FWIW: In iOS, all icons are varying size, just they have that little border around it forcing all sizes to feel identical. Its a good trick.
BTW He forgot to mention: Why is it that on every fucking device out there the back button and menu button are placed in different locations? Like samsung = right, htc = left, google = left, samsung's evil twin = in the middle of the screen.
Problem he is not addressing is that using an android maker to make android-like phones and trick people into a fragmented market is a problem. Furthermore, those without the true android os, will be disappointed citing how android sucks. They need to protect their image. It's either full android or go home.
You have to balance "don't be evil" with "this product needs xyz to survive or the competitor (apple) will murder us in the market."
Hence google's new strategy to patent everything and their mothers to protect themselves.
Don't forget, unlike windows, LOCKING a mac is not easy. The only way I know is to use the lock command of Alfred. In windows: Windows + L = lock boom. Because of this, most people in the office leave their macs unsecured.
TBH, these numbers pale in comparison. I don't care if FF is a few instructions faster than Chrome. It's good competition. Chrome and IE both have multi-process capabilities which make the whole experience significantly better. FF has yet to catch up to that.
Multi-process architectures do not guarantee fluidity. In the case of more than 15 tabs, Firefox nightly is more responsive on my laptop than Chrome Canary. YMMV
What about IE being multi-process makes the experience with that browser better? Without specificity, this is like me saying X is better than Y because of some attribute of X that Y does not have.
You miss the point. The poor SOB ship won't even know it. It would be a submarine that attaches itself in Japan to a ship known to head to the US. Or mid-rout. And that's that. In the US, we have a small ship waiting for the cargo sending a signal to wake it up and detach.
The beauty of current AI is that the compartment can be set to notice divers nearby and "walk" to the other side of the hull. Since sonar can't pick up small attached objects, boom you got yourself the equivalent of a smuggling bed bug. The crew can be all detained while this happens because they are not in on it.
The only issue would be noise made if you have listener crews. That one would be tough to solve. That's why you attach yourself to large boats, not to small smuggle ships.
We must see the first step. He is trying to stop the bleeding. My guess is that the signs are there that the bleeding has started, it just hasn't hit mainstream yet.
I am always wiery of these maneuvers because they can swing both ways. I must say, good for the CEO to response; smart man who realizes the company is going to get hit, hard, and soon.
The only question left is: to trust or not to trust?
Let's see if PP makes any official announcements on policy to combat this.
> The only question left is: to trust or not to trust?
RTFE. This entire thread is basically regurgitating what was already said in the email. It already says they hope to win back trust, but with action, not words. To trust or not to trust?
Email makes that very clear: wait and see what they do.
To be honest, I knew this was going to happen. Apple made the lawsuit against samsung, but google has a big BIG bomb to throw: Map Reduce. If google whips out map reduce, apple is screwed. Basically without it apple will be VERY hard pressed to do business, it's techniques are used by many frameworks in the iphone. This would be the equivalent of the US throwing the a-bomb on japan. Apple being japan.
Apple, with googarolla's lawsuit, may have actually realized just how big of a bear they hit.
Now, I sure hope the dispute ends, BUT as yequalsx points out this is a dangerous slope. While I don't believe they will form a patent cartel, a 4th party trying to create a new mobile os will be in danger. While google won't sue, Applesoft might.
> it's techniques are used by many frameworks in the iphone.
Can you elaborate, or point to some further reading? I don't know that much about MapReduce or the iPhone, and I definitely don't know what kinds of patent Google holds related to MapReduce, but isn't MapReduce a framework for breaking up work to be done in a distributed fashion and then collating results? Is anything like that actually used in the iPhone?
I know what the functions "map" and "reduce" do, but those weren't invented by Google, and MR is only kind of related to them, from what I've read.
The concepts that MapReduce uses were being discussed at least as early as the 90s. My parallel programming module in 1995 had a section on parallelizing programs using map and reduce functions so there is enough prior art on the concepts to make any patent defense on the general concepts difficult if not impossible.
