It's opt-out, not opt-in!

They are arguing for *opt-out*.

Please let's not confuse the terminology - the pro-censorship lobby are twisting the words so that they refer to it as "opt in" when actually they mean filtered by default. Their reasoning being, you "opt in" to porn. This argument is wrong on a technical level (it implies that sites being filtered is the default unless you unfilter them), and on a semantic level (the "thing" we're referring to is not pr0n, but the filtering system, and that system is definitely opt out).

In the earlier Commons "debate" (I use the term loosely), MP Claire Perry was proposing that anything unsuitable for under *14* year olds should be filtered by default. Now I doubt we'll get something that mad, but it does show what they're pushing for, and how this isn't just about pr0n.

Last time I looked, children can't get non-mobile Internet access without parental permission - they're getting it because they're parents allow them to go online with their connection. So we already have the default situation being that children can't access it (and for mobiles, it's already filtered by default anyway).

A problem with opt-out system is also, what about sites that are wrongly filtered? This could be businesses losing customers, or other sites - how do they get all of their potential viewers to switch the filter off?

The comment about being beamed "unasked" for shows little understanding of basic Internet workings. Material is only downloaded if people request it. How about we have the Safermedia website censored by default, so we don't have to have it "beamed unasked" into our homes? See how they like it.

Apple have more software than Windows!

I've lost count of the number of times in the media, it's been claimed that the Iphone has more apps than Android, Symbian etc, merely by app store counts (which is especially biased towards Apple, as on the Iphone, you can only distribute via the Apple app store; also on Symbian, it was arounds years before Nokia started their app store).

By that logic, there's more Mac software than Windows software, because the official Apple app store has apps, and there's no official Windows app store, right?

Whilst there are some advantages of a single official app store, I'm not sure it's all that great for the developer. There are all sorts of hoops to jump through (cost, signing contracts - it was much better when I could just upload to Aminet...) but if you don't join in, you lose out because customers get to thinking that that's the only place to get software.

And wait - then after that, there'll be an iPad 3?

Another vaporware rumour article. How about news on products, rather than endlessly speculating that there might be an iPad 2 after the iPad 1. (Guess what - maybe there'll be an iPad 3. And maybe Windows 8 and Windows 9. And Samsung and Asus will release some more netbooks, that will be better than what's available now!)

Lee: "However you look at it the iPad is the yardstick against which all other slabs will be measured."

That's the very thing people are complaining about. It's a circular argument - "there's hype about the iSlate, because there's hype about the iSlate".

"your spiffy soon-to-be-released droid slab may stack up favourably against the current model of iPad"

A current tablet or netbook stacks up fine now. Future vaporware rumoured products will outdo the current Ipad, and will stack up fine against a future vaporware rumoured Ipad.

"Only those in category (1) aren't at least slightly interested in iPad 2 information."

You could make your 4-category argument about any kind of product. Does that mean we should have endless "Rumours of next product after the current one" for all of them?

Is this ChromeOS?

I don't think fragmentation applies - there are good arguments for having different OSs optimised for phones and tablet/netbook sized devices. You don't want a desktop OS on your phone, nor do you want a tablet to just be a brick-sized phone like the iPad.

People don't complain that Windows on x86 is different to Windows on phones. People don't complain that there's fragmentation between OS X and iOS. Nokia also maintain a distinction between Symbian and Maemo/Meego (not to mention S40 for low end phones).

Google had always planned to have both Chrome and Android, so the idea of two OSs shouldn't be a surprise - though I wonder if this new announcement is what was originally planned to be Chrome?

Killer app

I have discovered a Killer App on my Nokia 5800 phone - it works just like those iPhone and iPad apps you see for websites, but it lets you view all websites. Better yet, it works even if the website hasn't released an app specifically for people to view the website! Revolutionary!

I also found that my tablet-with-keyboard (aka netbook) comes with a similar app.

Seriously though - this is going back to the bad old days of "Best viewed in 800x600 on Internet Explorer". But it's _worse_ than that, as that was only a recommendation, but Apple and Murdoch would prefer a world where you only receive content through specifically written apps, and only on their hardware. The whole point of the web was to make information available through an open standard, and let people choose their own clients, available on any platform.

And if an app has something that the website doesn't, why can't I get it for you know, Windows - let alone Android and Symbian?

I guess the walled gardens of Apple and Murdoch are a perfect match for each other. But I sure hope that this isn't the way things go. I want to read information on the Internet on a platform I choose. I don't want a situation where despite most people using Windows/Symbian/Android, content producers decide to force us with "Only viewed on an iPad in 800x600".

flawed stats

Remember that these stats are often flawed - the same stats would claim the Iphone to be the most popular mobile platform, despite the fact that we know it isn't anywhere near that.

It penalises browsers that do more to cache results, as well as those that have to present themselves as another browser, in order not to be fed bogus data.

I too am confused why market share matters for users - and the point is, there isn't even consistency here. If Firefox fans say it's better than Opera because of greater market share, then by the same logic, we should all be using IE(!)

I'm glad to see more alternatives in browsers now gaining ground. Though I get annoyed when Firefox fans spend so much time evangelising against Opera users. Surely more non-IE competition is good? I was using a non-IE browser long before Firefox existed, and long before it became trendy to not use IE, so it's frustrating to hear this envangelism from a Johnny-come-lately.

