809 posts • joined 10 Apr 2007
Re: or the rather more sophisticated gold ..... 5S.
Well, the the word "sophisticated" was originally meant as an insult, meaning superficial, false, decadent, impure and/or morally corrupted*
Also of relevance to the racial diversity of Apple's advertising, the word was also briefly used as a racial slur for someone whose skin wasn't appropriately white, and took from there it's meaning of "tainted by travel, or contact with foreign places and people". When being widely-travelled or foreign became an interesting and desirable thing, the word stopped being an insult.
* = compare with "sophistry", which still retains that meaning. It was ultimately a derogatory reference to Sophia, the Greek goddess of wisdom and thus philosophers, "philo-Sophia" being the love of wisdom.
Re: All hail LG, king of pointless gimmicks
Uses? Signage and advertising. This isn't a domestic technology.
One application springs to mind immediately: in Continental Europe, a lot of advertising posters are attached to large-diameter pillars at street-corners (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Advertising_column).
Think of the demand for a digital advertising screen that could wrap around these.
Re: Blame game?
The missile launch site is unlikely to have been in an areal that had a lot of passers-by with smartphones. Anyone who was there was connected to those who fired it. As I understand it, this missile tracks its target by radar, which allows for the launch site to be a good distance away from "directly under the target".
Whoever launched the missile may have taken video of it - but I find it hard to believe that any well-disciplined military unit (as these separatists appear to be) would allow soldiers to take videos: if those soldiers were to be later captured, such videos could reveal the location of their units.
Any video of the crash is not politically damaging, because it is a fact, and impossible to deny anyway. What needs to be protected is the precise identity of the launcher.
Personally, I believe it was the separatists. The plane's heading would be consistent with having left a Ukranian base, although the altitude was completely wrong - inadequate training and inexperience accounts for the rest.
The Ukrainian forces had no military need to deploy this system in this area: as the separatists have no planes, there are no targets. It would be wasted effort and material. Additionally, it would open the risk of one of these systems being captured by the separatists, which would endanger future Ukrainian air raids on separatist positions. So why would they set up a launch site so close to their front line?
It was also of no benefit to Ukraine to down a civilian airliner, which would have been the only consequence of a Ukrainian unit targeting and firing on a plane travelling from the North-west. As a crude method to "get public opinion on-side" by painting the separatists as terrorists, it doesn't wash either -- in everywhere except Russia, public and government opinion is already on Ukraine's side.
Apple ditched Motorola, not IBM. Moto supplied the G1 (601) G2 (603),G3 (74x) and G4 (74xx) chips used in Apple products.
The only IBM part ever shipped in an Apple product was the PowerMac G5, a server chip pressed into desktop duties... with server cooling: a friend of mine who had one said he was glad he didn't have a cat, as he would be afraid that he might start a build just as said animal was walking past the front of the case, and be sucked through the machine to emerge as bloodied feline spaghetti from the back. Serious fans. And serious NOISE!
In the end, Motorola's concentration on embedded, while providing stellar power managment for Apple laptops, caused the PowerPC Macs to fall further and further behind Intel in raw performance, even when you took into account the "Megahertz Myth" (yes, Intel's pipelines were longer, but not that much longer)
What really killed PowerPC's prospects was the move to NeXT/MacOSX : this OS was built with gcc, a compiler that, despite the best efforts of some brilliant people at Apple, was structured around producing good x86 code, even if that meant sub-optimal code for other CPUs (several high-level optimisations were used that only make sense for Intel x86), so now not only was the OS on slower hardware, it was also not running very well optimised code..
IBM's strength these days is as a global IT solutions provider, not a parts maker... if there's any link between Apple and IBM, it will be here.
Re: "why change things that worked well?"
Folders, apparently, are coming in the first 8.1 update, if that helps.
Personally, I tend to remove apps I don't use, and pin ones I do to the start page on my Win8 tablet, so I'm not clamouring for folders. I do appreciate, however, that other people's habits are different.
Needing to break new ground all the time?
Well, this is what I'm considering to replace my now nearly four year old N8, so thanks for the review.
I'm interested in the comment that it's "more of the same". Well, there wasn't really anything lacking on the previous 925, so just an incremental update is enough. Apple's been treading water for a couple of years doing the same thing, and any of the latest Galaxy's "headline" features are just gimmicks (eye tracking??). I'd prefer effort spent on refining the core product functions rather than just throwing random apps at the wall and seeing which ones stick.
