2112 posts • joined 6 Nov 2009
Common sense? Analysis?
I agree with you, but if you are hoping that you will get support amongst a certain proportion of the "cognoscenti" here at El Reg then your hopes are in vain. The degree of malicious whistling in the dark we see whenever this subject is mentioned is fairly obvious. They are not predicting what they *believe* will happen, they are predicting what they *hope* will happen.
We can look forward to......
......................a lot of postings based on malicious wishful thinking. I, personally speaking, have no idea how Nokia's deal with "The Great Satan From Redmond" will play out in reality. We will have to see, won't we? However, I have a very clear idea about how many of you *want* it to play out.
@+++ath0 re: Amazon. You may very well have a point here.,
We will just have to see how it turns out. It depends to a significant extent on how Amazon develop their app-store and whether the ease of use equation contra Amazons rep and relationship with their customers plays out. It will be interesting at any rate!
@+++ath0 re: "Google is unhappy?" Google may indeed as you say be...........
..........happy because their business model is based on apps as "ad-bait". However, it will be interesting to see what happens now with Amazon in the game. Amazon will most certainly strongly wish to *sell* as many apps as possible - wonder how happy Google will be if the devs start to decamp to Amazon? I have a gut feeling that the situation may be about to change.
Agreed, that is why I.........
.........bought Mrs Arctic Fox Nokia's N8 for her birthday despite the os. She is delighted.
No all those evil bastards at M$ (The Great Satan) do is......
1. Cooperate actively with internet security professionals.
2. Issue regular advisories themselves.
3. Issue regular updates/patches where known issues exist.
4. Provide one of the best AV packages on the market free, gratis (Security Essentials)
5. Actively cooperate with Jurisdictional authorities to trace, obtain the evidence, arrest and convict the criminals who engage in this kind of shite.
Nah, they don't do nuffin', fuck all really.
@a_been re "We havn't seen the license"
Indeed we have not seen the license which is precisely why I asked in my posting:
"Any way we can find out *where* in this license they feel that they are granted such rights?"
What makes me curious about this business is that *if* Apple ensured that they *did* purchase such rights then I am quite certain their legal dept would have ensured that the necessary clauses in the license agreement put the issue beyond any dubiety. That being the case why does Lodsys think that they have a case? They must have known that the devs would contact Apple the moment they received those letters and that it would indeed be "game over" as you put it *if* those rights were explicit in the license. The whole business is very peculiar.
Hmm, bit of a poser this one.
I can readily see that, by definition, the license that Apple have purchased must cover them, people selling Apple products (acting in effect as Apple's agents) and of course the end-point customer to whom these products are sold. I am absolutely no expert but I cannot quite see how such a license would cover third-party *producers* of goods and services designed to function with Apple products. Apple's interpretation would seem to suggest that anybody making anything that can be used in conjunction with Apple products is covered if Apple say they are covered (ie Apple say that they are a partner). Does anybody here have more of a clue and can explain this area of the law? I must admit that I am puzzled, Apple appears to be claiming very wide-ranging rights under this license, surely the right to name/protect third-party producers under the terms of *Apple's* license would have to be explicitly stated in said license? The devs after all not employed and paid by Apple to manufacture on Apple's behalf (like Foxcom is) goods which Apple then own and thereafter sell to customers directly or via third-party retailers, they are independent *producers*. Their products do not become Apple's property at any stage even though they are sold via the AppStore. Apple assert that they *are* explicitly granted such rights in this license. Any way we can find out *where* in this license they feel that they are granted such rights?
It is a word whose misuse and ubiquity theses days normally makes.......
.........me cringe. However, when I saw that astonishing photograph I was, almost, tempted to say "that is aw***e". I resisted the temptation manfully and will content myself by saying that that is one of the most awe-inspiring images from space that I have ever seen. I congratulate the team behind the work.
Well the "m.theregister" works fully for comments on HTC's........
.......stock browser at any rate. Doesn't in Opera mobile for some reason, just get that error message others have referred to. Never mind, the "Sense" browser is perfectly adequate for following El Reg mob. Yay! Now I can post from the bus - God, when did I become a geek? Are there support groups where you can get help? "My name is Arctic Fox and I am........."
Posted from my desire z (at last)
It is a bit silly to try and be "smart" in that way...........
