1859 posts • joined 18 Jun 2009
Re: Apple dumping on their fans. Again.
Indeed. I would be happy to accept a tablet without GPS - after all, I use my phone for that, and since most of the time I'll use satnav directions, there really isn't an advantage to having a bigger screen. A phone in my pocket that I listen to on headphones (or in the car for drivers) is far easier than faffing around holding a big tablet.
But, I accept the lack of a GPS on the ultra-cheap tablets, like the Ainol tablets (which have very decent specs, at way less than a Nexus 7, and the GPS is really the only ommission). On a ultra-expensive tablet - like this islate mini or whatever they finally called it, at £100 more than the Nexus 7 and Kindle HD - it's inexcusable.
In general, it's depressing that there's so little distribution (or coverage in the media) for the China Android tablets. Whilst the media are asking whether the likes of the Nexus 7 must be sold at a loss, companies like Ainol are delivering Android 4 tablets with decent specs at even lower costs.
It might be nice if Apple did try to sue this company with the clone - the publicity would backfire, due to all the coverage it would give to decent tablets that are a fraction of price.
Re: Double standards
Whilst rubber-banding is indeed optional (and I hate - I want my list to stop scrolling, not carry on, so I'd be glad to keep it off my devices), this doesn't really apply to the other patent claims being thrown about. For example:
* Rectangular device with rounded corners - whilst one can do away with rounded corners and have sharp corners that you cut yourself on, or perhaps make a phone shaped like a banana or a dodecahedron, this is still a major constraint on a very obvious and basic design shape, which they weren't first to do anyway.
* Doubleclick to zoom - double click was not invented by Apple, and a touchscreen makes no different. Nor was zooming. I don't know if they were first with this particular method of zooming (either at all, or on a touchscreen), but it shouldn't be possible to get a patent on any action that's done by a doubleclick. I mean, if all programmers thought by Apple, we'd be filing for a patent everytime we implemented a UI action. One patent for every combination of [UI event] and [Application action] is a lot of patents, and would prevent large amounts of software being written! Whilst there are other ways to do zooming, removing the ability to do this fundamental thing via a fundamental action is crippling for the UI.
And it's not like Apple are worried about making a phone that can't do something fundamental. They made a "smartphone" that couldn't run apps or do 3G. Wouldn't surprise me at all if they made an oversized phone that couldn't do phone calls - the Apple fans would still buy it, and the media would still hype it as the best thing ever and give it loads of one-sided free advertising, even before it was announced. Oh wait, that already happened.
Agree with the article, though a small point as an off-topic aside
"as we arguably are with the move from featurephones to smartphones."
There is no meaninful difference between "feature" and "smart" phones. The difference is just one of marketing. Once upon a time, a smartphone (as opposed to a "dumb" one) was one that did apps, Internet and ran an OS - basically a computer that was a phone. Around 2004, even bog standard phones did this, but instead the term "feature" phone was introduced for the lower end phones, I guess to differentiate the more expensive phones. Apple further confuse things by introducing a dumb phone that couldn't even run apps, and marketing it as a smartphone.
It's not that we're really now moving to smartphones, rather companies are just using "smartphone" more often as a marketing label, as that's where the hype is.
A small point - but it amazes me how commonly people seem to think a feature phone is objectively different to a smartphone, when it's entirely a matter of marketing terms.
(Now that there smart TVs, in a few years, are we going to have nonsense like "feature TVs"?)
So am I, but don't worry - I'm sure that the likes of Ubuntu will be adding this feature too, Unity-style.
(Yes, I appreciate the advantage of Linux that you can install a distribution that fits your needs or preferences. But then, it's a lot easier to untick the "Always on" option in Windows Skype, than to install a whole new OS...)
Re: Have they spoken to the phone companies?
"are less popular than symbian"
That would mean, one of the most popular smartphone platforms ever, then. (Symbian was number one platform until 2011 when Android became number one, and outsold Apple until it was replaced by WP. Even now, one year later, with hardly any new models, poor or no distribution in many countries, and zero marketing, Symbian is selling per quarter what Apple sold in the first full six months of their iphone, despite vast amounts of media hype. And embarrassingly for MS, it's also still selling more than WP.)