If audio and photo/video is "only slightly better", that does still put it at the top of the class (for audio in particular), even if the photos I've seen still fall short of the big-sensor N8 -- but the days when customers would accept a phone as fat as that camera required are long gone.
I'm very wary of specs comparisons across different operating systems - Some are meaningless (360dpi or 420dpi -- nobody cares, nobody can see it), and when it comes to CPU/RAM, Android has higher specifications for acceptable user experience than either iOS or Windows Phone, much as an SUV needs more power to match the 0~60 times of a small car. Also, the Indian no-name phone market has shown that while you can achieve a fantastic specsheet at a low, low price, it doesn't mean the thing will still be working properly in six months: there's more to a good product than the chipset. I don't think Nokia have ever released a phone with top computing specs; that's never been where they spend their money.
The major thing that is putting me off this phone is actually that the display is an active type with no dedicated memory, which means that Nokia's "Glance screen" won't work on it (basically, this is an always-on clock and notifications screen)..
Incidentally, Clove have this as £435 SIM-free pre-order with a £120 accessory bundle thrown in, which compares favourably with Andrew's £330 option of the 1530 option if you don't want such a large "phone"...
... is often plated with nickel to prevent scratching. (Titanium, like many other materials with high tensile strength, is soft and scratches very easily)
It is surprising that it's an Apple product, because Apple have experienced the issue of Nickel-allergies before, and should therefore know better than to make the same mistakes again. When they launched the 2001 PowerBook G4 with its pressed Titanium casework, there ware a lot of complaints of skin rashes due to this nickel plating used on the Ti panels (again, to "harden" them from scratching). The use of Ti on the palm-rest panel in particular resulted in the worst possible scenario as the user's palms and wrists constantly rubbed against the metal while typing.
Re: Just Pick One Language/Framework!
"apple was able to deliver a singular development environment build around good old Object C for both iOS and Mac OSX,"
ObjectiveC is common language, but the iOS and OSX APIs are not. They're similar in design, but the features are different for each API library. Higher up the stack, CocoaTouch and Cocoa are two related UI frameworks, but they're "compatible" only at the conceptual level.
Previous "web apps" systems did suck, because a. the browser script engines weren't good enough (and even now, Apple still holds back the performance of encapsulated HTML apps on iOS), and b. the browsers didn't (and don't) support the CSS3 and CSS4 object layout properties needed to produce user interfaces (e.g., dividing a div into equal sections, aligning items vertically, anchoring one object to another, etc... all trivial in Swing/QML/XAML/Cocoa but impossible on the current browser population.)
Squeezebox user here too... SB2 in the office, and a Touch in the livingroom, mainly bought because unlike the SB2 it'll accept 192k/24bit data.
I'm baffled by the point the author's trying to makie in this article, though. There's nothing here that "traditional" hi-fi didn't offer before (even multi-room); all that has changed is the length of the analogue path. Before, conversion was done centrally, and distribution was analogue high-current to passive speakers, now the "speakers" are actually receivers with DAC, amp and transducer all in one.
Also, the source end of things has been declining. AptX is a good codec... for portable speakers used for casual listening, but it's not exactly "high fidelity"..
Separates remains the best way to get the best sound (best being the sound that fits with your living space), but you need to buy carefully, and use your ears, not your reading eyes.
And if the author baulks at €1100 for a pair of headphones, he should stay away from Stax's line of electrostatic headphones (Stax.co.jp).
Somewhat intangible, but it's a feeling of how much time has been spent on the software. In the case of Mavericks, there are quite a few display glitches in the built-in apps (flickering, delayed updating of item content, etc). A package that was seeing attention from developers, these would be fixed, as such things are usually relatively simple to resolve.
It's a long time since I worked for Apple, but back then, their development processes were always quite open to developers taking on bugs and running with them, especially cosmetic and "fit and finish" issues. In Mavericks, I don't see signs that the developers were given that extra time, or alternatively, that they cared as much to get the product "right". Compared to the level of rework and finessing that you see in iOS builds, Mavericks looks "unloved": enough is being done to close the bugs, but no more.
I get the feeling that these days, to be assigned to "desktop" in Apple is not something developers want.
As a reference point, I also use Windows 8.1, and since the end of the Windows7 release cycle the Microsoft OS has moved ahead of OSX on "feeling solid"; truth be told, it's only Adobe Illustrator, Terminal and the *nix command suite that's keeping me on OSX these days. (the lack of Illustrator on Linux rules that out)
Re: not illegal
It can be illegal where the removal of links is an attempt to hide certain points of view that are competely legal to express, information about certain businesses that compete with Google or its partners, or information that is public interest to know.