.........replying to a posting where I specifically say that Mac-owners *should* install AV and malware detection, hmm? I was simply (as you were perfectly well aware) saying that Mac owners should not any longer believe that they are in any way immune. The "mood music" from Cupertino on this subject has always been that OSX is intrinsically superior to Windows in this area - and there is no point in pretending that is not the impression that they have tried to give. That they recommend installing AV and malware detection anyway should come as no surprise - their legal dept would have insisted that they did for obvious reasons, whatever impression of the OS their marketing dept would wish to give.
It was always going to happen. Mac-owners have been warned for years......
........by the rest of us. The assertion that OSX is *intrinsically* far more robust than other OSes was always a chimera. Many of us have pointed out for a very long time that the main reason for the Mac's "immunity" was largely that the villains couldn't be bothered devoting the time and the resources to targeting Apple's machines when they have a vastly larger and thereby vastly more profitable "market" with Windows machines. The Macs are now a more profitable target, there are "attack kits" becoming available specifically aimed at the OSX and we can expect to see far more of this. I would strongly recommend to any Mac owner that he/she takes this seriously, ignores Cupertino's propaganda and protects their Mac properly. AV and the like *are* available for Macs, flaming well use them and the same large helping of common sense that we Windows users have to employ.
@Naughtyhorse re "oh dear oh dear"
"..........required only that an attacker know the date of birth and email address associated with a targeted user's account..............."
Actually the words that came to my mind were "shagging contest" and "brothel". All I can say other than that is *unfuckingbelievable*.
Its dark out there and Intel is.......
.......whistling very loudly. Whatever ones opinion of Microsoft is it is fairly obvious that they did not decide to go for an ARM version of Win 8 just for giggles. They regard it as a strategic imperative in context with small but increasingly powerful mobile devices. With coding Win 8 for both ARM and Intel architecture MS are taking an each-way bet to ensure as far as they can that they remain relevant whilst the current paradigm shift is in progress. To paraphrase an old and famous quotation what we are seeing in the mobile devices market is not the beginning of the end, nor even the end of the beginning. It is quite simply the very beginning of something that is likely to be a pretty bump ride for a lot of companies. Bluntly put MS does not give a shit about whether or not Intel misses the boat, what they care about is that *they* do not miss the boat, and if that requires ARM and at some stage in the future saying "vaya con dios" to Intel then that is precisely what MS will do. All fair in love and business and all that jazz.
"Have you considered that it's the sane ones who'll leave and and the idiots who will stay."
Not at all unlikely IMO. From the article:
".................In the first week of downtime we did not really see any major change in sales or trades... However from the second week................".
It was not until the end of the first week that the scale of Sony's eff-up became clear *and* that the nature of the info-theft was rather more serious than Sony were prepared to admit to. A significant proportion of those bailing out may indeed have done so for entirely sane reasons - like not wanting a risk that their bank ac could be emptied, now or at some time in the future if Sony screwed up again!
That's all we need, a bit of dust and....
......it will sound like Darth Vader with a bad case of bronchial pneumonia.
"Unless you enjoy eternal fan noise"
And if you wish to enjoy eternal iPhan noise then you only have to browse this type of thread!
......since you can neither activate nor update your iPad without access to a Mac or a PC. When the day comes that we get the Mac OS and Win 8 on tablets - then we will be able to talk about "replacement".
Re A little birdy told me.
Given the accerating pace of development in this area it is entirely possible that the move to 14 nm may come rather quicker than one otherwise would have expected. As for ARM-based technology I think we can be reasonably certain that someone somewhere is working on it! What about a 7 in form factor tab, 2.5 Ghz quad core running Win 8 or OSX (according to taste) with the type of battery life you mentioned? Now *that* would indisputably be a proper tablet *pc*!
My second post was intended to have a happy face attached!
Sorry about that!
Just goes to show.
We should be very grateful that Intel did not succeed in driving AMD out of business a decade or so ago by methods which (if I ruled the world) would definitely mean jail-time. Anyone think that Intel would be putting this amount of sustained effort (read money) into innovation if the continued existence of a significant rival didn't force them to?
I have said it before and I'll say it again........
............without *any* glasses bundled this is in practice, sold as is, a *2D* TV - and a rather pricey 42 inch 2D telly at that. Fortunately we upgraded to a 55 in Sammy just before the producers started this shell game with 3D tellys. We won't in all likelihood upgrade again until they get OLED fixed - ie a genuine advance in display tech that is actually worth paying for.
