the course. And they're true to their customer base - you get the one model of iPhone, and the one OS upgrade per year (until they drop support for your year), and if that's what you want, Apple's got it. Limited choice, limited change, Steve's patented "great experience". I'm happy for you. But not everybody wants that. Given recent sales figures, quite a *lot* of people don't.

It's just a non-issue. If it weren't, why would Android be outselling the iPhone now?

Reply Score: 1

RE[4]: Comment by phoenix
by Babi Asu on Sat 22nd May 2010 01:51 UTC in reply to "RE[3]: Comment by phoenix"
Babi Asu Member since:
2006-02-11


... cut ...

Some iPhones can't be updated to 4, and some can but don't get all the new features like the pseudo-multi-tasking, and some apps will certainly break. I haven't condemned Apple for that. It's par for the course. And they're true to their customer base - you get the one model of iPhone, and the one OS upgrade per year (until they drop support for your year), and if that's what you want, Apple's got it. Limited choice, limited change, Steve's patented "great experience". I'm happy for you. But not everybody wants that. Given recent sales figures, quite a *lot* of people don't.

The iPhone that can't be upgraded is the 1st generation, and it was 3 years ago. Compared to last year G1, you can't upgrade to Froyo without being a geek. Can you consider BOGO as sales? It's more suitable to be classified as loss.


It's just a non-issue. If it weren't, why would Android be outselling the iPhone now?

Just wait until iPhone comes to Verizon this summer, you'll see a lot of Android phones on eBay. The sign is clear, AT&T doubled early termination fee for iPhone.

Reply Score: 2

RE[5]: Comment by phoenix
by ricegf on Sat 22nd May 2010 05:43 UTC in reply to "RE[4]: Comment by phoenix"
ricegf Member since:
2007-04-25

"Can you consider BOGO as sales?"

Of *course*. Every single analyst counts them as sales, because they were paid for on contract, activated, and generate revenue. Only myopic Apple fans desperate to believe that Android hasn't surpassed their beloved iPhone in market momentum keep inventing ways to creatively deny reality.

"Just wait..."

OK.

Until iPhone's Phoenix-like resurgence, though, you might want to take a deep breath, accept the shocking truth, and let it go. It's just a phone.

Perhaps you should content yourself with the iPad's success. It's selling like gangbusters, probably playing no small role in depressing iPhone sales growth, and none of those nasty old Android tablets are shipping yet to spoil the fun.

Reply Score: 1

RE: Comment by phoenix
by Shkaba on Thu 20th May 2010 23:23 UTC in reply to "Comment by phoenix"
Shkaba Member since:
2006-06-22


...
2.2 is about to be released ... and there are still 1.5 phones (LG Eve) being sold, and new 1.6 phones (Sony Ericsson Xperia X10 and X10 mini) hitting the market.

There's also a bazillion different CPUs, GPUs, chipsets, screen sizes, screen resolutions out there. On the one hand, you can get a device with the specific hardware features you want. On the other hand, it's a royal pain to develop for (especially to optimise for), as everything gets written "for the lowest common denominator".

Sure, Apple only releases upgrades once a year, and there's only 1 form factor and hardware version to choose from. But at least it's stable and easy to target.

I'll be happy when Android development starts to slow, with only 1 or 2 major updates per year, and vendors can actually start to provide updates for existing phones. There's nothing worse than buying a phone today with 1.5 or 1.6 on it, only to find out tomorrow you can't upgrade it, or you can only upgrade to 2.0.


As far as hardware landscape (ecosystem) is concerned, this is starting to remind me of MS vs Apple. I'll choose variety every time. As for, what is on offer in the market, that is hardly under Google's control as opposed to iPhone. Guess who gets my vote there ... guys that allow markets to decide which device is sold.

As for the release speed, you are right this is waaaayyy to fast but it is a normal evolution towards a stable, feature rich operating system which is when the release cycles tend to slow down.

Reply Score: 3

RE: Comment by phoenix
by stabbyjones on Fri 21st May 2010 00:18 UTC in reply to "Comment by phoenix"
stabbyjones Member since:
2008-04-15

My HTC Hero came with 1.5, then I put 2.1 on there myself. I'm sure once 2.2 comes out there will be ROMS for 2.2 as well.