Also interesting, as I said I don't know much about it or the patents involved. The parent of my comment claimed the iPhone contained something that infringed on MapReduce patents, that was the thing I was questioning.
The whole "patents kill new entrants" idea has kind of been exploded by the fact that two companies that didn't make phone OS's 6 years ago and didn't have a lot of mobile IP now have close to 90% of the market.
Apple bought up several companies that did have relevant patents and technology. Google did the same thing.
In the age of nuclear patents, you either have to have tons of money to license patents, buy companies that own patents, or successfully be granted patents.
Why do I need tons of money to be granted a patent? Or license? What hypothetical new entrant to commercial scale phone design and manufacturing doesn't have any money?
It might sound better but it doesn't align with the fact that not only Apple and Google are new entrants but the field is flooded with more competition then ever before.
Apple blasted open the gates at the carriers and now the writing is on the wall: build a better mousetrap and they will come. Android/linux is a set of cheap building blocks.
I certainly meant it in the most positive way. I'm a big iOS fan but I'm also a big Android fan. To say that Microsoft, Apple and Google are are going to shut out new entrants misses the fact that Android is mostly open sourced and ideal for new entrants like Xioami and Amazon to build on.
Phones have become more and more like computers over those 6 years (and this trend was obvious before that). Apple isn't a newcomer to the computer market (and their earlier history is serving them well - many of the patents they're using aggressively come from the 90s).
On the other hand, Google is a relative newcomer and it has been an issue for them (so much so that they eventually decided to buy one of the older players for their patents).
Android FTW. I know this pops up constantly, but this is EXACTLY the reason I advocate for android. This sort of shit does not fly there. Apple has the ability to censor which even the government can't and worse is that it's fully legal.
I really wish people would take these stories as a sign that we need to focus on the android market.
FWIW: I am not advocating for the baby & bathwater argument. I think we must focus on android because it will put market pressure on apple to have a more fair/just approval process.
Even if both Google's and Amazon's app stores reject an app, there are still other markets. And you can just download APKs from websites/ftp/etc and install them to your android, no market required.
That is until all the three (Apple, Google and Microsoft) decides to only allow installs from the maketplace, you know for "security" reasons. The problem is if one company gets away with it, others follow suit.
I doubt that very much- Android has the perfect middle ground right now. Only installs from approved sources, but has a checkbox in the settings that basically allows you to say "I know what I'm doing, let me do whatever I want". I doubt they'll change that.
> "People can just sideload the OS" is not a feasible answer here.
Well, it's not feasible as long as bootloaders remain encrypted/non-unlockable. That's the problem with restricting the software that can run on hardware after the user has purchased the hardware and owns it.
People will just buy different Android phones from someone else.
We've already been through this. AT&T (uniquely among US carriers, I believe) blocked non-Market applications on all of their devices. The success of the Amazon Appstore forced them to change that policy.
It's not a very effective defense of Apple to say, "Yeah, Google's phones and tablets don't currently have the same central, fundamental limitation that all Apple's iOS devices do, but someday they probably will."
The same way chromium has become obsolete with chrome becoming less and less open-source. The same goes with MySQL. In case of android, most consumers will deal with what the manufacturers decides to put on their phones and less than 1% will resort to installing another O/S. Keep in mind even with Android you are forced to register a Google account. What if you din't want to use Google or worst case, they ban you from their network?
The point is, just because something is open-source now doesn't mean it will remain that way in the future.
It was a combination of FUD and objective falsehood. You presented no evidence that Google intends to close off Android source, and Android doesn't force users to create or use a Google account.
> You presented no evidence that Google intends to close off Android source.
You are right, but the statement was meant to be more of a what-if situation and not a it is. Either-ways we all can agree that based on the past events that it is not in Google's priority list to keep the open-source community updated:
>and Android doesn't force users to create or use a Google account.
If so, could you tell me how I could use an android phone without setting up a Google account? The first screen to hit you when you switch on a brand new android phone is the Google Login/Signup screen.
Every Android device I've ever set up (all the way back to the G1) has a skip button on that same screen. You're free to hit that and never associate a Google account with that device (and get your apps from Amazon, etc.).