For most web users, Google is the primary content index for the Internet. If something is not in Google, then it's not on the Internet, and can't be found.
I can guarantee you that if Google removed the term "Facebook" from its index, you would get a flurry of calls from your non-technical friends asking you if you knew Facebook was broken.
Google must play the role of a neutral deliverer of information, because as soon as they start to make editorial decisions, they lose the Safe Harbour protections they currently enjoy, and they become legally responsible for the accuracy and balance of the results they present.
Re: Actually, it's irrelevant for 90% of recorded music
"You see, Piet, I can call you Piet, right? ... Right, anyway you see Mr Mondriaan, we sort of smoothed out the lines on those prints, and we changed the red for blue, because, you know, it was cheaper, and this modern art, it's all imagination anyway, and you know, I think it looks pretty darned good like this..."
If 90% of modern music is indeed just sythetic sound manipulated into a dischordant, over-compressed, over-processed mush before the listener gets it, it is still vital that the replay equipment reproduce all of this noise, compression and mush accurately.
Because that's what it's meant to sound like.
The artist intended it to sound a particular way. You're free to like it or not, but it'd be better if you judged it on the basis of it being the sound they heard when they said "yes, go with that", rather than a loose approximation of it.
Re: What's the problem now?
" I'd hope you also wouldn't mind if taxis started 'auctioning' trips to the highest bidder - say on a rainy night as the bars empty or at the airport . . ."
Well, that's what happens with Uber. Because the service's pricing model is only based on demand and distance (in Uber's model the distance variable is constant for any given trip for A to B regardless of route taken), prices shoot up when demand increases.
This encourages drivers to only operate in high-demand periods and high-demand areas, which causes low-period prices to creep up too because of low supply, assuming there's any service at all in these areas and periods.
In one way, it's interesting to see how a "free" market would work in providing services; in another, it's dispiriting to see how badly a "free" market performs when it comes to providing a broad-based public service.
Re: There are cheaper, less environmentally harmful options.
Tesla Model S's had been driven 344 million miles with no deaths. And not just that, but no serious, permanent injuries.
Does that sound like a car that is unsafe
I have no particular reason to believe Teslas are less safe than other cars, but like most marketing headlines, this is an utterly bogus assertion by Tesla.
Tesla's entire fleet is new, and their cars have, to date, been largely sold to affluent freeway commuters in California. The 344 million miles driven by these owners fall into perhaps the lowest-risk category of driving: daylight on controlled-access multi-lane roads, in a climate that sees no snow or ice, and very little mud or rain. It has also been long understood that there is a strong correlation between income and chance of injury in a road traffic incident (One example http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3309632/ ), so being able to afford a ModelS immediately puts you in a lower risk group.
To compare Tesla's extremely low-risk population of customers with the entire US vehicle fleet is statistically meaningless.
Re: giving up after two hours of solely attempting to hunt down the control panel.
Type 'cont'? Cont? What the fuck is cont. If Clippy were around he'd want to help you write a letter to you ex-girlfriend if you typed cont.
You appear to be unfamlliar with the concept of type-ahead. Let's take it step by step.
If you're not already looking at the Start screen, press the Windows key to open it.
Type "C", the search panel at the right shows a list of every application beginning with C
Type "O", the right hand of the screen shows a shorter list, each of whose names contain "CO"
Type "N", the list shrinks again to only those whose names contain "CON"
Type "T", now there is only one possible application whose name contains "CONT", and it's the "Control Panel"
Press Return and it launches, or click/tap its entry in the search results. Simple.
You may of course keep typing until you've spelled out exactly what you need, and only then launch it, but the poster wanted the quickest way to launch Control Panel from the start screen, and that's probably it. (Those who don't believe in all that modern crap will note that this is precisely the same sequence of keystrokes needed to perform this task on Windows 7)
The lack of this easy way to launch an application is something that annoys me when I use other people's Macs (on my own Mac, I use DragThing which allows typeahead launching of items in its docks)
MirrorLink, which is an open standard (also on Android, btw), but it's down to the application whether or not it supports it, and of course the equipment OEM has to implement it too.
Miracast is the "wireless HDMI" spec.
Welcome to the club.