Moving quickly is Androids biggest bonus for me. Phone companies will never be quick to update once they've released a phone. (official hero 2.1 anyone?) This way i can have the latest without having to wait.

Then after a few years when my phone can't handle the newest android i'll just buy another one.

I've had it for 3 months and fully expect a solid 2 years out of it seeing as my phone is getting FASTER with every update.

Reply Score: 2

RE[2]: Comment by phoenix
by kristoph on Fri 21st May 2010 05:44 UTC in reply to "RE: Comment by phoenix"
kristoph Member since:
2006-01-01

You missed the point.

The issue is that the vast majority of Android devices are 1.5/1.6 and most users do not update so most developers (like us for example) cannot really make use of 2.x features.

In fairness, iPhone OS 4 will introduce some issues for us too (because it's not compatible with the devices before iPhone 3GS).

]{

Reply Score: 1

RE[3]: Comment by phoenix
by daveak on Fri 21st May 2010 06:43 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: Comment by phoenix"
daveak Member since:
2008-12-29

It will be available for the 3G / 2nd Gen. iPod Touch as well.

Reply Score: 1

Disguise
by Envying1 on Thu 20th May 2010 22:55 UTC
Envying1
Member since:
2008-04-22

Google have done a lot of good things to change our life.

But I am really sick and tired of what they are disguising as a Open "Saint and Pioneer".

Just don't forget Google is a public company, which is all for profit. They invested 100M+ for a open video format, and they will get your money out of your pocket to pay for it in a lot of innovative ways.

Reply Score: 1

RE: Disguise
by macUser on Thu 20th May 2010 23:00 UTC in reply to "Disguise"
macUser Member since:
2006-12-15

Google have done a lot of good things to change our life.

But I am really sick and tired of what they are disguising as a Open "Saint and Pioneer".

Just don't forget Google is a public company, which is all for profit. They invested 100M+ for a open video format, and they will get your money out of your pocket to pay for it in a lot of innovative ways.



Google isn't Apple... That amounts to a free pass around these parts.

Reply Score: 1

RE[2]: Disguise
by Thom_Holwerda on Thu 20th May 2010 23:26 UTC in reply to "RE: Disguise"
Thom_Holwerda Member since:
2005-06-29

Google isn't Apple... That amounts to a free pass around these parts.


Gosh, a company about a million times more open than Apple is looked upon more favourably than the most closed company in the entire technology sector.

What a shocker.

Reply Score: 1

RE[3]: Disguise
by macUser on Fri 21st May 2010 00:38 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: Disguise"
macUser Member since:
2006-12-15

"Google isn't Apple... That amounts to a free pass around these parts.


Gosh, a company about a million times more open than Apple is looked upon more favourably than the most closed company in the entire technology sector.

What a shocker.
"

A million more times? Google is only as open as they need to be to drain ever ounce of information they can make money off of out of you. It is still only about the Benjamins. How does Google get off laying blame on developers and users for poor battery performance? How does Google get off rewriting its own history? How does Google get off when they're caught mining access points for personal information? Yes, Thom is willing to look the other way if his agenda is matched.

Reply Score: 5

RE[4]: Disguise
by rhetoric.sendmemoney on Fri 21st May 2010 01:35 UTC in reply to "RE[3]: Disguise"
rhetoric.sendmemoney Member since:
2006-01-22

Yep, A MILLION.
Google does more for open software in one summer of code then Apple has in its entire existence.

How does Apple get a free pass for their exploding Ipods from the legion of iTards? Sure Google makes money, but every day they make my life easier by placing information a couple keystrokes away. The only thing Apple ever gave me was a good laugh at Stevie's ridiculous attempts at looking hip.

Also, why do you always bring Thom into your ridiculous arguments? How does that support anything? Face it, Apple has made some dumb calls and Google called them on it. Its just business champ, keep your chin up.