I'll get the three original movies on blu-ray but.....
.........Darth Lucas can get stuffed if I am parting with a penny piece for those three abortions/computer game advertisements he called prequals.
A work in progress.
There is in fact a deal to like with this in regard to hardware and design. However the point is that it is aimed at those that want to run a full Windows os and whatever one thinks about Win 7 on a conventional pc (I rather like it) it is seriously pony as a table os Plus the fact that the kind of tablet hardware we are anticipating (2 GHz, at least dual core, ARM based) is not going to be available for at least 12 months. Only during the back half of 2012 are we going to begin to see tablet hardware that, IMO, can be regarded as serious. If one wants a tablet running full song with choruses Windows with an acceptable level of performance without battery life that is a joke (for a tablet) then you are going to have to wait for the upcoming hardware developments and Win 8 ARM. It will be a year before a serious Windows tablet will be available. There is, IMV, much that is interesting with this offering from Acer but I am not parting with £500 or so for a system that in reality is at prototype stage.
No they do not get it.
As has already been pointed out you cannot use an iPad without access to a pc or a mac (I shall not say a word about iTxxxs). The iPad is in practice being purchased as a *supplement* to an existing home pc/mac setup (desktop and/or lappie) - it is not designed to have "independent life", it is indeed correctly described as a media tablet. Now there is nothing wrong with it being such a device and it clearly makes a lot of punters happy - it is just not a *replacement* for a pc or a mac. *That* will not happen until the available hardware has more power without slaughtering the battery and tablets are being sold with Win 8 and/or OSX compiled to run on ARM architecture. *Then* we can talk about the new mobile devices replacing the pc/mac - because they will be running proper operating systems with full functionality.
I think that a point is being missed by some.
This article raises a number of very valid points. In my view it is not acceptable for these companies to collect this data unless they ensure that the sign-up/start-up procedure involving the device concerned really *does* place the customer in a position to make a *genuinely* free, informed and *uncoerced* decision when giving the necessary permissions. Burying it in the EULA or saying "well, you must realise that these smartphones etc..etc." is NOT acceptable. If these companies' behaviour is *not* illegal, it should be made so SAP.
@Chris Morrison. re "Errr....."
It is indeed a quite remarkable phenomenon. If Apple are making that much profit per unit sold that is, by definition, at the expense of their customers - literally. Same customers log on here having been roundly rear-bored by the Cupertino posse (and apparently loved that magical experience) and start howling about how evil the Great Satan From Redmond is and, natch, very often on many threads spelling His Name with a dollar sign! You could not make it up. Apple certainly do not need to *employ* astroturfers - their Phanbois do it pro bono.
Have they copywrighted it yet?
I mean the word "Cloud" must be something new, unique, shiny and magical that Apple has recently invented, mustn't it?
The only thing I can suggest is that you.........
....pick up an xbox on the way home!
WHAY TO GO SARAH!!!
Ahem, cough, shuffle. No, I am in fact not taking the micky. I agree with your point.
@ Anonymous Coward: Yes most of us actually got why El Reg used it in the headline.
What several of us are reacting to is how the hell the word got invented in the first place - see? You can even call our complaints contextual if you wish - the context being a certain regard for the mother tongue.
When I read "refudiate" in the headline I thought, which idiot came up with that one?
Then I read the words "Sarah Palin" and "Twitter" and that sinking feeling was confirmed. Not only did an ignoramus come up with it but the wonders of modern communications technology allowed her to pollute the whole of cyberspace with it.
That may well be what he intended but I am not sure that makes it any more logical. His alternative then would be self-regulation? In that event I have to say that I fear that he suffers from the same persistent delusion that the market can be self-governing that so many of his political compadres suffer from. Just to express it rhetorically, what happens when this or that company within a market begins to "win", what do we see time and again? They start to use/abuse their market position and/or utilise predatory legal tactics in order to protect what they *at the outset* won by competing more effectively than other companies. It does not even require that a company achieves the kind of dominance of a market that Bell in its day or MS or Intel achieved as single companies. We saw that in the early noughties when five or so TV producers operated a pricing cartel in the European market. They ended up paying large fines but my point is that it did not require there to be only one or two major players for that kind of distortion of the market to work - it demonstrates that it is not enough just to ensure that no one player gets too big. The irony is that it appears to take very tough and, when necessary, financially ruthless regulation/regulatory action to protect the free-market from the activities of its participants. "Big Corp" does not want "free and fair" competition and most certainly has no interest in subjecting itself to any *genuinely* effective self-regulation (I have to admit that I regard the concept "effective self regulation" as an oxymoron!). I fear that the author is avoiding addressing a really fundamental issue.