Level of demand

The level of demand is obviously going to be massively more than what it would usually receive later on.

So are people actually suggesting they should spend resources on systems that can cope with a massive demand, for the couple of days when it first launches, even though it'll be unnecessary later on? And people are also complaining about wasting money?

(If this was a company, people would be spinning it as a good thing - "Look how popular demand for the product is!")

Microsoft are worth billions too

There appear to be several ad-hominems in the comments. Just because Apple have a lot of money, doesn't mean criticism isn't relevant.

By that logic, no one should ever be able to criticise Microsoft!

Regarding the article - don't forget Symbian, also an open platform (both open source, and not a locked down walled garden). It's good that the top two platforms, covering over 60% market share, are open, whilst the Apple model of mobile computing appears to not be succeeding. Of course yes, Apple will still make plenty of money selling expensive products to a niche, that's what they always do, but I'm glad that the future of mobile computing looks open.

And the fact that a closed model makes lots of money for Apple is precisely the reason why users should be wary of it.

As for people always saying Apple are doomed; the same thing now happens with Nokia. We've had years of scaremongering about how they're doomed, based on misunderstood statistics, but the reality is they continue to remain the number one mobile company, continuing to grow each year.

By manufacturer

To add to my earlier post, here's the figures looking at things by manufacturer: http://www.eweek.com/c/a/Mobile-and-Wireless/Motorola-HTC-RIM-Missing-from-Smartphone-Top-5-IDC-445624/

(This also includes "feature" phones rather than just "smart" phones, but I'd argue that makes it more accurate, since the definitions are rather arbitrary. Why is it fair to compare Apple's entire phone sales, to only some of Nokia's, just based on how they market their phones?)

Nokia are indeed the market leader. Apple make the top 5 - but note how Nokia absolutely dwarf them, shipping a staggering ten times as many phones.

Nokia still number one

Presumably Nokia are still the number one seller (both in the arbitrarily defined "smartphone" category, and the more objective category of phones). It was inevitable that Android would likely become number one, as it's been picked up by most other companies - it's Nokia versus everyone else.

~30% for the largest company is still very respectable (after all, Apple's OS X stands as an alternative OS at less than 10% share, and no one complains about that).

And as the article notes, Nokia haven't actually lost sales, the number of sales of Symbian phones still increases.

The other news is, once again, Symbian still outsells Apple - so can we quit the endless coverage of Apple, whilst Nokia get ignored except when it's "bad" news? If being number three or number four is good for Apple, why isn't being number two good? Similarly for Android, whose uses were happy to use it for years when it wasn't anywhere near number one.

Statistics fail - Nokia's sales are increasing

Not this FUD again - whilst Nokia's market share has fallen, their actual sales have increased. In some recent quarters, their sales figures have increased twice as fast as Apple's! So how can their share be falling?

Simple statistics - it's due to the market increasing in size (mainly because phones running Android are now counted as "smartphones", where as before they weren't). Imagine if company A sells 1000 units one year, whilst company B sells 10 units. Next year, company A sells 1100 units, and B sells 30 units.

Company A's market share has dropped from 99% to 97%. Their growth is "only" 10%, whilst B's is a whopping 200%. But no one would suggest that company A is doing badly, or that B is going to overtake them. Company A is still number one, and increased their sales by 100, compared to B's 20.

Consider, similarly Apple's App Store market share has fallen, since the introduction of Android and Nokia stores etc. But do we hear that statistic? No, all we then hear about is the absolute figures, because again it portrays Apple as looking best. If Nokia's and Apple's situation were reversed in the phone market, we'd be hearing nothing but praise for Apple for being number one.

The point is that it is a matter of basic statistics that if more companies enter a market, than it is highly likely that the number one company's share will fall, even if their sales increase. Nokia can't outdo basic mathematics.

The other fallacy is that this only looks at the ill-defined category of "smartphone". Why is the original Iphone a smartphone, and not most feature phones? When you actually look at the market of phones that allow Internet and apps, Nokia dwarfs Apple. They sell more phones every quarter than Apple have ever sold, by a significant margin. The changing nature of "smartphone" causes another problem for the stats - it's not that the market is increasing in size and Nokia are missing out; rather, phones from Motorola etc that used to be not counted as smartphones, are now included in the stats. So even without any change in the success of Nokia or anyone else, their share of "smartphones" will appear to fall.

Copying Apple? Nokia were producing tablets (and phones) long before Apple; as others point out, we might as well claim that Apple are copying Nokia.

I'm also confused by "It stinks to be number two in a market. Or worse, number three." Er, it's Nokia who are number one, and Apple who are at best number three.

And since when did that stink? I've lost track of the number of articles praising article because they are now "number three" in some market!

"The not-Apple market has already crowned Android king of the iOS alternatives. Why fight it?"

Er no. You mean the self-appointed media hype has crowned it. When it comes to actual sales of phones, more people are choosing Nokia, and finding the Android vs iOS squabbling rather irrelevant.

Ian Michael Gumby: "But if you do some trend analysis, people are upgrading to smart phones. Its in this market that Nokia lags."