Reply Score: 0

RE[4]: Disguise
by -pekr- on Fri 21st May 2010 04:13 UTC in reply to "RE[3]: Disguise"
-pekr- Member since:
2006-03-28

How does Google get off when they're caught mining access points for personal information? Yes, Thom is willing to look the other way if his agenda is matched.


Mining access points for personal information? Man, we run network for over 700 wi-fi customers. You should know what you are talking about, or just shut-up - your argument is clearly a propaganda to back-up your trolling against Google. And I am not a Google fanboy, I don't like anyone's monopolistic practices. But ppl should get their arguments straight ...

Reply Score: 0

RE[4]: Disguise
by elsewhere on Fri 21st May 2010 06:09 UTC in reply to "RE[3]: Disguise"
elsewhere Member since:
2005-07-13

Yes, Thom is willing to look the other way if his agenda is matched.


Hang on, I'm confused. I thought this was the week that was scheduled to bash Thom for supporting Apple? When did this change? I thought the anti-Apple bashing was next week, or did we push forward the timing for attacking his pro-Microsoft stance?

Can someone send me the updated calendar? I'm building up some material for attacking him on his pro-Ubuntu and anti-linux agenda, and would like some clear time-lines to work with.

Reply Score: 3

RE[3]: Disguise
by kristoph on Fri 21st May 2010 05:37 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: Disguise"
kristoph Member since:
2006-01-01

No bias there.

Reply Score: 1

RE[3]: Disguise
by Tony Swash on Fri 21st May 2010 09:09 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: Disguise"
Tony Swash Member since:
2009-08-22

Gosh, a company about a million times more open than Apple


Google is a company a million times more open than Apple?

OK - list and describe to me the core algorithms of the Google search engine.

Reply Score: 2

RE[4]: Disguise
by rhetoric.sendmemoney on Fri 21st May 2010 18:39 UTC in reply to "RE[3]: Disguise"
rhetoric.sendmemoney Member since:
2006-01-22

"Gosh, a company about a million times more open than Apple


Google is a company a million times more open than Apple?

OK - list and describe to me the core algorithms of the Google search engine.
"

Really??? That doesn't even make sense!

Look Champ, nobody said 100% open. We said a million times more open. Admittedly a bit stretched but nowhere does 1 million x = 100%. Google has paid for and supported more open source code in Summer of Code alone then Apple has touched. Android, VP8, Chrome and the rest are just icing on the cake. Quit making ridiculous interpretations of what other people have said.

Reply Score: 1

RE[3]: Disguise
by MysterMask on Fri 21st May 2010 18:50 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: Disguise"
MysterMask Member since:
2005-07-12

Gosh, a company about a million times more open than Apple


You don't get the Google business model, do you?

Of course, Google seems more open: that's simply the way they make money. Most of their business is build around providing (mostly third party) data to anybody for free (even in cases where the owner of the data does not approve). It doesn't matter for Google if they tie people to their services through their search engine, a software like Google Earth or a platform like Android. Just ask Google to provide their search algorithms, show their patents on acquiring user data, open up their data stores (not the data of others provided by Google Search but the data about you and me) to the public and look how open Google really is.


In the end, this is all about business*, it's not about freedom, not about openness, not about the best user experience or anything like that.


--
*) Google is actually bringing us a lot closer to an Orwellian future than any other company on this planet.

Reply Score: 2

RE[2]: Disguise
by testman on Thu 20th May 2010 23:37 UTC in reply to "RE: Disguise"
testman Member since:
2007-10-15

It's not a unique phenomenon; for a time, anything Apple, or Canonical-related was considered a free-pass as well whereas Microsoft were the Big Bad(tm) of the time. While a bit before OSN's time, Microsoft and IBM were darlings of the tech-enthusiast communities as well.

I'm willing to bet that in five years time, saying anything good about Google will also be an instant -1: Troll.

Reply Score: 6

RE: Disguise
by Shkaba on Thu 20th May 2010 23:29 UTC in reply to "Disguise"
Shkaba Member since:
2006-06-22

Google have done a lot of good things to change our life.

But I am really sick and tired of what they are disguising as a Open "Saint and Pioneer".