I'm a long time Mac user, long enough that I still wish the OSX minimise function was the same as System7's WindowShade. (I have been meaning to try WindowMizer at http://www.rgbworld.com )
However, I'm a Mac user, not an Apple fanboy... (I used to work for them a long time ago; what Bismarck said about sausages also applies to Apple products). I have never liked iOS (get beyond the amazing input method, and you find yourself in a very badly designed navigation system) and I don't like how Apple has neglected OSX so badly over the years, and now what efforts they are putting into it are to turn it into some kind of non-touch iPad.
(And I agree that there is something badly wrong with OSX's networking UI - I regularly have to assign a second or third address to my ethernet interface, but once I do this, I know well never to use the Networking control panel again)
I bought a Windows7 laptop a couple of years ago when my MacBook Air developed a Beyond Economic Repair fault after a disgracefully short period of time (but just long enough to escape the warranty, of course). After over fifteen years of using a Mac, I couldn't get over my newly-granted ability to buy just any peripheral I wanted AND HAVE IT WORK!
I also installed no anti-virus software, yet had no viruses or malware. I'm led to believe that the stuff people say about IE security is based on IE6 from 2003, and so, like the stuff people still say about Italian cars is a judgment informed by information that has long since become outdated. (I drive Alfa Romeos, and have done for over a decade, with no problems)
I've since replaced that laptop with a Surface 2 RT which has been superb in every way. I wanted web, email and Netflix, and it does them brilliantly, and lets my wife and I have our own user accounts on the same device..
My desktop is still a Mac, but Terminal, ssh and text editors (SublimeText, BBedit, vim) account for 90% of what I use it for... I'm not ready to change the boot OS yet, but the day will come. However, when my current "work" laptop needs to be replaced, I'll be getting a Surface Pro 3, and either dual-booting or VMing Ubuntu onto it. And when my nearly four-year-old Nokia N8 eventually dies, my next phone will run Windows Phone.
Re: Author retains copyright
"Sorry, but I'm having a hard time seeing how this can possibly be worse "
Different contracts for different purposes. Google are not publishing the music, they are merely requesting the right to play it to its customers. If nobody listens, then they don't pay a cent.
A record-company contract (big or small) would be for production and publication, where the record company takes on the costs of turning your music into a saleable product (usually that involves recording and production, sometimes just production), and then promoting and delivering it to a market. In this case, the risk of loss is higher for the record company, so the potential reward is split more towards them: If nobody listens, the record company has lost all the money they spent to produce and promote the music.
"completely losing title to your own property"
Er, no. In a normal record deal, you keep the music copyright, the record company gets the recording copyright but shares proceeds of the the recording sales with you.
The dispute has always been how big that share is and how long it lasts, but the other side of the argument from the record companies is that it's not cheap to produce a record (instrumental electronica aside, you still need a studio, and competent studio techs to produce anything decent), and there's no guarantee that it'll ever recoup its costs.
Re: Youtube simply doesn't understand how we find music
"so long as google indexes it "
That would be fine if YouTube and Google were independent companies. Google's motivation would then be solely to provide the most relevant results, and not to provide "the most relevant results that offer the greatest revenue potential for Google".
Google already has a ranking problem with video searching. I tried a couple of videos that I know were placed on Vimeo first by their creators, then copied to YouTube by third parties. Guess which version is ten or more places higher on the Google search rankings?
Vimeo's video quality is, as a rule, better than YT's, which makes it odd that when the same content is hosted on both services, YouTube is consistently ranked above the Vimeo link. Is it because only one of the videos is prefixed with Google ads?
And this is with Vimeo, a company that Google is not trying to browbeat into a contract negotiation...
Re: Explain please!
Except you have no right (moral or legal) to do this. The space doesn't belong to you just because you're parked in it. It remains the property of the city. The city have granted you only the right to occupy it, but not the right to re-sell that right.
Sure, I've given friends a heads-up when I'm leaving so that they can get a better (or legal!) parking space that I'm vacating, but I've never been so greedy as to ask for money for it. Why should I? It's not my space.
Re: Money For Nothing, Over and Again...
@Deltics, If you feel that strongly about the city doubling up, you could stick your unexpired ticket back onto the pay machine so that the next person to park doesn't have to pay. (If it's a roadside meter, the next person doesn't have to pay anyway).
I'm a bit baffled by the other replies here that attempt to equate ParkingMonkey with privatised utilities or congestion charging. In both of those cases, the proceeds of the sale or charge return directly to the government that built the infrastructure (using public money); those proceeds are then used to increase service or infrastructure spending without increasing taxes. The ParkingMonkey users, on the other hand, are claiming ownership of public infrastructure, renting it, and pocketing the proceeds. (And how many users are declaring that income on their tax returns, I wonder...)