Yes, WP8 will no doubt be less popular than Symbian was, but so has pretty much everything except Android.
Fewer apps than the Baggage engine sounds like the original iphone (which couldn't even run apps). Indeed: expensive, less popular than Symbian, no apps, pretty much describes the first iphone :)
Just a small point:
"The higher res screens were suddenly the thing to have once Apple launched the "retina" devices and so whoever could make them could charge a premium."
Note that screen resolutions on phones and other devices have been increasing for years. "Retina" is just Apple marketing term. Phones already had been increasing resolutions for years before the iphone 4. And they continue to do so afterwards (plenty of phones beating both the 4S and 5 in resolution).
The only class of devices annoyingly stuck for some unknown reason has been netbooks and their eternal 1024x600.
Meanwhile, whilst other devices like tablets and laptops have increased their resolutions, many of them *aren't* following Apple's stupidly-high resolution, so they aren't necessarily "the thing to have" either (and with good reason - anything higher than HD seems useless unless you have a massive screen, and has problems like rescaling with HD content, as well as the problem of not having the GPU power to drive that number of pixels).
You mean, why did johnny-come-lately copy-cat Apple copy the battery symbol that had been used in phones years before they joined the market late?
Ah, I wondered how long it would be before someone tried to make this as something to rant about Android with.
The survey just happened to pick Android, not unreasonably as it is what most people use. Yes there are other niche platforms like WP and iphone and other feature phones, but most people use Android, so it's reasonable to focus the survey on that.
But don't let that stop you taking it as Yet Another Handpicked Stat to claim your walled garden is better (whilst conveniently ignoring all the stats where other platforms are better). The walled garden you get with feature phones may well be more secure, but then you don't have the power and functionality of a smartphone.
Re: Any word of similar research on iOS apps?
Any old feature phone doesn't provide apps with an API with these options either - I suspect that they really are more secure too, by that logic. It's not really an argument to be comparing platforms though, when one offers something in the first place the other doesn't.
This is a nonsense argument. I might as well say, if I already have an HTML5 twitter client, why would I go to the hassle of installing one that's native, but otherwise behaves exactly like my old one?
The answer is that you probably wouldn't – unless, that is, you were really keen on building native apps - right?
What's the weight and battery life of that machine?
If you don't care about that, then yes a standard laptop is much better. But for those that do, comparing to netbooks does make sense. (Though I do find it annoying that the Chromebooks are 11" - one thing I love about netbooks is they're that much smaller. Same problem with the high end ultra-portables, I wouldn't mind paying more for something more powerful than a netbook, yet they're all larger, at a minimum of 11".)
I do wonder that - or alternatively, bring them closer so that Chrome is at least compatible with Android applications.
Perhaps part of it is they're not sure if many Android applications will work well with keyboard and touchpad. There is one company that is bringing us an OS that will work with touchscreen as well as keyboard/touchpad, but I find it curious that on these forums, the whole idea is often criticised, with the claim being that people want one or the other, not both in the same device. Yet then Google get criticised for doing them separately?
Or if you mean you just want Android with touchscreen, then it's called an ASUS Transformer (if you want keyboard too), or a Google Nexus 7 (or many other devices) if you don't :)
Because it has a keyboard?
I must admit I'm confused. The whole idea of tablets and Windows 8 gets criticised here, because people don't want touch-only devices, and many of us (myself included) want to keep our keyboards and touchpads. But a major company supports not just touch-devices, but a new line of low end devices, using something other than Windows for people who want something else, and it gets nothing but moaning?
I mean sure, personally I'm happy with a Windows Samsung netbook. But it does annoy me the way that the media treat the ipad like the second coming, giving it vast amounts of free advertising even before its announced, whilst Chromebooks (as well as netbooks) get ignored, or criticised, or reported as failing.
The main problem with Chromebooks so far I think has been that they've been more expensive than netbooks, but the new ARM based ones seem targeted at the lower end of netbook pricing.