Just don't forget Google is a public company, which is all for profit. They invested 100M+ for a open video format, and they will get your money out of your pocket to pay for it in a lot of innovative ways.


I don't mind when they get a return on their investment. Redhat does, too. Does that make Redhat a bad citizen of opensource world?? NO! It is people who do not understand that the biggest "Free"in open source is free as in freedom, and not free as in free beer. Once you understand that concept, maybe and only maybe you will understand why is apple such a rotten fruit

Reply Score: 2

RE: Disguise
by stanroper on Fri 21st May 2010 01:18 UTC in reply to "Disguise"
stanroper Member since:
2005-07-22

I've recently become sick and tired of Google. I guess it started after that Google Buzz nightmare. I've kept a MobileMe account for while and decided to move to it. I managed to get all my email, calendars and contacts moved over to Apple. Apple isn't trying to use my personal information for profit (yet).

I used to be a huge fan of the Google stuff. That went away. Often with this tech stuff I'm slightly ahead of the curve so I wonder if many more are about to leave Google. I've even been using Bing lately.

Reply Score: 2

RE: Disguise
by lemur2 on Mon 24th May 2010 13:16 UTC in reply to "Disguise"
lemur2 Member since:
2007-02-17

Google have done a lot of good things to change our life.

But I am really sick and tired of what they are disguising as a Open "Saint and Pioneer".

Just don't forget Google is a public company, which is all for profit. They invested 100M+ for a open video format, and they will get your money out of your pocket to pay for it in a lot of innovative ways.


The positive PR alone is worth 100M+ to Google, let alone freedom from the risk of MPEG LA being in control of Google's permission to serve video.

Reply Score: 2

Comment by Netfun81
by Netfun81 on Thu 20th May 2010 22:56 UTC
Netfun81
Member since:
2008-03-25

It's much easier to copy something that is already made than innovate. Apple is innovative even though closed. I don't think of google or microsoft as innovative. Apple changed the music and phone markets. All I see from the competition is apple want-a-be's

Reply Score: 2

iPhone on Verizon
by Babi Asu on Thu 20th May 2010 23:04 UTC
Babi Asu
Member since:
2006-02-11

will ruin them all to the ground. Android can shovel users with BOGO, but once iPhone is on Verizon, BOGO is useless.

Reply Score: 1

RE: iPhone on Verizon
by robojerk on Thu 20th May 2010 23:35 UTC in reply to "iPhone on Verizon"
robojerk Member since:
2006-01-10

iPhone on Verizon will ruin them all to the ground. Android can shovel users with BOGO, but once iPhone is on Verizon, BOGO is useless.

I'll take your bait.

iPhone on Verizon is still a rumor.

I do agree that sheeple will flock to the iPhone if that does happen. Let's face it, you're just not cool if you're not sporting that apple logo. Your street cred can't afford take that kind of hit.

I bought an Apple sticker to attach to my Droid so I can get a good sense of self worth when people see it and just assume I have an iPhone, even though I know I'm a rebel going against the herd.

Reply Score: 2

RE[2]: iPhone on Verizon
by Babi Asu on Fri 21st May 2010 00:38 UTC in reply to "RE: iPhone on Verizon"
Babi Asu Member since:
2006-02-11


I'll take your bait.

iPhone on Verizon is still a rumor.

The strong one, and likely to be happened this year.


I do agree that sheeple will flock to the iPhone if that does happen. Let's face it, you're just not cool if you're not sporting that apple logo. Your street cred can't afford take that kind of hit.

Someone managed to put Android on iPhone, but it's useless.


I bought an Apple sticker to attach to my Droid so I can get a good sense of self worth when people see it and just assume I have an iPhone, even though I know I'm a rebel going against the herd.

Just by attaching Apple sticker can't fix ugly interface.

Reply Score: 2

RE[3]: iPhone on Verizon
by robojerk on Fri 21st May 2010 01:37 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: iPhone on Verizon"
robojerk Member since:
2006-01-10

"iPhone on Verizon is still a rumor.