The right tool is half the job...
OAuth's problem here is that it's a flat system, and one that was designed for server-to-server authentication, not client-to-server authentication.
If devs followed the arrangement that OAuth was designed to work in, the app on the phone would talk to the developer's web server, and it would be that server which would authenticate (using OAuth) to the 3rd-party service. However, most devs don't have the resources to run their own web server at the sort of traffic a moderately successful phone app would generate (many also lack the IT ability: Infrastructure and Coding are two very different skills; despite what recruiters think). So, instead the devs take a necessary (but dangerous) short-circuit: Now, the secret that by right should have been kept on their private web server, is distributed to every client device. Eek.
That doesn't mean that token-authentication is in itself unsuitable just because OAuth doesn't work in this setting; token auth is fine, but you need each client to have its own unique token. Unfortunately, OAuth is a flat authentication scheme: every token is equal, and you can't just request millions of them for each app. What's missing is the facility to have two levels of key: where, for instance, the dev has the master key which gives unlimited access, and uses it to issue each app with an individual, limited, key.
Of course, once you get to having (and managing) levels of authentication, you may as well just use x.509.
There should be a ban...
... on AC posts when the article is about Microsoft.
Really, what sense can you get from seeing "Anonymous Coward" defend itself against the accusations of "Anonymous Coward" over and over again?
High point for me was yet another AC post saying "If you read my previous posts..." - Well mate, after I've read "your" previous posts on this thread, I fear you may have some multiple personality issues....
Not for a moment to suggest that the named posters are contributing much more than the tired old pro-MS/pro-Linux dogma...
Doesn't hide the major problems with Uber, though...
Like all these internet startups, Uber is making its money by ignoring the rules that existing players have to abide by, and relying on the customers being too dumb to consider for a moment that some of those rules are there to stop them being cheated, robbed, assaulted, abducted or murdered by random strangers.
Actually, why bother with the app at all? Just stand with your thumb out and get in the first car that picks you up. It'll be cheaper too...
Way back when people started carrying passengers in their (horse) cars for money, there was no regulation at all. But then the nasty people realised that posing as a hire cab was an easy way to pick up victims, and the less nasty ones realised they could bully other operators out of their patch and then raise their prices as a result of the phony "scarcity".
Human nature has not changed just because people have fucking iPhones now.
Re: defining his role
The techno-caveman was appointed by and is employed by Her Majesty's Government. He referred the issue out of the UK court system, and up to the "EU overlords" at the European Court.
They would appear to know a little bit about law and technology, because it was they who told him to not be such a bloody idiot.
And if you really paid £14bn to the EU, you need a better tax consultant.
"Just why is it app vendors still predominantly write for iOS first ?"
http://www.developereconomics.com/reports/q1-2014/ : "Android continues to dominate Developer Mindshare with 71% of developers that target mobile platforms developing for Android."
iOS developers may be more loyal to that platform, but that's natural, as the iOS market contains a lot of old Mac developers who hit the big-time when iPhone's App Store opened. Their preference for iOS does not change the fact that it is that Android which is targeted by more developers than any other platform. (For tablets, iOS is still the preferred platform, but not by enough to redress the balance, and we are talking about headphones which are primarily a phone accessory).
The flaw of your argument regarding a new "super headphone" connector is that there is no part of it that requires Apple to acquire a headphone maker. All they'd have to do is bribe/incentivise an existing maker like Beats to produce headphones with your super-duper connector, make some themselves and an sell an exorbitantly priced adaptor for good measure.
Apple don't care about setting a standard. I'd go further and argue that the last thing Apple wants to become is a de-facto standard -- that opens you up to monopoly complaints, and you get sued and eventually have to licence your technologies on a FRAND basis (which usually means not earning much from them).
As I said, though, the days when Apple could move a market like this are now gone - iOS has a good share of a mature market, but it's static; it isn't making any new conquests anymore, and a lot of the companies that invested in the iOS accessory market never made their costs back.
I believe that you live in the USA. This is where Apple's market share is the healthiest in the world (thanks largely to a carrier pricing model which makes iPhones the best value of all options), and it can distort your perception of how the platform is doing overall (Apple has always been strongest in the US: even when Apple was in the shitter in the late 1990s, I remember that we were still selling reasonably well into the US market). The situation in Europe is very different, where fairer pricing has made Android is dominant, and iOS is even outsold by Windows Phone(!) in a few markets, notably Italy.
