Linked by Thom Holwerda on Wed 26th Feb 2014 23:20 UTC
PDAs, Cellphones, Wireless

Samsung has such a large presence at Mobile World Congress that it doesn't just have one giant booth; there are also several smaller ones scattered around the show halls. While the main booth exclusively shows Android phones and the biggest product of the show was the Android-based Galaxy S5, one of the most important areas for Samsung is a small booth tucked away in the last hall of MWC: a Tizen booth. Here, in the "App Planet" section of Mobile World Congress, Samsung has actual Tizen phones on display - phones with an OS that is fully under Samsung's control. Samsung's choice between Android and Tizen is one of the more interesting stories in tech right now, so when we stumbled upon this booth, we immediately grabbed our cameras and started snapping.

Two things stand out while reading the linked article and watching the video. First, just how unremarkable it all looks and functions. It could easily be mistaken for a Samsung Android device if you squint a bit. This is, perhaps, not surprising, considering the TouchWiz influences. Second, and perhaps more surprisingly, just how snappy, complete, and ready-to-go it all seems to be. Despite the obviously sparse application store, this could easily be sold to consumers right now.

I wonder what the future will hold for Tizen. I'm sure the recent agreements between Google and Samsung preclude the operating system from actually shipping on prominent devices, but I wonder if such a moratorium also applies to limited availability phones and tablets in specific markets.

Order by: Score:
Please credit who you are quoting
by jockm on Thu 27th Feb 2014 00:05 UTC
jockm
Member since:
2012-12-22

Thom—

Instead of just giving us an unattributed quote, I personally feel you should cite your source. Right now one has to find the link and then find out.

While I think almost everything from Ars Technica is high quality, I have a much more mixed option of The Verge, for example. Who you quote matters, and you should be sharing that with us.

I also personally think it is also the ethical thing to do.

Reply Score: 2

Thom_Holwerda Member since:
2005-06-29

But this is the web... The link is the attribution... We have done it this way since 1997. This is ethical on the web.

Reply Score: 5

jockm Member since:
2012-12-22

Cite your source (no pun intended). Because when I look at Ars, the Verge, Medium, etc they all are citing their sources upfront, letting me, the reader, decide the context of the post.

I have many many problems with John Gruber's Daring Fireball, but he is scrupulous about attribution; and he is right to.

Edited 2014-02-27 01:56 UTC

Reply Score: 4

Drumhellar Member since:
2005-07-12

It'd be one thing if it was an article that Thom wrote. In that case, it'd be appropriate to cite the source immediately, as well as provide context for the quote.

But, this purely a link to an article with a minimal amount of commentary. The link is the reason for the post.

Reply Score: 2

Morgan Member since:
2005-06-29

Here's the thing: The quote that you have an issue with is presented visually as a quote, with the link embedded in it. Thom's commentary is below in a normal paragraph. This is a standard way of doing things since before OSNews was a thing. Slashdot.org is probably the best and oldest example, but there are hundreds more among the most popular websites out there. Are you going on each of those websites (assuming you visit them) and telling them how to present their news to fit your own personal preference? I don't mean to sound snarky, but you've obviously got a nit to pick and I just wonder how selective it is.

Reply Score: 2

jockm Member since:
2012-12-22

I'm not on a crusade, but it especially bugs me here on OSNews.

Slashdot is a little difference since the posts there are, to a large degree, from the people who submit them. Those individuals should be giving attribution, and I think /. should be adding it, but I can at least see an argument it is up to the individual submitter.

On OSNews, it is Thom's show, and even the submissions may be heavily edited or completely rewritten. At which point I think Thom should be held to the standard of sites like The Verge, Medium, et al

Reply Score: 2

Morgan Member since:
2005-06-29

On OSNews, it is Thom's show, and even the submissions may be heavily edited or completely rewritten.


If you're implying that he's paraphrasing or rewriting the quote, you're simply wrong. The quote is pulled from the source article verbatim, with a link embedded; occasionally the quote is shortened using an ellipsis for brevity's sake, but the full article is a click away. Once again, I (and apparently much of the rest of the Internet) have no issue with that format. You do, so it certainly does sound like you're tilting at windmills here.

Speaking of The Verge, I just looked at a few of their short items, and they all seem to be in the same format as this OS News item. If your only complaint is that there isn't a completely redundant "Source: XXXX" button at the bottom...well, I'd say you should get out of the house more often. There's a whole world of more important things to be angry about.