Not really. The competition between Amazon and Google (and other app stores overseas) has made selling an Android device tied to a single app store untenable. For example, the volume of customer complaints about the Amazon Appstore even forced AT&T to give up on blocking non-Market applications.
While this is true, security is a massive concern. Just look at how many malicious apps were in the Android store just last year, vs. in the Apple store.
Maybe I'm being harsh, but if someone downloads a clearly sketchy looking app (DOWNLOAD FREE MP3S) I have no sympathy for them when it ends up being malicious.
Just like I wouldn't pick up a candy bar off the street and eat it, I wouldn't download a disreputable looking app. Common sense.
> Maybe I'm being harsh, but if someone downloads a clearly sketchy looking app (DOWNLOAD FREE MP3S) I have no sympathy for them when it ends up being malicious.
Yes you're being harsh. Kids use smartphones. And while some of them are really the clever "digital natives" we were promised, a lot of them also are not.
Similar reasoning goes for my mother (62) who is very good with computers compared to others of her generation, indeed smart enough to not trust "DOWNLOAD FREE MP3s!", but still if she were to be tricked by something that might seem real obvious to us, there will be loads of sympathy. (And also a lot of fist-shaking at the unknown malware pusher that got my mom)
Regardless, I wouldn't recommend them iOS. It's a good learning experience even if you get burned and keeps you in a feeling of control and responsibility and freedom.
Maybe my grandmother. There's some bitter irony in the term "walled garden" there, though.
As long as the full ramifications of said decisions are clear, sure, allow people to make their own. But it's not possible to know at a glance what Android app is malicious and which is not. Even an application that looks legitimate and works legitimately may steal your data behind the curtain without you knowing, which is what usually happens anyway. This is why an approval process for the app store is good. It's true that Apple's is a bit draconian, but that's because they care about protecting their users. I'm okay with this even if that protection borders on sheltering.
So would you agree that Mountain Lion's Gatekeeper is insufficient, and that Apple should lock down Macs in the same way? If not, what's the difference?
It's true that Apple's is a bit draconian, but that's because they care about protecting their users.
I think it's up to Apple whether they want to make updates to their OS that lock it down like iOS.
I think it would be a clear mistake for them to do it now.
I also think eventually there is little doubt they will do it but we're at least 3-4 years away from that.
What does "should" even mean here? For Apple's best interest or your's and mine? Clearly Apple should buy us all ponies for xmas, it's not like they can't afford it. Man, who doesn't want a free pony?
>I also think eventually there is little doubt they will do it but we're at least 3-4 years away from that.
I certainly hope not. I'm fine with them "locking down" phones and tablets. These are appliances and I can't put Android on my toaster either (well, maybe it's possible). But a computer is something totally different. They can have it locked down by default but they have to always provide a way for power users to do whatever they want. The day they lock down Mac OSX the way their appliances are locked down is the day that every developer who uses them now to have a unix with a decent UI is going to leave.
If it looks legitimately and works legitimately it will pass the App store review and steal your data on iOS too. This already happened. And it is impossible for the App store reviewers to find all apps that do this. Even if they had the source code they would still need very skilled people to find malicious apps if someone tried to hide the maliciousness. This problem will never be solved. Even with a review process.
Weird that I agree with all three parents at once (no pun intended).
Grownups can make their own life choices to some extent, but society everywhere forbids certain behaviours and activities.
An OS with a software distribution platform that tries to prevent the average user from making mistakes, and that attempts to prevent malicious activity while avoiding being overly restrictive seems a good model.
Not a bad shout for government as well.
App store == France, Marketplace == UK, Play == US?
I'd love to live in a world where winning arguments are met with seeing your enemies driven before you and the lamentation of the womenfolk instead of moving goalposts but here we are.
"grownups are allowed to make their own choices"
Apple didn't force anyone to buy an iphone. It's always been a curated app market. Grownups should take responsibility for their decisions. If you want a wild west app market you should not buy iOS products and that has always been the case.