And regarding the bananas, I'll just assume that you were offering me a nutritious fruit that's rich in potassium, rather than calling me a monkey.
They wouldn't have needed to buy a headphone maker to do this, though...
Re: Beats do streaming music??
You probably live outside the United States of America, which is the definition of "EVERYWHERE" according to Beats.
Not that it's enormously popular in the USA either, but that's the only place where it's available.
Sorry, that's an Apple-fan's fantasy. First, Beats are not large enough to move a market. Second, iOS's market share and mindshare is no longer large enough to move a market. Third, Every audio maker who was bitten by Apple ditching the 30-pin dock will just walk away from a proposal to change. Look at how poorly the "Lightning" connector has been adopted by accessory makers compared to the 30-pin. And that was just swapping one proprietary connector for another.
Are you really expecting the industry to lock out the 99% of consumers who don't exclusively use their headphones on an iPhone or iPad?
By far the most likely reason Apple bought Beats is simple: Despite repeated efforts, Apple has near-zero presence in the subscription streaming market at a time when music sales are plummeting fast in favour of these services. Rising App Store revenue has been masking the decline, as iTunes and AppStore are normally reported as a combined figure, but break out the music sales and you see that they have been falling steadily for years. The graph in this article illustrates this very clearly: http://9to5mac.com/2014/05/28/declining-itunes-sales-underline-need-for-apple-to-launch-a-streaming-music-service/
Re: Apple buys licence to "cool" thing, then wonders what to do with it...
But the competition's devices are already practically indestructible as it is. The vast majority of cracked-screen phones I see have Apple logos on the back of them.
Sapphire crystal (another material already in widespread use on watches) is not indestructible, by the way. It is indeed very scratch-resistant, but at the expense of being much easier to shatter than glass. (generally, with materials: if you can't shatter it, you can scratch it; if you can't scratch it, you can shatter it). Sapphire is also heavier, more expensive and has much lower light transparency than glass, meaning you need a brighter display under it.
Apple buys licence to "cool" thing, then wonders what to do with it...
To clarify this before the fanbois get the wrong end of the stick, LiquidMetal is not Apple's invention. They're licencing the use of the material from the company that did invent it, and Apple's licence covers only its use in portable electronics: the Swiss watchmaker Omega currently produces watches made from the same material.
About ten years ago, silly-phonemaker Vertu produced a phone that made extensive use of LiquidMetal, but the company didn't pursue the use of the material, as customers preferred gold, platinum or even (bizarrely) brushed steel as finishes.
LiquidMetal is very good for removing panel gaps, but it was always possible to do this with glass or ceramics - the problem was to find a metal that didn't react to heat or force at such a different rate to the glass that the glass would shatter or simply fall out.
Re: Good luck
"and PC laptops and desktops are soon to be history."
Given that Microsoft's core market is selling to places where people have to do work on their computers, what do you propose is going to replace these laptops and desktops?
Do you believe that because people are watching YouTube at home on Android tablets and iPads instead of laptops it means that they'll soon be going into work to do their job on the same kind of casual-use devices?
Closer to a product now, I guess...
I though this demo of what I guess is the same system, from 2012 was very impressive. The presenter also goes into a bit of detail about how the speech recognition bit is done.
I have no clue with Mandarin, but the audience seemed to be happy with the quality of translation.
If that's true, and they think OSX is an answer to this, they're bigger idiots. I suspect the "security" is a retroactive justification for not choosing Windows, when the real reason is a preexisting corporate cultural bias against Microsoft products. It's not like Google wouldn't have good IT staff...
I'm predominantly a Mac user, but I also use Windows 7 and 8, and these are just as (in)secure as OSX, and the anti-malware security measures on both OSes are just as easy for a busy user to click through.
The only difference between the platforms I can see is that the attack vectors in Windows are exploited relentlessly, whereas those in MacOS X have been largely ignored to date. ("attack vectors" doesn't just mean security holes, but things like website popups styled to look like system dialogs, or email mesages styled to look like Outlook's UI; these stick out like a sore thumb on MacOSX, but are less noticable on a Windows system).
Apple ditch vendor lock-in.. for user lock-out.
So, you'll have to keep buying iOS devices forever, otherwise your heating won't work anymore and the front door won't open. Or what happens in five or six years when that old iPhone you had to keep around to run the lights with finally dies?
Yes, I can see how the idea of giving a single corporation control of every important system in one's home would appeal. To people who don't think things through.