No, even in the ill-defined "smartphone" category, Nokia still rule. But as I say above, "smartphone" is an arbitrary marketing tag. People aren't upgrading to smartphone, it's just their old Motorola phone running BREW wasn't counted as a smartphone (even though it may have been high end, expensive, with keyboard, running Internet and apps), where as their new Motorola Android phone is. In the stats, it shows up as a "loss" in share from Nokia to Android, when actually, nothing's changed apart from Motorola changing their OS.

"Symbian doesn't cut it"

Works fine for me, and has things I like over Android (good battery life, mapping software that works offline, excellent development environment with Qt/C++).

Goat Jam: "I'm also sure he is also aware that when Nokia & MS were the leaders in the smartphone market it was a moribund niche market populated by a few geeks and a handful of executards."

Nokia are still the leaders. And it's only among "geeks" than Android and Iphones seem to be loved. In the real world, Nokia are selling more.

Re: Actually ...

"I have one elderly relative that really really struggles with a PC and another one who is delighted with a macbook. I know the one is considerably more than the other, but the extra is worth the time I don't spend trying to sort out endless problems."

My parents have no problem with their first PC.

Had they have spent three times the price to get an Apple PC ("Macs" are just another brand of PCs these days, after all), they'd be confused at why it's different to other computers they use. And annoyed that programs they download don't work. And find it harder to get advice from people.

The only times they've called me for problems would have still applied to an Apple PC (e.g., Internet issues, or Firefox).

"For no single identifiable reason the macbook is much easier to use and much less problematic."

Funny how claims that it's easier can be made, but the people making these claims can never identify a single reason.

Here's an actual reason for the counter-argument: when I tried using OS X, I had no idea what the red/green/blue buttons do on windows. On Windows, you get a text tooltip when you move the mouse near it. Not so on OS X - you're left guessing. That's not easy to use.

Anecdotes are not evidence - your anecdote may be true, but so are mine.

Wikileaks?

"This revelation comes not from usual source of the bleeding obvious WikiLeaks"

Possibly I'm missing an in-joke here, but the various leaks from Wikileaks are not at all obvious, and in fact involve things like videos and documents, not facts, so the concept of being "obvious" or not doesn't even apply.

As for the article - I hate how buying a laptop or netbook from PC World results in someone hassling me about anti-virus. The first time, I get someone trying to sell me Norton, and he refused to believe when I said there were free anti-virus programs available. The second time, it was as if he wouldn't let me buy the product until I told him the name of the free anti-virus I was going to use(!) I suppose one could argue it's a good thing to make sure users are going to put anti-virus on - but if they were that worried, why not supply one of the free programs as standard?

Re: Err...

"NFC tacks you no more or less than using any bank card, magstripe, chip and pin or internet. Why do you think it would?"

Well sure, if one simply views this as yet another payment system, it's reasonable.

But we should be wary of the attempts to move to a cashless society - the point with schemes like these is that they are more often touted as being cash replacements, unlike credit/debit cards.

It's not just the concern of tracking or marketing, but also the problem that means of payment are now controlled by private companies - even worse if they are unregulated like Paypal. Issues like your credit being withheld, them randomly deciding to refuse transactions, or intentionally blocking them (as with Wikileaks donations).

And Symbian, the number one platform?

There's no mention of Symbian here, despite it being the number one platform.

Note that this isn't a survey of developers, it's only a survey of those using one particular third party toolkit. And if that toolkit doesn't support the number one platform, it's even more flawed a survey.

Symbian (and Maemo/Meego) uses Qt. I've found it a very nice development platform; allows porting apps to and from desktops without a single change in code, and is one of the best application toolkits I've come across. A shame I can't use Qt on any of the other phones.

Symbian also supports Java, so you've still got more choice than with Android.

@CheesyTheClown: "if I had to do it all over again, I'd write almost entirely different code for each platform, dump Symbian and cut the features of Android down to a minimum."

Why would you dump the number one platform? If you had bad experiences with Symbian C++, note that that's old news. Developing with Qt is great, and uses standard C++.

"Symbian is a waste of time"

If you say so.

If we include smartphones...

Nokia might be number 1.

For 2009, they sold 68 million, giving an average of 17 million a quarter, easily reaching number 2 on the PC figures, and only just short of HP's number 1. But 2010 sales could well be higher. ( http://noknok.tv/2010/12/06/nokia-n8-helps-nokia-to-dwarf-apple-iphone-4-sales/ )

And why stop at smartphones? Feature phones can run apps, access the Internet - the "smartphone" classification is entirely arbitrary, and usually refers to high end hardware features like GPS that you won't on a PC anyway. Feature phones are locked down, but so are the Iphone and Ipad. So yes, let's include those too.

Nokia's 2009 figures now show a whopping 108 million units per quarter. That's more Iphones and Ipads that have ever been sold.

But no, we couldn't possibly have an article showing Nokia in a good light - let's just pick the stats that make Apple look good, and ignore Nokia as always...

Re: Freetards beware

"So this is definately not a movie to pirate as you are likely to get an uncut version that will get you in a lot of trouble."

Indeed (also note that any clips from the film - even the legal cut version - may still be illegal to possess under new laws on "extreme" images, which exempt BBFC films, but not clips from those films).