The strong one, and likely to be happened this year.
"It's still a rumor, and has been for some time.
"I do agree that sheeple will flock to the iPhone if that does happen. Let's face it, you're just not cool if you're not sporting that apple logo. Your street cred can't afford take that kind of hit.

Someone managed to put Android on iPhone, but it's useless.
"What would be cool if someone ported Windows to the Droid, I would be way uber cool then.
"I bought an Apple sticker to attach to my Droid so I can get a good sense of self worth when people see it and just assume I have an iPhone, even though I know I'm a rebel going against the herd.

Just by attaching Apple sticker can't fix ugly interface.
"What will fix the fact that you can't sense sarcasm?

Reply Score: 2

RE[3]: iPhone on Verizon
by rhetoric.sendmemoney on Fri 21st May 2010 01:40 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: iPhone on Verizon"
rhetoric.sendmemoney Member since:
2006-01-22

I'll take your bait.


+Me too! Me too!


Someone managed to put Android on iPhone, but it's useless.


+PLEEEAAASE, do explain! How is it useless? I just have to know.

Just by attaching Apple sticker can't fix ugly interface.

+ I am going to TOTALLY take your word on it. Really, I am. Your opinions on the aesthetics are in no way shaped by the iTard club card in your back pocket is it? No? Didn't think so.

Reply Score: 2

RE[3]: iPhone on Verizon
by tupp on Fri 21st May 2010 03:37 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: iPhone on Verizon"
tupp Member since:
2006-11-12

Just by attaching Apple sticker can't fix ugly interface.

Agreed. The Iphone and OSX perfectly demonstrate this assertion.

Reply Score: 2

RE[4]: iPhone on Verizon
by Babi Asu on Fri 21st May 2010 04:43 UTC in reply to "RE[3]: iPhone on Verizon"
Babi Asu Member since:
2006-02-11

"Just by attaching Apple sticker can't fix ugly interface.

Agreed. The Iphone and OSX perfectly demonstrate this assertion.
"

Arguments from Android shills really laughable, mostly come from jealousy.

Reply Score: 2

From Iphone to Android
by robertjasoncross on Thu 20th May 2010 23:24 UTC
robertjasoncross
Member since:
2010-05-20

I just left AT&T and Apple once my iPhone 3G was stolen last week. Neither would brick the phone. Instead, giving me a plethora of excuses and using the event as a chance to get me to sign for another two years. After the consistent dropped calls and gps mapping issues (No, I am not on the highway. Actually, I am 10 blocks away - really frustrating when trying to get directions from "current location" with your phone making your location more than a mile away...useless) with my phone I decided to pay the buyout and head to Verizon.

That is the best thing that I have done in response to the theft. The Droid is amazing. Much more flexibility in how one uses their device. Helix, Launcher Pro, Dolphin, GPS is sick, SSH, etc...it IS a computer...not a consumer toy. The folders are great and Launcher pro ads the few extra home pages I was used to. Nice to not have to scroll endlessly to get to an app.

I could go on and on about the Android 2.1 over the iphone 3g...I am looking forward 2.2 and 2.3

Reply Score: 3

No mention of the fragmentation issue?
by nt_jerkface on Fri 21st May 2010 06:32 UTC
nt_jerkface
Member since:
2009-08-26

I guess Thom was too busy handing out brownie points to mention an issue that has been causing problems for android developers.

http://techcrunch.com/2010/04/30/only-27-3-of-android-phones-can-us...

My post on it
http://www.jfplayhouse.com/2010/05/google-brings-linux-fragmentatio...

Reply Score: 2

Google makes money!!!
by applefox on Mon 24th May 2010 23:09 UTC
applefox
Member since:
2010-05-24

For those of you who keep saying that Google's main purpose is to make money WHAT A SHOCKER!!! OMG a company wants to make money!!! No way! I could write a whole new article on how amazing it is that a company wants to make money!!! Of course Google wants to make money... Otherwise they would not exist!The thing is they have a BUNCH of opensource programs that help the technology world. This shows that they are not just greedy... Apple as far as I know has every thing closed source. Their secrecy is like they are a freeken bio-warfare company or something...

Reply Score: 1