The author has an economically neo-conservative agenda with regard to government regulation - fair enough, he is entitled to his view. However, there is a certain lack of logic in his complaints about such intervention. Should the authorities have adopted a hands-off approach towards MS in the 1990s or not? If, in the author's opinion the authorities should simply piss off and leave the industry alone he should then at least explain how one *should* deal with the way that MS behaved in the nineties or the way that Intel treated AMD or the way that etc etc....... Oh and please do not make me laugh and say let the courts handle it - I can just see the vulpine smile crawling over the face of every corporate lawyer in existence when some idiot says that.
@AC RE: Would a MS stooge....
A very good and logical point - just do not expect the "cognoscenti" to appreciate it!
Thanks. My problem was not in fact with criticism of the guy's work here, it was the ad hominem attacks that got up my nose! As it so happens (in as much as my opinion is worth anything on a topic that is not exactly within my field) I agree with the criticisms you posted above. The benchmark does appear to be highly artificial - a failing with many such perhaps?
I will quote him again:
"Crockford admits that he expected Chrome to top the list. "My guess is that they overspecialized for specific styles of programming, and that Chrome was tripped up by a real program. There are some very smart people at Google, and I would expect them to rectify this.""
In what way can his remarks be construed as "disparaging"?
tr.v. dis·par·aged, dis·par·ag·ing, dis·par·ag·es
1. To speak of in a slighting or disrespectful way; belittle.
He referred to Google's programmers in a perfectly respectful and friendly fashion making it clear that he did not expect the result he got and that he respected their abilities. *That* was what I was referring to. Those who attack the messenger get no respect from me. Constructive and properly argued criticism (e.g Oninoshiko's first post on this thread) however is another matter.
I am not in any way defending this guy's benchmarking or any implicit assumptions he may be operating on. Indeed I am not in any way defending the ranking he has generated either. Several of the postings we see on this thread represent considered criticism of his work and they I have no problem with. I do however point out that the *main* thrust of *some* of the postings is that he *must* be some kind of paid shill for MS - it is that kind of posting where the messenger rather than the message is attacked that I was criticising.
Even if you disagree with the guy's methodology some of the usual........
........comments from the usual suspects that imply he is a paid stooge for MS slagging off Chrome show very clearly that they did not bother to read this bit of the article:
"Crockford admits that he expected Chrome to top the list. "My guess is that they overspecialized for specific styles of programming, and that Chrome was tripped up by a real program. There are some very smart people at Google, and I would expect them to rectify this.""
Now you can agree or disagree with what he says but his comments (or his work for that matter) cannot simply be dismissed as paid for by The Great Satan From Redmond.
"I cannot deny it, but Jobs is damned good at a number of things, indeed."
I agree, he is. Indeed it would be idle to pretend otherwise. That in fact makes me very curious to know to what extent he was involved in this decision and in what degree he actively (in his heart of hearts) supports it. If there ever was a CEO who understands the market it is S. Jobs, he cannot fail to be aware that this is *potentially* a very dangerous move. I would really love to have been a fly on the wall in the Apple boardroom when they took *that* decision!
I note that on this thread and on the thread attached to the article that reported Apple's original writ there is a marked absence of "Phanboi" posting. Sure some people have expressed the opinion that there is perhaps a little too much similarity between the Galaxy S and the 3GS although even they usually have also said that they do not see the same with the Galaxy Tab and the iPad. It is almost as if Apple's very loyal fan-base are, at the least, somewhat uneasy about Cupertino's decision to go to war with their largest component supplier over breaches which, on the face of it, do not amount to that much (even if one accepts Apple's story) and certainly have not done Apple's sales any damage! Indeed I think that they are right to be uneasy because I do not believe that this in reality is about any perceived patent breach - this is IMO about the current state of the smart phone market. We are reaching a point where the smart phone market is on the verge of exploding and it is Android (currently) who appear to be riding the wave at a higher rate of knots than (relatively speaking) than the iOS. Samsung's high end offerings are beginning to represent a real challenge for Apple whilst HTC has reached the point where brand recognition in the marketplace is such that ordinary punters are now asking for that company's phones by name. Furthermore I do not believe that Cupertino dismisses the increase in competition that may be provided by future Nokiasoft phones as readily as some here at El Reg do. All in all the future is looking more challenging for Apple specifically because it is not unlikely that at some point they will no longer dominate the high end of the market - and that is what they really care about. They will IMO always sell well, they know what their customers want and how to design and build it. However, they clearly have decided to use every method they can get away with to protect their market position - that is a dangerous place to be in, Apple may come to regret starting this war.