But I do wonder: the argument against piracy is that it causes losses for the producer. The argument against these films is that producing them is bad. So surely, by both of these arguments, people who pirate such films are doing good, by harming producers. But no - instead we get the argument that it "fuels demand".

mad law

"This law is, I presume, to protect against pornography created where one or more participants are being forced into it,"

Well, you might think so - but sadly no. Despite some scaremongering about snuff films and an alleged trade of non-consensual porn (for which no evidence exists), the politicians supporting this law were well aware that it would criminalise images of staged and consensual acts.

Their justifications were that either people possessing the images would become violent criminals, or simply that the images are "disgusting" and therefore it's okay to lock people up.

"Nope, see if you actually read the law, you'd see that what you have written here is simply untrue. A legitimate defense is if you directly participated in the act, and it was in fact, consensual. See section 51c."

But it's still illegal for even the person taking the video to possess it. It's illegal if you're a threesome, and you share the images private with the third person in your menage a trois.

"Of course removing the speed limit signs is not an exact analogy. The analogy would be the police not declaring just how far you have to be over a speed limit before they will prosecute."

But you can still play safe by obeying the speed limit, and that still doesn't unreasonably infringe on people's driving ability. What is the analogy with this law?

I mean yes, you could never possess any sexual images, or go near any website that might have them... which come to think of it, is exactly what supporters of this law want.

Re: Doesn't the OS use the cores?

Cameron Colley: Depends what you mean by "use". Yes, obviously it can use multiple cores, but you only get full benefit in some circumstances. Take a look at Task Manager - how often is your CPU power stuck at 50%? If you had a single core cpu twice as fast, rather than two cores, you'd get 100%.

"my own PC never struggles doing more than one thing at once but my netbook, using hte same OS, is noticeably slower when "basckground processing" is going on."

Your PC - even just one single core - is likely far more powerful than your netbook, so that's not a fair comparison.

Operating systems can happily run multiple threads/applications on a single core. Now yes, there is a practical benefit of multiple cores, in that you can have an application hogging the CPU, but you've still got another core free. But there's no reason why the OS couldn't manage single core systems in the same way, by limiting threads to only 50% CPU. And if your response to that is to say it'd be stupid to limit available CPU power to 50% - yes, that's the point I'm making about why multiple cores isn't better than the increasing CPU speeds we've had for decades as standard.

Anonymous Coward: "Ready for when phones can print and then also do something else at the same time?"

You don't need multiple cores just to do more than one thing at once!

My Amiga was happily multitasking in 1985 on a single core 7MHz CPU. My Symbian phone happily multitasks today with one core - as do all smartphones (unless you have a crappy IPhone, of course - but then, you won't get multitasking on that even if it did have multiple cores).

Dual core doesn't mean good!

It's a fallacy that multicores are better. Well, obviously twice as many cores is better than nothing, but the point is that CPUs have always got faster with time, and having a CPU twice as fast is still better than two cores of equal speed. There's a fallacy, even among some geeks who should know better, than switching to multicores is some new breakthrough that's better than the improvements in speeds we've had for years before (including in phones).

Increasing the number of cores is a strategy that CPU makers have had to resort to, when they are unable to increase the speed of an individual cores. It passes the buck to software developers to try to convert that to real extra performance - and as anyone who's seen their quad core machine rarely go above 25% will know, we're a long way from being able to do that effectively.

Are even 15% of netbooks selling with dual cores? (There is a dual core Atom now, but only some higher end netbooks ship with it.)

Hans 1: If you're talking about old versions of Android versus IOS, it's funny to watch that argument as if no other platforms existed. Most people out there are running Symbian - older versions of IOS lacked basic features like multitasking and copy/paste, and shouldn't even be counted as a smartphone OS (unless you define it so broadly to include all feature phones too).

Re: Better

Giles Jones: "The Commodore 64 had a better hardware design, a dedicated tape deck and disc drive (official ones, not after market). "

Note that you could get Spectrums with built in tape drive, and disk drive (as you note, there were several Spectrum models, so it's unfair to just compare to one).

J. R. Hartley: "The Amiga, which if not destroyed by management, we would all be using today."

In a way, we are. Modern computers, with their GUIs, multitasking, dedicated chips for graphics and sound, feel closer to my old Amigas than they do to 286 DOS PCs, or the "classic" Macs.

The hardware is different and a derivative of x86, but then the hardware of modern "Macs" has nothing in common with the original, and the same would likely be true for the Amiga if Commodore hadn't gone bust. If Apple can put a sticker on a modern PC and call it a "Mac", you might as well do the same with an Amiga sticker...

Aggellos: "The amiga , atari st and all it's counter parts amstrad, commadore and even the early apple where all killed by piracy not bad management"

Because there's not an piracy on PCs (or Apple)? You don't think that Commodore going bust had a slight impediment on the sales of Amigas?

Netbooks are better

I still prefer netbooks:

* I get a physical keyboard.

* I can run a real OS (Windows 7 or Linux) not one designed for phones.

* It has a much better design - I can let it sit on a table or my lap, without holding it, and the screen is angled perfectly. Unlike a tablet that you have to awkwardly hold with both hands, or strain your neck looking down on it.

* Compatibility with x86 is also handy.

* It's cheaper.

I'm not bothered about a touchscreen when you have a keyboard and multitouchpad - but there are touchscreen netbooks out there, and these may become more common in future anyway.