Another thing to consider is whether netbooks as we know them today will still exist, without a "Starter" version of Windows 8 (there are lots of interesting netbook/tablet hybrids announced, but these will unsurprisingly be more expensive than current netbook prices). So they'll either be more expensive if they need the full Pro version of Windows 8, or they'll switch to Windows RT and become tablet hybrids - perhaps leaving an opening in the market for Linux netbooks and Chromebooks (or just netbooks still running Windows 7, maybe...)
"get something different"
Indeed - whatever happened to "Think Different"?
The pattern so far seems to be:
Mac - "Think Different", it's better and cool to use something different to most other people.
ipod - Apparently it's suddenly only cool to use what everyone else uses.
iphone - Lie about the state of the market, and *pretend* it's the most popular platform, then say it's only cool to be what everyone else uses...
Aside from the inconsistency, it's that last one that perplexes me in particular. At least be honest, and say they're not using the most popular platform (Android, or Symbian before that) because they like to think different. On the plus side, I suppose someone using Android can claim to both be using what most other people use, and thinking different to Apple users...
My, only just earlier was I commenting on the "cheap plastic" fallacy (see my comment above in the thread), and here we see it yet again.
You're like the snob who says he likes his furniture made out of oak, looking down on the masses who buy good quality and functional furniture from IKEA. But you're worse than that - you're not only showing that snobbish attitude, but you're doing so in an area where the argument is ludicrous.
If phones are like things like furniture and crockery and shoes, then when is the wooden or china or leather variant of the iphone coming out?
There are plenty of good reasons for not having rubber boots or plastic cups, that aren't simply about what things look like. But also, plastic on technology looks great - it makes it a modern product, rather than outdated wood or metal. For some reason, looking old and traditional is to be preferred on things like furniture, but not on technology where people want a modern look for other things. If you want an old look, then you should buy the cheapest oldest biggest dumb phone you can find.
If you think plastic looks ugly, then we're just arguing opinions on purely aesthetic things - and good luck with your china iphone.
Re: Far cry
It never ceases to amaze me the way that people dig around for contrived ways to argue for Apple. I wish I had these tactics back in the last days of the Amiga.
"That £2000 Amiga 4000 isn't expensive! You have to look at the TCO, and it'll also cost much more second hand when you come to sell it, compared with that £500 486, which'll be worthless in a couple of years!"
Sorry, it's ludicrous. We're talking smartphones, not some kind of financial investment. I don't buy a phone based on what I could sell for most money second hand. If one make of product depreciates less, it's typically because there's less offered by the newer versions. PCs deprecated quickly because they were always getting so much faster - this stopped happening for the Amiga in its last days after Commodore went bust, so for those people buying them second hand, there was no market pressure for the price to drop. Given what little there is new in the iphone 4S and 4SS, sorry, 5, it's not surprising that they keep their value better.
And if TCO really is the most important thing, go get a dirt cheap Nokia dumb phone (which I suspect the OP was more referring to?) Ultra cheap to buy, and you could sell it with not too much money off the price, as a dumb phone is a dumb phone.
Re: Poor choice of materials?
Does this mean that people can respond to Apple fans' "cheap plastic" criticisms of other phones, by calling it "cheap metal"? :)
Re: Poor choice of materials?
On that note, it annoys me the way that Apple fans try to spin plastic as "cheap" (and also do the misleading wordplay fallacy of conflating "cheap" as in low cost, with "cheap" as in poor quality) - and perhaps that's the reason why Apple choose metal, they can spin it for marketing, even if it's a poor design choice.
We see this with computers too. The historical usage of plastic as a "cheap" thing surely came from things like furniture - cheap plastic furniture from places like Argos, rather than expensive but rigid good quality furniture made from wood. But that doesn't generalise to saying that plastic is always bad! Plastic is one of the wonders of the modern world, and means we no longer have to make everything out of wood and metal like the iron age. I don't want my computers and smartphones made out of materials like wood and metal. Give me modern age plastic over iron age metal any day.