After Apple has sued the top three Android OEMs in the US (Samsung, HTC and Motorola) and more competitors overseas that statement rings more than a little hollow.
Are Android phones not on sale in every telco store and kiosk where you live? Seems like a strawman argument. We all have choices:
You can buy Apple and use the iOS app store, you can buy Apple and jailbreak, you can buy dozens of different Android phones and use a number of different Android stores many of which are curated beyond what Apple does, you can buy WP7 and use that store (also heavily curated), you can buy a Blackberry and use that store (also curated), etc.
Everyone knows why Samsung got sued, even Google told them to change their design. Motorola sued Apple first and Apple sued HTC first. Nokia sued everyone before any of that but somehow only Apple is the big bad that's taken away everyone's ability to buy non-Apple phones.
On a similar line of argument: "How many blocked apps were in the App Store? A few? A dozen? Thats a pretty good ratio out of the hundreds of thousands available."
The free bird leaps
on the back of the win
and floats downstream
till the current ends
and dips his wings
in the orange sun rays
and dares to claim the sky.
But a bird that stalks
down his narrow cage
can seldom see through
his bars of rage
his wings are clipped and
his feet are tied
so he opens his throat to sing.
The caged bird sings
with fearful trill
of the things unknown
but longed for still
and is tune is heard
on the distant hillfor the caged bird
sings of freedom
The free bird thinks of another breeze
an the trade winds soft through the sighing trees
and the fat worms waiting on a dawn-bright lawn
and he names the sky his own.
But a caged bird stands on the grave of dreams
his shadow shouts on a nightmare scream
his wings are clipped and his feet are tied
so he opens his throat to sing
The caged bird sings
with a fearful trill
of things unknown
but longed for still
and his tune is heard
on the distant hill
for the caged bird
sings of freedom.
Part of the problem with the app store is a chilling effect - people don't even try to make controversial apps if they run a large risk of being blocked.
Perhaps you could look at the number of apps in Cydia, since the primary reason to put an app on Cydia is that it does something that would be blocked in the App store. I couldn't find an actual figure but simple searches on the Cydia store show > 35,000 results. I'd say that's much higher than the number of truly malicious Android apps that made it into Google's store and lasted any length of time there.
I actually would've thought the MS Windows Phone App Store would be even more fertile ground. Not sure how stringent their policies are, but a quick Google search only turned up a rejected Twitter content scraping app which was rejected.
Not to mention if anybody needs more apps, its the Windows Phone App store.
The WP store is a little more relaxed than the iOS app store - but - it still doesn't have any way to sideload any apps, which means it's still up to Microsoft, a single central entity, to decide what apps you can install on your device. The same is true for any Metro apps.
No it doesn't. You have to register your phone as one of three with your developer program account which is 79$ per year. The difference to iOS is that your phone is then unlocked for every other developers app signature.
Yeah, as far as I know, the Windows Phone Store certification policies are pretty lax (not sure if that’s reflected in their official terms or their implementation of them; I’m guessing it’s the latter). The only times I hear of apps being rejected or pulled seem to in cases of trademark infringement; and, even-then, only if the infringed-upon company requests them to do so..
I saw this play-out with Vimeo apps not too long ago. Prior to the company launching their (really nice btw) official app there were a few a third-party clients which used the Vimeo name and logo; since then, they've all rebranded or disappeared (I’m guessing at the request of Vimeo to avoid confusion).
Other than that, pretty much everything else seems to fly (I’m guessing security issues and serious bugs that come-up during review aside). This is all anecdotal (I don’t work at Microsoft or review apps for certification) but I’d be pretty shocked if they blocked an app like this.
Anyways, it looks pretty cool, maybe if iOS certification doesn’t go over the dev can port it to WP. For simpler apps (no offense here) I’ve heard it’s fairly quick work and involves a lot less on the testing/optimizing for 1,000+ device SKUs (Android) front.
BTW He forgot to mention: Why is it that on every fucking device out there the back button and menu button are placed in different locations? Like samsung = right, htc = left, google = left, samsung's evil twin = in the middle of the screen.