A tablet is better if you need a computer whilst you're walking around. But most of us don't, and a phone is much more portable for that task. I suspect that tablets will become more popular only when they become cheap enough that having one as well as a phone and netbook becomes affordable for most people. Alternatively, I suspect that what will actually be more useful is colour e-readers, especially with the development of "electronic paper" that's thin and rolls up like paper.

Having said that, I fear the manufacturers pushing tablets more, or the media hyping them more, leading to less support for netbooks. I hate how it's so hard to find a phone with a keyboard these days.

It's also worth noting how netbooks are held to a different standard - they're deemed as being "slow", because Atom is poor compared to desktop CPUs, yet it's not clear that tablets do any better; they're considered rubbish for gaming, because they can't run the latest PC games, yet a tablet is considered amazing if someone ports a ten year old game like Quake 3 to it. Microsoft were ridiculed when they considered a limit of 3 applications, yet Apple are praised when they make a tablet that can't even multitask at all...

I don't see why tablets and netbooks are counted separately - we don't divide phones by whether they have a keyboard or not. Alternatively, why shouldn't touchscreen phones not be counted as tablets - I would argue that in that sense, tablets are already mainstream, sell more than netbooks, and the market leader is Nokia. It's only the overgrown-sized Ipad that isn't as popular.

Re: News because it's an app?

I agree - and curiously, even the Register article notes that this is nothing new, being available on all other phones already. Was there an article for that? Apple phones only need a special version because it can't even support Java.

Nice to see Heathrow Express catering for the majority first - it's depressing that so many companies seem keen to cater only for a few per cent of Apple users, ignoring the majority of phone users (e.g., Symbian, Java phones).

Why an app?

I'm curious about this trend for apps-for-websites. If the Ipad is supposed to be so good for Internet access, why can't it use a web browser like everyone else?

And if there's features not available on the website, where's the app for Windows (and perhaps Linux) netbooks etc, which sell vastly more than the Ipad?

"Get this app for your iPad" is the new "Best viewed in 800x600 on Internet Explorer" - although at least for the latter, that browser and resolution was once the most common platform, unlike the situation today. What happened to open standards? The whole point of the web is it shouldn't matter what platform or hardware you use.

Re: Yeah, right

Since Apple once managed to double the Iphone resolution over a period of 3 years, from when it started off as a very low resolution, clearly Apple are now going to double the resolution with every release as the Ipad.

In fact, The Register should write a vaporware article on the "IpAD 10", claiming it's going to have a resolution of 524288 x 393216. Still won't beat the AmigaSlate though - but long term, Apple will be the winner. After enough generations, they'll announce the "Universe Display", which will have more pixels than atoms in the universe.

(And last time I looked, a fad is something that manages to sell something, but as a result of all the free advertising it gets from the media; and this doesn't mean it's going to be the market leader in mobile platforms - that trophy goes to Nokia for phones, and Windows for netbook/tablet sized devices.)

Re: Idle speculation

I agree. Why does Apple get lots of rumour articles when it's just vaporware, when actual releases of more popular mobile platforms don't get any article (e.g., every netbook release, or Nokia and Android phones).

"If you want to remotely control a desktop computer then it is very handy."

Not really, remote desktop is capable of scaling with different resolutions. There's no point keeping a very high resolution on a small display that you can't see anything on. (Does the Ipad actually support remote desktop?)

It's just numbers bragging. Consider how for years, the Iphones had a very low resolution compared to other phones, and no one seemed to cared about this, but as soon as the Iphone 4s had a higher resolution, suddenly it was a marketing point.

But anyhow, this Istale or whatever it's going to be called is all just vaporware at the moment. I might as well claim the existence of an AmigaSlate, with 8 core processor and 640000x512000 resolution and 16 billion colours, and then justify the hype by referring to all other tablets as "so called 'AmigaSlate Killers'"...

open formats

The idea of using open formats, rather than writing something specific for devices, seems fine.

But as others have noted, I'm concerned that this isn't what they do. There's the argument of whether things like "Flash" is open, I guess. But also the problem that they are spending resources on writing things for say, the minority of Iphone users - whilst at the same time, locking out non-Apple devices that try to use them!

I don't know why Iphones can use the standards like everyone else. But if the BBC does spend extra resources just for Apple, why isn't this then made available for all?

Why are Ipad/Ipod included, and not other non-phone devices like netbooks?

Another bias towards Apple is that the Ipad is included in the list - but if that's counted as "mobile", where are the netbooks? Given that netbooks vastly a lot more than tablets, there should be a significant entry for Windows here, surely?

It's very misleading to try to prop up the Iphone's count by including the Ipad - not to mention the Ipod, which isn't a phone either, whilst not including other non-phone mobile devices.

I'd also like to know who decides what counts as a "feature phone" OS, and what's a "smart phone" OS. Can anyone give me a non-arbitrary definition of "smart phone" that includes the original Iphone (which couldn't even multitask and lacked lots of features common in feature phones, like 3G, video, copy/paste), but not most feature phones?

And as someone points out above, this is for the US only. Worldwide, Symbian has consistently dominated as the market leader.

"Keep in mind that these aren't pure market-share numbers"

But even for the US, what about RIM? I believe they have only very recently fallen in sales, but for years were consistently number 1. Yet they're only 16% here! So either everyone's thrown away their old phones in a few months (highly unlikely), or these stats are useless in determining the installed userbase market share.