Samsung phones are "cheap" as in low cost, because they pass on the savings they make to the consumer, rather than either having costly processes, or sucking up the money as profits.
That was a problem only with the dumb days when you had a tiny internal disk, and most stuff had to be on the SD card. I don't think anyone wants a return to those days - sure, still give us 8 or 16GB of fast internal storage, but still have the optional storage for large files where speed isn't so important.
Re: I see a pattern here
The new AmigaPad will/might/who knows launch and do it all at a quarter of the price of a Nexus 7. It's easy when you can just make stuff up.
"top end of the budget" is not the budget space.
Re: Nexus7 comparible with the Kindle FireHD? Gime me a break...
I've used Android 4 and 4.1, and there's not really much difference that I noticed. (Google Now would be great if it wasn't always "No connection" when I have one.) Would much rather have the SD card slot - and at a way cheaper price. Future updates would be a plus for the Nexus 7, but at the end of the day, Ainol is offering great cheap tablets *now*, not "it'll be better if you wait two years" - by then, both will be outdated anyway.
(Can USB On-The-Go mean I can slot a card inside the device? When I look this up, it suggestts I need to have a cable hanging off all the time...)
But still, why argue - that's the great thing about platforms like Android, we're not locked into a single device unlike one certain platform. We don't feel pressured to buy the most popular single selling device, when we can instead buy what we like best, knowing it runs the most popular platform.
What about Samsung Galaxy tablets?
Admittedly the 10" Samsung Galaxy tablets might be a warning sign - in that they are also high priced 10" tablets, but don't seem to be selling as well as other platforms. But then, I don't see endless comments here slagging off Samsung...
Who cares about sales? If you like it, get it, if you don't, don't.
Because most of us don't give a crap about Apple?
Ipad: costs the same, less storage, over priced keyboard extra, no microSD. Lots of luck Apple.
(Personally I'd take an Android tablet over either - better features, more open, more free. But the criticisms here should be levelled at Apple far more so.)
Re: And all Apple has to do ?
Market leader - funny how that matters when it's Apple, but not when it's MS, Nokia, Samsung, Google etc who lead over Apple.
Higher resolution - handpicked single stat where Apple does better, not sure why that is more important than any other feature. Why do you need that high a resolution on a small device?
Proven track record - meaningless; MS aren't some unknown company.
Loads of apps - if you count fart apps and website wrappers. Again, funny how software support matters when Apple lead - and it is okay to even do raw counts - but not when say comparing Windows to Mac OS.
Re: And all Apple has to do ?
By that logic, all MS has to do is knock $100 off and it will kill the ipad dead. MS can change the price in future just like Apple can.
Although it's pretty basic business logic for companies in oligopolies to not engage in price wars if they can avoid it, because it just harms them both.
Not to mention that historically Apple are never able to make cheap products, instead they have to charge loads for them, preferring to make money selling overpriced products to a niche. Fans have been claiming for years how a mythical better priced iphone would "kill Android dead", but you know what? I'm still waiting.
Apple can only afford to do so in the sense of burning lots of cash, but why would they throw away their ability to make any money, when it's the reason companies exist in the first place, just so that a few Apple fans can finally brag about their OS not being runner up in the market?
Says who? Ultrabook is a trademark, it's an Ultrabook if Intel say it is. I might as well say a MacAirPowerBook isn't a Mac because of such and such thing that I don't like.
You don't get a MacAirBook (sorry, I don't speak Apple) for that price anyway - and there are plenty of other laptops that do have SSDs (whether it's "standard" or not is beside the point - if it's optional, I can still choose to have it. Forcing the choice on me doesn't make it more compelling).
A 10 second Google shows your wrong on the UK pricing: http://www.microsoftstore.com/store/msuk/en_GB/pdp/productID.257929400?WT.mc_id=FY13WinHH
They may "lose out" to Apple, but so what? Apple lose out to Samsung and Nokia on phones; they lose to Google on mobile OS, and MS on non-mobile OS. That doesn't mean they can't sell something. Sadly anything Android loses out to Apple on non-phone tablets, but I don't see that as a reason not to like Android tablets.