276 postings and rising? On a "suggest an icon" thread?
We posterbois certainly know how to get our priorities right, don't we? Could we please have an irony-alert icon - for those who tend to miss that kind of thing? The joke-alert icon (although often useful) doesn't always fit the bill, if one is trying to be a *little* bit subtle.
@cloudberry: Great link. It really cheered me up after.......
.......having watched that steaming pile. In fact I laughed out loud at several points - very enjoyable to read something genuinely witty rather than merely sarky.
Hello! What part of the expression "total crap" is difficult to understand?
The film was third rate garbage. I had more "fun" watching the latest Transformers film than this steaming pile of guano. I cannot believe that some of the postings here are actually friendly towards this ******* and as for 80% - I beg your pardon?
Now we are beginning to talk!
I have written on several occasions that I am not interested in an iThingy or equivalent as any kind of "supplement" (ie waste of time and money), I am only interested in a tablet when it is an all singing all dancing pc and can *replace* kit here at Arctic Fox Towers. When the tablet concerned can replace my lappie, the front room pc and my Kindle (which will be getting a little aged by then) I will be willing to part with some serious hard earned for the kit concerned. A little docking station in our TV bench connected to our home theatre system and we would be all set. Seven inch form factor could live in my coat pocket between home and work very nicely thank you.
@Vicky Lamburn Re Screen sizes.
I have to say that I agree, the physical dimensions of ones phone if one spends a fair amount of the working day "on the blower" do have a considerable effect on user comfort. Amusingly enough my personal experience is the opposite of yours (I suspect the shovels I have at the end of my wrists are to blame!). My little old Wildfire (3.5 in) is for me far less comfortable than my Desire Z (3.7 in) when using it for a long conversation despite the fact that the "Z" is much heavier as well. It has to be said however that the competition in this (currently) ever expanding market is such that there are and will IMV continue to be a range of sizes that should ensure that we do not end up in a "one size must fit all" situation.
This means in practice that Cupertino have decided to sue *everybody*, merely starting with Samsung in the formal sense. The implications of the way they have framed their claim appear to be so widely drawn that they appear to be (in practice) demanding that everybody else get out of the smartphone business. They have had the lead in this market for the last 3 - 4 years or so but that (as was inevitable in a market growing at such a rate) lead has slipped. One simple question can be posed. Why now? Why did they not fire off a writ the moment that they saw the launch of the Galaxy S - if it was such a clear violation of their IP? Apple have apparently decided to declare war on the rest of the smartphone market - not the smartest move one could imagine. The company appears to have decided that vexatious litigation rather than impressive innovation is the way forward from now on.
With regard to the Atom Z670, Engadget is reporting that Intel's web site was showing an announcement that claimed that Asus' upcoming Eee Pad Slider would be using the Z670 rather than the Tegra 2 as previously announced. That claim has now been pulled from the Intel site - quite what is going on there is a bit of a mystery.
Too bloody right!
"And it’s arguable whether or not you’ll notice the extra definition on a set that would fit in a typical UK sitting room."
I should cocoa its arguable! If you do not mind sitting at the back of the garden in order to watch one of these hung on your front room wall then by all means go ahead. What would your viewing distance have to be? It is of course very interesting from the tech point of view and I am glad El Reg is covering it, but it is no way realistic technology for ordinary punters with an ordinary home even if they could afford one.
For crying out loud.
This is just the kind of thing their marketing dept love. They get plenty of attention in the press for rather more relevant reasons without there being the slightest need to cover a bloody colour-change. What the hell does that have to do with IT? Apple's kit is often of interest for many here from the tech point of view - fair enough, I have absolutely no quarrel with that. However, I do think that feeding Cupertino because of the colour of the bloody thing is ridiculous.