Full list

The full list that Apple claims ownership is at http://www.apple.com/legal/trademark/appletmlist.html .

Another one that stands out is "Multi-Touch" - Apple claim to own that?

Someone unimportant should release a load of products using common words prefixed with "i", and then what when Apple try to use someone else's trademark :) (Or wait, are they going to claim they trademarked the process of putting "i" in front of words?)

And those people comparing to Windows are missing the point - as I say in my other comment, the court *did* rule against MS. If someone challenged them, it's quite possible that they would lose that trademark. Yes, maybe MS are being two-faced, but in terms of what trademarks should be, it's entirely consistent here. App Store shouldn't be trademarkable - saying "But Windows is generic too" is no argument, as that shouldn't be trademarkable either.

"Isn't this like saying that they should take away Hoover's trademark as almost everyone (in the UK at least) uses the expression "hoover" to mean vacuum cleaner?"

Yes, it is like that. Companies lose rights over the trademarks if they become generic ( http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/3006486.stm ).

However, "app store" did not simply become generic - both "app" and "store" were also pre-existing terms that described their product, and the pattern of "X store" to describe something is also generic. (Just because the media didn't give hype and free advertising to them before Apple came along, doesn't change anything.) This is different to "Hoover", which was AFAIK entirely made up by them originally.

Here in the UK, "shop" seems a bit more common than "store". Now there's a thought - can I trademark "App Shop"?

Well I'm glad someone's done this!

Indeed, people have most certainly been referring to these online app stores as "app stores" (indeed, I just did it there - what other term is there?)

It did occur to me that "App Store" should be untrademarkable, as it's a pre-existing generic term to describe what it is. Generic words can be used as trademarks, but only if they're not describing the same kind of thing you're selling.

So a company called "Apple" selling computers is one thing. A company that sells apples calling themselves "The Apple Shop" - even if the existing Apple never existed - is another matter.

It's like opening a supermarket and calling it "The Supermarket". No, you don't get a trademark. Or at least, I hope not.

Additionally, even if there was an argument that the trademark was once valid, this should no longer be the case due to the term now being generic.

(Microsoft previous encountered this problem themselves when it came to the Windows vs Lindows case, and the judge ruled against MS. The problem wasn't "window" meaning a piece of glass in a wall - the problem was that "window" was already a term used in computing used to refer to the GUI item.)

She still supports it though...

The Express were indeed wrong to claim she led calls. However, much of the criticism against her has been based on the fact that she still nonetheless supports it, and not because of what the Express said. There was better reporting elsewhere, e.g., http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-bristol-12145602 .

Admittedly I can see it's a leading question - it's easy to say you'd support the police doing such and such in a case, if asked, which is different from actively joining the campaign to back it yourself.

Though I'm still glad to see that people are criticising these calls for mass testing, whether it's from an MP, the media, the police, the parents, or whoever else.

Yesterday's article

Although I'm amused that it was only yesterday we had this from the Register ( http://www.theregister.co.uk/2011/01/10/bristol_dna_test/ ), quoting her directly from the Express. I'm glad to see the follow up clarification - but I also wonder if the Register will be more careful to rely on tabloids in future (or at least, double check the sources - e.g., on her Twitter, she was already saying that they'd misrepresented her) ;)

Re: @Graham Marsden

"You appear to be muddling the law against possessing grossly offensive or disgusting pictures with the law against creating said material and the anti-violence laws."

There is no law on creating these images, only on possession. I don't think Graham Marsden is muddling anything, he's well aware of what the "extreme porn" law covers.

"Whether or not they're fake is irrelevant."

Indeed, it's irrelevant as far as the law is concerned, but it demonstrates that the law is mad. (There were also some supporters of the law who insisted that it was only meant for "abusive" cases, and dismissed critics' concerns as being paranoid. They were wrong.)

Thankfully the jury agreed, and he was found not guilty: Whether or not they're fake is irrelevant.

Re: Police incompetence - freedom's friend...

Indeed - for any kind of investigation, I do think it's a problem that these days a "search" warrant means seizure of your PC(s), your phone, any kind of electronic equipment. Which then is denied to you for perhaps months, and when you get it back, who knows whether any data will be lost.

In today's world, the Internet is becoming a necessity, and PCs/phones are essential for many people's communication and in many cases livelihood. Why is this procedure still going on, for people simply suspected of a crime?

Re: You were warned, perves.

"And all the 'liberals' will applaud."

I was entirely agreeing with your post, but confused by this point. As someone with liberal views, I don't applaud this law. Whilst I'm not expecting the coalition to remove the law (though I wish they would - I don't think it would be that much of a problem politically), I'd be surprised if the Lib Dem policy was to applaud this law. That wasn't their party position when this law was passed, and it was some Lib Dem MPs (and Lords) who spoke out against the law.

Symbian uses Qt for development, as well as other choices

"Android development has none of the advantages of open source development! You can't just code in QT ... All platforms are unfamiliar to developers used to Symbian ... At least the APIs and programming style of Windows Phone 7 and iOS are based upon desktop software"

Actually, Symbian development uses Qt. So it too is based on desktop APIs. And, unlike Windows Phone and IOS, it isn't simply "based on" - it *is* using the same Qt. The same code can compile for Symbian, Maemo/Meego, Windows, Linux, OS X and more. As a developer, I think Qt is one of the best application toolkits I've come across.