Re: Wrong decision?
If there's lots of demand for Office on a tablet, then there's a market for Windows tablets, which there wouldn't be as much if they'd ported it to the competition. And if there isn't much demand for Office on a tablet, then they wouldn't sell lots of copies for Office on IOS or Android. Either way, I don't agree with your logic.
Plus they can always port Office to other platforms later on. If they port it now, they lose that competitive edge.
Priced to fail?
Arguing like an Apple fan: "Well if you can't afford it, that must be because you're poor". Seriously, not one media article ever criticised Apple's overpriced offering offering, indeed Apple get praise from the media and fans for having high profit margins! Yet all we've heard about the MS Surface (and Android tablets, to some degree) is scrutiny about how much it might cost.
It's true that the Surface isn't aimed at the low end, so there's plenty of room for the Android tablets, but I think that much was clear anyway - it would be hard for MS to compete there, with Android being free, and there being smaller profit margins at the low end. Plus there's always the opportunity for other manufacturers to provide cheaper Windows tablets, with the MS Surface being a high end "flagship" (similar to the Google phones - unlike Apple, but like Android, MS aren't tied to a single device).
And anyhow, the price announced is cheaper than Apple, so how is that priced to fail?
"Cupertino has trumped Redmond on screen resolution"
Anything higher than 1280x720 is pointless on such a small device like a tablet. Indeed, if you're saying price is important, I'd rather have the cheaper price than the pointless higher resolution.
"More importantly, it has the applications that make a tablet something more than a fancy doorstop."
If you like fart apps and website wrappers.
"Any app vendor that wants to make money has to develop for the iPad; the same is not true for Windows RT."
The largest OSs are Windows and Android. Admittedly a lot of people develop for Apple because they think it's the largest OS, but that doesn't mean the rest of us has to live that delusion.
"The range of apps you can get for an Android tablet is also nearly as good as Apple"
Only nearly? Sorry, what can you do on Apple that you can't do on Android?
"Neither have a good Microsoft Office solution, but that doesn't seem to have hurt them too much in terms of sales and user annoyance."
This argument makes no sense - most people have yet to buy any non-phone tablet. That there might exist an area where Windows is better would be a reasonable point. The fact that many people don't care about it doesn't mean that no one is.
"There's also the Ultrabook market to consider."
Indeed, though the Surface Pro is basically an "ultrabook" (in function, not trademark) that's also a tablet. It will be interesting to see the pricing on this. And we already know there will be plenty of Windows tablet/laptop hybrids priced similarly to these ultrabooks.
And the most obvious point is that if people buy a $699 Windows 8 Ultrabook instead of a $499 MS Surface, then MS still win - people are still buying Windows. It would be like claiming Google failed because they're Nexus phones don't sell anywhere as well as the Samsung flagships - it's missing the point, because overall Android still dominates.
"The new OS with its not-Metro interface really only makes sense for touch users"
False, there are new features in Windows 8 that aren't just about touch or the UI. And it still works with keyboard and mouse.
I suspect we'll start to see more laptops with touchscreens as standard - I don't know why we don't already, given that touchscreen monitors are commonplace with even desktop PCs now.
"Rightly or wrongly, Apple has the cool factor for fondleslabs"
Cool? If you say so. Some people think they're cool because they have clothes plastered with adidas logos, but that doesn't mean the rest of us think so.
"there's a very long way to go before the system can be properly assessed"
Funny, when it was the ipad, or "islate", the media were proclaiming it the second coming of Jesus even before it was announced, let alone released and "properly assessed". Fair enough if one wants to criticise the Surface or Windows 8 along with tablets in general - but this criticism of MS, yet praise of Apple - who are the ones who want to force touch-only devices on everyone - is odd.
Re: Air please
Indeed, that's the problem with high resolution displays.
But then there's nothing special about Apple PCs, as there are a whole load of other ultra-portables planned also taking advantage of the next generation of Intel chips. (E.g., MS Surface Pro was already announced as being full HD[*] resolution.)