( I would make the same comment with Google or Microsoft brand-names replacing those of Apple: the principal objection is in the three words "a single corporation" )
Re: So where are the Whiteknighting MicroSoft Shister-Team
Simple question: How can an Android OEM change the default search provider or default mapping solution? "Default", meaning the one that opens when you're sent an address in a mail, and choose to search for it.
I know it's possible to do this when you don't use the Play Store, so can someone explain the technical reasons why the Play store cannot coexist with a non-Google search or navigation system?
I fully understand why IE was not a requirement for the proper operation of Windows, and why Microsoft's claims to the contrary were lies. I'd just like to know why the same lie is not a lie when Google tells it.
Re: So where are the Whiteknighting MicroSoft Shister-Team
Michael, there is a native HERE app for Android, but only on Nokia's AOSP-based products..
Free at point of use would be possible if an OEM were allowed to buy navigation from Nokia, owner of HERE (even after the sale of their phones business to Microsoft, the navigation business remains part of Nokia). The OEM would pay Nokia, licence the mapping solution, and they would then be able to sell an Android phone with full offline navigation to gain a competitive advantage over other Android OEMs. The additional sales revenue would cover the cost of purchase; for users, the service would be "free".
That they cannot do this is precisely my point: Google's current all or nothing licencing for Android apps prohibits OEMs from competing with Google.
HERE has never been Navigon. HERE was formerly called Navteq, who along with the TeleAtlas supply cartographic data and mapping software for virtually all embedded GPS and navigation products, including those made by Navigon.
Re: So where are the Whiteknighting MicroSoft Shister-Team
As you've shifted the argument onto whether or not Google Maps has competition, can I assume that you see the difference in the licencing models now?
HERE is the largest competitor, but there's also a selection of native TomTom or OpenStreetMap-based navigation apps on Android for navigation. Offline navigation and offline mapping is a major weakness of gMaps when travelling - for me, it outweighs any other advantages, as it makes the product useless in the one place I most need maps. I still wouldn't trade my HERE/Nokia maps on my old Symbian phone for any version of Google Maps.
Re: So where are the Whiteknighting MicroSoft Shister-Team
The difference is simple.. it is possible, as an OEM, to buy Windows from MS, and use either their default search engine, or Google, or whatever you want. Microsoft offer a financial incentive if you use Bing, but they do not use their ownership of Windows to prevent you, as an OEM, swapping out their services in your installs. (And in every case, the customer can always undo your choice, and use their own preference)
Contrast Android. Android, as customers understand it, is actually two things: the free-source OS, Android, and a proprietary application suite, gApps. The gApps package is a set of services, that are largely independent of each other. One, the Play Store, is what makes Android interesting to users (there are alternative mapping, mail, search, music and calendar systems which are ä good or better than Google's, but only an idiot would claim that any other app store has the catalogue of Play's). However, Google offer these services as an all or nothing bundle. You cannot negotiate with Google on this, they will not licence these applications individually, for any amount of money. Why not? Because the current situation is beneficial to them, because it blocks competing services from "Android". Customers cannot easily replace the services either, meaning that what's installed in the device in the factory is what stays on the device.
The argument that it's Google's software, and they can do what they want with is invalid; Windows and IE were Microsoft's software to do what they wanted with too, but their actions with bundling these together in the 1990s were still illegal. Abusing a market advantage in one service (in this case, application distribution), to block competition in an unrelated one, such as search, is the problem.
"use Cyanogen" is not a viable alternative for the vast majority of people who buy Android devices. You don't get a 70%+ market share if all your customers are nerds and tinkerers.
That case you linked to is about search, not the Store (where I believe the real anti trust issue lies), and it will probably fail, because the US is the only market where Bing, via iOS, has high enough share for Google to not have a monopoly on mobile search...
Re: So where are the Whiteknighting MicroSoft Shister-Team
If you read the article... the user can change it any time they want. They can also install any other browser they want. This new offer applies to OEMs, and is limited to configuration of the preloaded software, not to what the user can or cannot do.
If you actually want to know the difference between this and OEM complaints about Android, tell me how one can manufacture an Android phone with Play Store and gMaps, but using alternative search engine... even if I, as am OEM, are willing to compensate/pay Google for the privilege...
No anti-trust issue... MS still offer the licence with full customisation, but at the old, higher price. This lets OEMs who are already receiving incentives from Google for installing Chrome or making Google the default search, to continue to do so.
Anti-trust only applies if OEMs are given no reasonable alternative option, as happened in the 1990s with IE ... it was either "take Windows plus IE, or you can't have it at all, at any price".