It's a true that every phone has its own language which is a bit of a shame (why can't I use, say, C++ and Qt for Android or Iphone?) However, Symbian does offer C++/Qt, Java and Python, so it also offers far more breadth of choice than other platforms. Most programmers will be familiar with at least one of C++ (Qt itself is easy to pick up), Java or Python. On Android it's just Java; on Iphone it's just Objective C.

But the bigger problem with IOS development is that you can only do it on an Apple PC, and you have to pay Apple to release software.

(To be honest though, it's a shame that companies ignore J2ME these days. Back in 2005, you could have apps which ran on 99% of phones out there. Not just smartphones, but almost _all_ phones. Whilst J2ME may have some limitations, if it's good enough for Google Maps and Opera Mini, it can do most things that apps do. But now in 2010 onwards, it's just an app for the less than 5% of Iphone owners. Thanks to Apple, and the way companies idolise them, we've gone backwards, and I'm left struggling to find apps even though I have the market leading smartphone platform.)

"I don't see as this is a big issue, you pay your money and make your choice. Similar thing to the PC verses MAC debate."

Based on market share, it's more like Mac and Linux users debating, whilst most people actually get on and run Windows...

"I'd hate to see Android take the world by storm and crush all opposition it it's wake because that would just lead to a stagnating platform much like we saw with Symbian and WinMo, and waiting years for something bright, shiny, and new to come along to take it's place (i.e. iOS and Android)."

Er, my "stagnating" Symbian has had features like multitasking and copy/paste for years, and it's Iphone users that had to wait years to catch up. And my Nokia phone is perfectly bright and shiny.

AnonymousDareDevil: "All this paranoia about apps in smart phones is just silly. Does anyone choose their phone based on the number of fart apps?"

Indeed, I entirely agree with your comment. This is why Nokia still dominate, despite having fewer fart apps. Most apps are simply wrappers to websites, anyway (it seems every other tab on my browser has an obligtary ad for an "Iphone app" to read the website that I'm already reading).

Well my Nokia phone has a killer app: it's just like those apps that let you read a website, but it works with _any_ website. And, get this - it even works if the website hasn't released an app specifically for my phone!

Windows and Iphone years behind the competition

My 6 year old dirt cheap feature phone had copy and paste. The only thing that's worse is that the expensive Iphone also lacked this basic UI feature for years - yet people praised it's UI as being good.

"Symbian users are also forced to wait, though Symbian updates are generally less anticipated so it hasn't been such a high-profile problem."

Not true, I get firmware updates no trouble. Although yes, it's true that they're less anticipated - Symbian has all the fundamental features like copy/paste and multitasking as standard, so there's no need to wait around for years.

Re: Copying Apple is a smarter move than copying Google

I think he was being sarcastic - it would have been better for users to simply have these basic features as standard, then you don't have to wait for updates at all.

It's also odd to see people criticising Windows Mobile's market share. Nokia's market share makes Apple's look tiny, yet Iphone fans don't seem to have a problem with that (and Apple's share was even smaller in the past, but still no one had a problem with that). It reminds me of the way that Mac users sneer at Linux for small market share, yet don't have a problem with Windows vastly outselling Mac. Indeed, why is it that market share between Apple and Microsoft is seen as a key factor for comparing phones, but not for the desktop?

Symbian beat them both

"This means that developers increasingly are going to need to choose the platform they should develop for first, and the answer seems increasingly to be Google's open web."

No, it means no such thing - or shouldn't. Worldwide, Symbian are still number one by far (and although it's conceivable that Android may eventually catch up, due to running on phones from many manufacturers, Apple are in no sign of beating Nokia).

But even in the US, it was only very recently that RIM was number one. Did this mean that US developers focused on BlackBerry? No - we still got apps just for Apple (which was then number 4 worldwide!), and maybe for Android. So the idea that mobile developers care about market share is a complete sham. Instead, companies, like the media, seem more interested in hyping Apple and giving them free advertising, than actually following market demand (it would be as if companies and the media only released apps and reported on OS X, with Windows the market leader getting ignored...)

Also consider that installed user base will lag behind market share (these figures only show the latest sales, and most people don't buy a new phone every quarter). So I would still expect there to be more BlackBerry users in the US (due to being number one in the US for so long), and far more Symbian users (which has consistently been number one worldwide for years).

"Do it or else" *is* as bad as legislation

Saying to the ISPs "Do it yourselves, or we'll make a law to force you" is not voluntary; it's almost the same as simply passing the law anyway. If anything it's worse - there's no room for political debate as the Government will say it's the ISP's choice, whilst the ISPs will say they were told to do it by the Government; and the list will be drawn up by a separate body accountable to no one (as with the IWF / Cleanfeed).

You can read the relevant Commons "debate" at http://www.theyworkforyou.com/debates/?id=2010-11-23c.235.0 . Edward Vaizey: "what we are really talking about is ensuring that we can protect not only children from accessing unsuitable adult material, but adults from the extreme versions of pornography" ... "Clearly, there is material that should not be published at all."