[*] Using industry standard terminology, rather than marketing AppleSpeak like "Retina", which I have no clue what it actually means. Retina on an iphone seems to mean lower resolution that my Android phone, for example.
Re: Can only make it worse
And another problem is that if you sort by anything other than relevance, you find all sorts of things that you're clearly not after, because they show up in the same search results. Most often happens when sorting by price low->high, because you then get all of the cheap accessories. If I want to shop for hard drives, that doesn't mean I want to wade through 10 pages of cheap cables and cases, even if they are for hard disks.
Not sure why "company hires someone" is newsworthy though. Another Apple press release masquerading as news.
Re: All these iPads
Last time I looked, Apple were still using this joke brand name in 2012. Though I can understand the confusion - there was so much hype and vaporware, islate, ipad etc, and now the same over the "mini", it's hard to remember which is the real products, and which are vaporware.
Re: That would be £40 rather than £50 cheaper, and the magic word is
I was looking at their Android 4 7" tablets and am tempted to get one - excellent specs, great reviews from the few places that cover them, with microSD, and cheaper than even a Nexus, let alone Apple's overpriced rubbish. It's sad how they get hardly any mention, whilst the media give hype and free advertising to the same old stuff (usually Apple).
Re: That would be £40 rather than £50 cheaper, and the magic word is
Since there is no difference between tablets and phones, all Android software is "tablet" optimised. It's only on Apple IOS that every software has to be specifically written for each device.
And if you make that argument, are you admitting that there's hardly any software for the iphone 5 (since all the existing stuff is optimised for a tiny 3.5" screen)? And there'll be even less for any new "mini" islate, sorry, ipad?
Re: Off the scent?
Okay I'll bite, what does an ipad do that no other device does?
Plus it's laughable to suggest that if things are equal, Apple should win by default. Minority? Android is the more popular OS.
Re: So, despite rest-of-world being utterly wrong
They didn't invent or reinvent tablets - or as we called them for years, media players, smartphones and PDAs. They just made one a bit bigger. So if making it bigger makes it a whole new thing, the same should apply for 7" vs 10". So if you expect others to credit Apple for a 10" device, then Apple and its fans should be thanking other companies for the 7" and 8" devices.
Plus it was presumably a joke comment against Apple's claims that Samsung copied.
Re: So, despite rest-of-world being utterly wrong
Apple get vast amount of media coverage for their ipad - they got this even before it was announced, let alone released. Vast amounts of free hype and advertising, from every news organisation, not to mention every other advert now going "Get this in your ipad" (are ipad users complete idiots or something, that they have to be told they can view a website on it? You don't have companies saying you can view it on a PC or Android phone).
Meanwhile the only other tablets to have got a bare mention at all has been the Kindle Fire (not available in most markets until recently) and Nexus 7 (only recently released), and even then, the coverage has been puny compared to the astroturfing for Apple. Most people don't even know there are "tablets" such as the Samsung Galaxys, just "ipads".
Then there's the distribution - every shop, even those that don't normally sell tech products, fell over each other to sell ipads for Apple, whilst until recently, it's been hard to find other tablets if you wanted them. Even those that do sell other tablets list the category as "Ipads & tablets" (again, are Apple users complete idiots that they don't know to look for ipads in the tablet section? It's just yet more free advertising for Apple).
Yet when Apple sell more, you conclude it's because of they got the size right?!
But then, if that's true, why would they release this vaporware "Mini"?
And do you agree they got the size wrong on iphones, since larger phones are way more popular?
"if there turns out to be significant interest."
So their approach is to follow what Google do - sounds like you agree with the OP.
Re: Touch input?
No, we didn't think tablets were daft, nor did Apple bring them to the masses - people were using handheld touchscreen devices for years, we just called them different names - media players, smartphones, PDAs. It was mostly Android that brought touchscreen devices to the masses.
The tablets which we thought were daft were tablet PCs, i.e., the same thing that people here are still calling daft. Now that's not to say that I agree with them - much of the problem with the older tablet PCs was that they tended to be even heavier than normal laptops. That's not true of smartphones, PDAs, or media player tablets (include Apple's), but it's also not true of the new upcoming Windows tablet PCs.