Edit: I thought I hadn't seen your name around here either. I see you've just joined the site a couple of years ago. I find it baffling that you'd come to a site that's been around since the late 90s and start telling the editor how to run it. That alone tells me you're either trolling or you need to learn about netiquette yourself.

Edited 2014-02-27 19:07 UTC

Reply Score: 2

jockm Member since:
2012-12-22

I said submissions, not quotes.

Also just because I didn't start commenting doesn't mean I didn't read the site. I started reading the site in '98 or '99.

Edited 2014-02-27 19:37 UTC

Reply Score: 2

_xmv Member since:
2008-12-09

theres a fucking direct link, i don't know what you're complaining about

Reply Score: 2

jockm Member since:
2012-12-22

I wrote a long post filled with references to how to attribute quotes in journalism, articles, essays, academia, etc. And just before I submitted it I decided that was the wrong tack.

Instead I am going to challenge Thom and everyone else who agrees with him to give me references to style guides, essays on style, guides to attributions, advice on internet content, etc that support Thom's assertion above:

The link is the attribution... We have done it this way since 1997. This is ethical on the web.


I am not interested in logical arguments, anecdotes, or Thom citing precedent. If Thom is write that the link is attribution then it has been written about, it has been argued and agreed, it isn't just something you know it is something you can cite.

And I think you are going to be hard pressed to make your case this way.

Reply Score: 2

pandronic Member since:
2006-05-18

That's nonsense. Just follow the link and see where it goes.

Reply Score: 4

tkeith Member since:
2010-09-01


While I think almost everything from Ars Technica is high quality, I have a much more mixed option of The Verge, for example.


6 months ago I would have agreed with you, but lately Ars Quality has gone downhill fast. When a writer lashes out at a Android engineer and tries to defend something that is proven inaccurate it does not look good.

Reply Score: 2

jockm Member since:
2012-12-22

Which argues my point: We should see where the quote is coming from. Not just because I believe it is ethical, but because it gives us, the readers, context for the quote.

Where the quote is coming from is important, and it should just be our job to find out.

Reply Score: 2

Thom_Holwerda Member since:
2005-06-29

Which argues my point: We should see where the quote is coming from. Not just because I believe it is ethical, but because it gives us, the readers, context for the quote.

Where the quote is coming from is important, and it should just be our job to find out.


Mouse-over. Tap/hold. Deal with it.

Reply Score: 2

jockm Member since:
2012-12-22

Thom—

First off, as the guy who runs this site: was that tone really called for? I am trying to argue a point, can't we all be civil here?

Secondly, since when has seeing the link communicated clearly exactly where the link is coming from exactly, who wrote it, and when it was published?

Reply Score: 2

Morgan Member since:
2005-06-29

Secondly, since when has seeing the link communicated clearly exactly where the link is coming from exactly, who wrote it, and when it was published?


You mean like this, from The Verge, who you have been holding up as a shining example?

http://www.theverge.com/2014/2/26/5451124/the-boston-marathon-tight...


Notice the distinct lack of information on who wrote the Boston Globe piece, and when it was published. Nope, just a fancy button saying it was The Boston Globe, redundant as there was already a direct link in the writeup. Here's a screenshot in case you need help:

https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/25513251/verge.png

Boom. Your argument is invalid. Troll somewhere else please.

Reply Score: 3

jockm Member since:
2012-12-22

You are right, I should have double checked the verge before I gave them as an example, but they do cite their source to at least some degree — unlike OSnew which does not provide any] attribution at all.

But being wrong that they don't list all three things I mentioned (as a good citation should) doesn't mean that somehow invalidates my argument

I don't like being called a troll, especially since I don't think I have said anything uncivil or untrue. Even when I brought up ethics I said it was my opinion. It is you and Thom that have had (as I read it) the harsh tones.

But I see you haven't attempted to rise to my challenge (http://www.osnews.com/thread?583643) elsewhere in this thread that asked people to find me a reference to any style guide, etc that says that a link alone is acceptable attribution.

Reply Score: 2

jockm Member since:
2012-12-22

Apologies for the formatting error

Reply Score: 2

Morgan Member since:
2005-06-29

You moved the goalposts, a classic troll tactic. First you said simple attribution, then you asked for attribution along with who wrote the post and when. If it barks like a dog, it's a dog. If it trolls like a troll, it's a troll. I even tried to engage you in an on-topic conversation below, and you ignore that, to focus instead on your crusade; yet another troll tactic. I'm done feeding you.

Reply Score: 2

Comment by agnus
by agnus on Thu 27th Feb 2014 09:08 UTC
agnus
Member since:
2006-05-10

"Despite the obviously sparse application store, this could easily be sold to consumers right now."