Re: Microsoft, Bing, Windows 8.1
Bob, you should consider doing some kind of charity work. Channel all that energy you expend hating Microsoft, and use it for good...
"can it be changed?"
Reading the article provides the answer. Yes, of course it can be changed... by the owner of the PC.
This isn't the same as the old IE lockin that got MS into trouble: OEMs have a choice, and can buy their way out of the default for a small fee.. in the 1990s there was no way to buy Windows from MS without also having IE as default browser (just as today you can't pay Google more for Android and gain the right to replace Google's maps, calendar, music or search services).
Or, to put it a different way, Windows is still the same price as it was for OEMs, but now MS give a big discount if you make Bing the default. If, as an OEM, you've already got a deal with Google to preinstall Chrome, this doesn't affect you.
@AC Re: GPS is shite ....
Couple of points:
First, It's not the brand of GPS that's a problem; TomTom is as good/bad as Nokia. The reason the route is "wrong" is because it's based on partial knowledge. There are plenty of very good shortcuts in central London, but you've got to know WHEN they're shorter than taking the "long" way... (and that comes down to things like knowing what time of day/night the local hotels and get their laundry deliveried).
Second, you can file a report against a cab driver if you think he's abusive, and the Public Carriage Office are only delighted to hear about bad drivers. Full contact details on this page http://www.londonblacktaxis.net/complaints.htm (The driver's licence is on the back of the car)
My small experience with black cab drivers is that there's about 30% of them who are grumpy (fine, they're there to drive, not entertain), about 5% who have opinions I disagree with strongly and the remaining 65% who are courteous and efficient. Considering they spend their working life driving in the hellhole that is London traffic, it's amazing that there are any reasonable ones at all...
Re: @ Kristian Walsh (was: Harden your browser)
How do you get around California without a car, Jake..? It's not like you know about every single system inside it, is it?
You don't know me, but you still assume that your knowledge of everything is superior to mine... There's a name for someone who reasons without facts... Several names, in fact, but you've already been called them all by now, and maybe you still think it's just jealousy from us "stupid" people.
Re: Harden your browser
"Linux isn't proof against "any" attack, Grikath, but it is proof against most of the attacks "in the wild". If you are paying attention, that is. Which most Cupertino/Redmond users aren't."
So, what you're saying is that because Unix-clones are still inscrutable to non-technical users, the only people who can actually use them day-to-day are technically-literate systems admins, who are well versed in how to stop security issues, and so those platforms are inherently more secure because they exhibit fewer malware incidents, because by being inscrutable to non-technical users, the only people who can actually used them are... et cetera. Get off when you feel dizzy.
Without your story losing any relevance as an example, I think you have confused ICL and ICI.
Re: All those steps required?
Make a "warez" app-store, that has this app bundled into every download, then publicise it on message boards.
People will disable every kind of security measure if you convince them that those checks are only put there by "The Man" to stop them getting stuff for free...
You too can copywrite like a wanker...
Six years ago we still used verbs. No longer. Today, a sentence fragment. A breathless, elegiac noun-phrase. Ellipsis, not substance. Language-like collections of words. Decoration without meaning. And misused conjunctions.
Slow vomit. Again.
Re: Still way too expensive
Weight and size. If you travel a lot by air, you'd be happy to pay £100 for every 100g you don't have to haul in your cabin bag in a mad dash between airport terminals. Even with the type cover on, it's about 250g (about 1lb for those in the 18th century) lighter than a similarly-priced MacBook Air.
As an aside, I'm glad that someone has realised that widescreen sucks for laptops. While getting an old 4:3 iBook working a couple of months ago, it struck me that despite the lower resolution, the screen format worked better than 16:10 or 16:9... especially when every OS takes vertical slices out of your screen space for window bars, toolbars and menus. The 1.5:1 ratio is also close enough to the A-series's 1.414:1 ratio to make this a very good tool for reviewing and annotating documents when used in portrait.
I can't help thinking that if this had been an Apple launch, it'd be hailed as a revolution...
- iPad is an iFAD: Now we know why Apple went running to IBM
- Apple orders huge MOUNTAIN of 80 MILLION 'Air' iPhone 6s
- Climate: 'An excuse for tax hikes', scientists 'don't know what they're talking about'
- Black Hat anti-Tor talk smashed by lawyers' wrecking ball
- +Analysis Microsoft: We're building ONE TRUE WINDOWS to rule us all