An ipad is not a tablet PC, it's a big phone or media player. But I don't necessarily disagree with your conclusion, just the argument from Apple.
Re: Win8 FAIL - touch screen PC's will FAIL
Interesting - I mean, whether we argue it's a good thing or a bad thing, the fact that schools are buying in touchscreen PCs and gearing up for Windows 8 suggests it isn't the "failure" that the OP thinks it will be.
(And let's face it, there are loads of examples where what people think is best isn't what is the one with the largest market share.)
Windows 8 still works fine with mouse/keyboard btw. Metro seems to be mainly used for the simple built in apps - and how many people here stick with "Windows Mail" and so on? The advanced users always go and download their own email client etc anyway. The worry is more whether MS see the new UI as being the future for all software, as opposed to simply using it for simple or touch-oriented software. Though I suspect that if "Metro" is ever to become the main UI for all software, this will only be at some point in the future when it's evolved to include the best parts of windowed and non-touch UIs anyway (e.g., they're already trying to move in this direction by making it a tiled window manager).
Re: Win8 FAIL - touch screen PC's will FAIL
I don't see it's a case of success and fail - I suspect that both will be true, i.e., most PCs will continue to sell with keyboard and touchpad/mouse, but the touchscreen will become a standard feature that's there in addition. Most the time I want to use a keyboard and touchpad, but sometimes it would be nice to be able to touch directly (e.g., graphics editing, or scrolling an image), as well as for ultra-portable use (as much as I dislike tablets for general computing use, there are some niches they are useful, and it would be nice to be able to use the same operating system and ecosystem). Indeed, touchscreens are already common on desktop PC monitors, seems strange this hasn't happened on laptops yet where you'd think it would be more useful.
I entirely agree that there are advantages to a mouse than touchscreen on any device larger than a phone. But we should be primarily criticising Apple who want to force large touch-only devices on us. Thankfully most of the so-called up-coming Windows "tablets" are actually laptop hybrids where the touch is just in addition, not a replacement.
WP7 is only 2 years old - Iphone sold poorly in the first two years too, did that fail too...? No the sales aren't great, but they still sell millions, which is enough for Apple to be hyped. I'm not sure the market is more "entrenched" today - although Android was less popular 2 years ago, it was still massively popular, and there was also the dominant amazingly successful Symbian two years ago. If anything, there's more of a chance for new OS now, because several of the long used popular OSs have either been ditched (e.g., Symbian) or lost significant market share (e.g., Blackberry). Or who knows, maybe we'll end up with just one main OS and one niche runner-up, with no chance for anyone else - but historically, the phone market has had 3, 4, 5 or more OSs.
And yes, software patents are bad. Same for Apple's trolling too.
Re: If visitors or immigrants can't accept the culture and habits of a country ...
I'm against censorship - but the right to peaceful protest is (or should be!) part of the culture of this country.
"Funny how they exercise the British right to complain - which many can't do in Muslim countries - about another British right."
Why is that funny? By that logic, there would be many things we couldn't complain about. And unfortunately this isn't like the US - we don't have freedom of speech written into a constitution, or indeed a written constitution at all. So we're not talking about a case where people are trying to oppose something constitutional, but people criticising something no different to the way that many other British people do. (Even in the US, it isn't that simple - people still call for censorship, arguing that freedom of speech has limits, and indeed, it is well established that freedom of speech in the US is not unlimited.) Even for things that are constitutional - should I leave the UK, because I disagree with the principle of the monarchy? Should my non-British partner who lives with me also not be entitled to such a view?
If this was an article about the peaceful republican protestors getting rounded up by police on the day of the royal wedding last year, I would guess that most comments would be against that. I'm not sure I'd see much of a "Well they should leave the country if they can't accept the way things are here". Even though the monarchy is about as constitutional as you can get.
So it's not funny at all. It is entirely consistent to make arguments about what the laws should be, or what the limits of laws should be.