It could and it might be a fine OS but it won't posse a threat to android because it is the "Samsung OS". I can't see other manufacturers adopting it soon.

Reply Score: 4

RE: Comment by agnus
by bnolsen on Thu 27th Feb 2014 23:50 UTC in reply to "Comment by agnus"
bnolsen Member since:
2006-01-06

Does samsung currently pay microsoft for every android unit shipped? That might be enough for them to want to ship this for low-end phones.

Reply Score: 3

Why does SS bother with Touch Wiz
by Lobotomik on Thu 27th Feb 2014 09:22 UTC
Lobotomik
Member since:
2006-01-03

It offers mostly nothing over standard Android, and most of what it adds are nothing but uglifications, or small changes in functionality that are hardly ever improvemets. I have a Nexus 7 and a GS4, and the interfaces are largely identical, save for some small differences that are slightly confusing when switching from one to the other.

It is said they use TouchWiz to be able to provide a common appearance with other Samsung devices that are not Android, but why not simply give these other devices the Android look?

Not to talk about the cartload of crapware they add, providing absolutely no value, often installed in parallel with Google's alternative, never uninstallable. Two browsers, two calendars, two voice recorders, I don't know how many messengers and picture galleries, two voice input systems... And that's before Vodafone starts adding their own crap. And all continually crying for updates.

I'd love to root my GS4 and start uninstalling junk, but it is a corporate unit, and I don't think I would get away with it. But I gave my father for his birthday a Moto G, and boy, is it cleaner!

Reply Score: 3

tkeith Member since:
2010-09-01

People don't like change. Samsung has built up a customer base that is familiar Touchwiz. They may not like it, but they are "used to" it, and changing it might make more people angry than you think. For a huge number of customers it's not extra or different, it is a part of their "Galaxy" phone. They don't know what Android really is, they just want a smart phone. It's the same reason Apple stuck with their skeuomorphism for so long.

Reply Score: 3

Lobotomik Member since:
2006-01-03

But the point is that there is hardly anything to get used to with Touchwiz! It is roughly the same, only a little uglier, only a little worse. It feels like it were an older, less polished version of Android rather than a special thing that merits its own name.

Reply Score: 3

competition
by swift11 on Thu 27th Feb 2014 14:26 UTC
swift11
Member since:
2012-08-23

I hope we'll have a non-US OS very soon. We need competition, certainly not a Google monopoly on mobile.

Edited 2014-02-27 14:43 UTC

Reply Score: 2

RE: competition
by jockm on Thu 27th Feb 2014 18:52 UTC in reply to "competition"
jockm Member since:
2012-12-22

Is Linux a "US OS"? I am not trying to suggest it is or isn't. It always seemed like a OS of the world to me. It wasn't originally authored in the US, and it has contributors worldwide.

Nor do I, personally see the country of origin of an OS as mattering, but then I do live in the US and don't share the perspective you do.

Reply Score: 2

RE[2]: competition
by Morgan on Thu 27th Feb 2014 20:18 UTC in reply to "RE: competition"
Morgan Member since:
2005-06-29

Is Linux a "US OS"?


No, it's a kernel. GNU/Linux is an OS, built by people all over the world. Android is an OS, built by Google in the US. Tizen is an OS, built by Samsung in Korea. So to answer what I think you're asking: Yes, Android comes from the US.

Reply Score: 3

RE[3]: competition
by Lobotomik on Fri 28th Feb 2014 07:41 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: competition"
Lobotomik Member since:
2006-01-03

Do you mean Gnu/X/Qt/Redhat/Debian/Ubuntu/.../Linux? One has to be careful with proper attribution...
;-)

Reply Score: 2

RE[4]: competition
by Morgan on Fri 28th Feb 2014 18:41 UTC in reply to "RE[3]: competition"
Morgan Member since:
2005-06-29

Ha! :-)

Reply Score: 2

RE[2]: competition
by swift11 on Fri 28th Feb 2014 00:30 UTC in reply to "RE: competition"
swift11 Member since:
2012-08-23

I don't want a Google, Apple or Microsoft phone. A Linux Foundation OS - Tizen Association combo is interesting imo.

Reply Score: 2

Google
by swift11 on Thu 27th Feb 2014 17:21 UTC
swift11
Member since:
2012-08-23

"I'm sure the recent agreements between Google and Samsung preclude the operating system from actually shipping on prominent devices" Google will certainly never talk about other OSs with Samsung. Would be unacceptable for any OEM.

Reply Score: 1