There are also worrying endorsements of the CJIA 2008 "extreme porn" law which (as Jane Fae Ozimek of The Register has covered well) criminalises adult porn involving consenting actors and fictional scenes, and has even been used by police for things like CGI "tiger" joke porn.

Yes, I hope that this is little more than saying some fluff to appease pro-censorship voters, without actually doing anything. But if the ISPs do "voluntarily" introduce it out of fear of legislation (as they have already done with mobile broadband, so this is not hypothetical), then there is concern over that.

Symbian too is now open source, and the number one phone platform

"That's a heck of a lot of phones running open source. Even more than Apple ships."

And once again we forget Symbian ... 2010 is also the year that Symbian went open source, and that runs on even more phones than both Android and Apple.

Between Symbian, Android, and Meego, open source seems quite dominant on phones and tablets (although Windows 7 is still doing well on netbooks).

Charles Calthrop: "Of course win 7 is still only on the desktop, which I know is not as trendy as slates / phones"

Although Windows 7 runs on laptops, and my netbook, which are surely mobile computing devices anyway (the only difference between a netbook and tablets is the presence of a keyboard really).

Intel/ARM

It does seem odd the way that the netbook and tablet markets are so divided - we don't see netbooks with ARM, or tablets with x86. Imagine if the phone market was divided according to simply whether they had a physical keyboard or not...

"However, the first commercial tablets, such as iPad and Galaxy Tab"

These were not the first...

Re: Has it got a map loader program

I'd be curious to know this too - the killer feature of Ovi Maps isn't caching, it's being able to download the maps to an area beforehand without ever needing to do it on the phone (very useful to avoid roaming charges, but also useful for us PAYG customers).

copy/paste

"We'll have iOS 5 and Android 3 coming out just as MS gets copy-and-paste working."

Apple finally got that at long last?

I agree it's embarrassing not to have such a basic feature (even my 6 year old cheap feature phone had it), but this criticism applied to Apple too for far too long. Next you'll be saying the IPhone is better because Windows Phone doesn't multitask...

Data

Who owns the data? And what if the service is shut down because they think you violate the TOS?

For the IPad, I agree they aren't PC replacements, but even for this:

"but mainly ones PCs aren't very good at – anything involving touch, of course, plus viewing videos or books"

Since when were netbooks and laptops not good at this? I do both just fine on mine. And I'd say they're better suited, as you can just place it on your lap with the screen angled just right, where as the IPad has to be held in your hands.

"not just netbooks, whose popularity as the leading companion device has already been eclipsed by the tablet."

Tablets now sell more than netbooks? Since when?

"However, according to DisplaySearch analysts, if the iPad is categorised as a mobile PC rather than an oversized iPhone, Apple is now the largest mobile PC vendor in the US,"

Worldwide, they're smaller than HP and ACER ( http://www.reghardware.com/2010/12/07/displaysearch_q3_2010_mobile_pc_sales/ ). And as that article points out, it ignores smartphones; Nokia sell way more than Apple. It's a rather contrived statistic to handpick a category that counts the IPad as a "mobile PC", but not other handheld mobile computing devices.

Talking of Nokia, it's odd to have an article covering all the alternatives, but to ignore the number one smartphone company.

Re: Don't like the Police?

Andy Fletcher: If you don't like living in a country where organisations like Fitwatch exist, why don't you go off to Somalia?

And why do you need the police - I mean, with your logic, if you get assaulted, mugged, or burgled, you just say to yourself "Well that's okay, it's better than Somalia where I'd be shot", right?

Bob H: "but having read some of that site I see that these are just the usual neo-anarchists who use barrack room lawyer tactics to serve their own devious purposes."

If you don't like it, don't read it. That's not an argument for granting censorship control of the Internet to the police.

"There is no moral high ground when you advocate destruction of evidence"

Well, if growing a beard or cutting your own hair counts as "destruction"... they were not however advocating violence, vandalism or interference with the police.

Peter2: "I call that lying under oath, legally known as perjury or perverting the course of justice."

Er, advising someone not to answer being in a photo is entirely the kind of reasonable advice a defence lawyer might give. Remember also that being in a photo doesn't constitute a crime - people may have been at the protest, and risk being accused, even if they didn't smash any windows.

Moreover, you're missing the point. Even if you think the advice is wrong, it shouldn't be illegal to give the advice. If the advice is childish (as Stephane claims), it's far more childish for the police to shut it down. Why aren't we criticising that?

Land of the free

It's a good thing that something like this would never happen here! How lucky I am to live in such a free country!

The Ipad is just yet another mobile computer

There were tablets before and after the Apple tablet came along - we should be asking whether the Ipad can compete with the range of tablets now available, not the other way round. However the article makes a good point - it's not about quantity - who cares if the Ipad has thousands of fart apps? Some of the more prominent apps do nothing more than display a graphic ( http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/8152338.stm ). And claims of numbers of apps are misleading anyway, since they only count the official app stores. Other platforms like Symbian, Windows, Android, Blackberry etc aren't locked down like Apple, so the total number of apps would be far greater. Would anyone suggest that the Ipad has more than Windows, because Microsoft don't have an app store?

I must confess, when I first read this, I missed the irony of "magical and revolutionary" and didn't realise it was a quote from Apple. The sad thing is it's hard to tell irony from some of the astroturfing that goes on by much of the media.