Whilst there is the ECHR, it seems that half the UK population happily argue against that anyway. I don't agree with them, and might be happy to see them leave for another country - but it's clear that your argument is a bit ludicrous. Unless you suggest it's one rule for muslims, and another for Daily Mail readers. (And what is funny that the kinds of people who criticise the ECHR all the time are also more likely to be the kinds of people who would suggest muslims should leave the country if they don't like the rules...)
(Not to mention your assumption that they're all immigrants.)
I oppose censorship, but saying "Why aren't you protesting against this other thing" is poor logic. Firstly you don't know that they're not; it is also an argument that could be used against every protest. It would suggest that many things could never be protested against, unless the people were also spending time protesting every other thing in the world deemed at least as important as that.
Here, let me try a variation: Why aren't you criticising all the violent protests, as well as murders and wars around the world? Surely those are more of a problem than a peaceful protest about a Google video?
So you refer to believers as ignorant, but seem to be criticising the atheists who "sneer" and refer to "invisible friends"... And if you think that theists are ignorant, you imply atheists are more knowledgable, yet you criticise those who see it as a "smart club"?
I'm an atheist not because it's a club, but because I don't believe in god. But you seem to be criticising the very kind of atheist that you are.
So if people don't really believe these things, why this great charade as if they were true? Why so offended when atheists say they aren't true?
If that's really the case, then why aren't we all in agreement? Why do religious people pray if they don't really believe there is an intervening caring God to help them out?
But no, that's not what foo_bar_baz was actually saying at all; and in turn, the OP was saying something different again. Yes, it's true that there are people who don't believe everything in the Bible literally, but these people are still reasonably Christians, because they still do believe the core principles. And atheists know this - they are not making up straw men.
But the earlier post was talking about people who didn't even seem to believe any of the core principles, but identify as "Christian" and go to church but only at christenings and weddings.
Re: Religion is the problem
Whilst perhaps not all religions are equal, it's not that simple. Here we have religious people peacefully protesting something that they want censored. I disagree with them yes - but it's just one example compared with countless cases where we see a certain other religion doing the same thing.
The difference is that censorship of things that cause offence to Christianity are more likely to get support from people in positions of power - politicians, lobbying groups and so on.
Yes, blanketly criticising all religion is simplistic and not helpful, but nor is it to say that one religion is always a problem, and no others are.
And, like other commenters, you end up with the EDL-style suggestion that they leave the country. Sorry, you talk Western values, but that's not a Western value. Protesting against things in your own country is a Western value (I hope it is!) We could just as well make the ludicrous argument that if you don't like them protesting, you should leave.
"Round them up" did not exactly sound an optional tone though.
I oppose censorship and would do so in this case. I would no doubt disagree with the protestors.
But I also support freedom to protest. I'm not sure that rounding people up, and "suggesting" they leave the country, just because you disagree with them, is so great either. I'm worried at the Daily Mail/EDL style arguments here.
Next time the Daily Mail suggests something should be banned, will the OP be calling for them to be rounded up, and "suggest" they leave the country?
Is it always the case that someone should move to another country rather than protesting? I find that a rather odd idea.
Re: They have
I'd say that just as Google have the freedom of speech to host the video, they also have the freedom to peacefully protest criticising it - that isn't in itself arguing against freedom of speech.
Of course they lose points if "The core of the group's position is that free speech has gone too far" is the case.
Re: iPhone has no malware
Indeed - it's interesting that the malware authors actually seem to have a clue as to which is really the dominant platform.
Compared with unfortunately most mobile software developers - I recall that recent Register article on a survey which said most mobile developers value installed userbase size as most important when deciding what to develop for, yet bizarrely, most of them also said they developed for iphone. It's worrying that many software developers seem to be clueless as to the actual state of the market.
- Product round-up Coming clean: Ten cordless vacuum cleaners
- Product round-up Too 4K-ing expensive? Five full HD laptops for work and play
- Review We have a winner! Fresh Linux Mint 17.1 – hands down the best
- 'Regin': The 'New Stuxnet' spook-grade SOFTWARE WEAPON described
- Worstall @ the Weekend BIG FAT Lies: Porky Pies about obesity