1105 posts • joined 23 Mar 2010
If you think that needing to have an amazon account before being able to access the amazon store is an abuse then tell Nokia and they can include it in their complaint. It has just as much relevance to anything as your point about needing to have a google account to access the google store. If you don't want to use a google account on android then get your apps from somewhere else. A google account is 100% NON-mandatory to use the features of android (the google apps are not part of android, they are licensed separately - RTFA); that's why you can skip the sign-in when you first set up the device. If you don't want to use the google apps then disable them and you'll never need to know they ever existed. Google can't abuse you when you can't see its apps!
Incidentally, the native app is non-Google. It's part of AOSP, not the suite of Google apps which the legal complaint is about. It can import and export contacts in vcf format and can also sync with other apps like Skype, Skydrive and Facebook if you prefer to use other contacts services. When people say Android is open, this is the sort of thing they mean. You can use an android phone without ever letting google know how few friends you have.
No, you fail.
I pointed out that Google does not abuse their position. What are you on about? I won't hear your nonsense any more but feel free to approach Nokia with your argument that the ghost of an installation of a google app, which cannot be run, does not take up any space on the user's RAM and cannot be accessed from the app drawer, represents an abuse of power. They'll tell you it's nonsense too.
Alternatives to not need to be provided natively for you to use them, but the native app will not send your details to google unless you log in with a google account - which is not a requirement to use the device. If you really hate google so much, just don't buy an android phone; you get the best experience by using it with a google account and benefiting from their services.
You utterly fail.
@AOYGI Android phones preinstalled with a full set of Google apps sell incredibly well. Nokia phones with whatever they have preinstalled don't. Niokia's solution is to remove the Google apps from android phones.
You don't need root to disable apps. This feature was added by Google for the sole purpose of allowing non-root users to disable preinstalled apps such as Google's own. They can't be deleted because of the type of memory they are installed in, but a disabled app has as much impact on the user and the device as a deleted app. This is not abuse and is not the subject of the complaint.
You need a google account to use the google app store. You need an amazon account to use the Amazon app store. But you do not need to use either.
You do not need to use Google services to store your contacts on an Android phone.
Re: Tbh i was wondering who Microsoft would Complain about first.
Apple even leverages their position in mobile to make anyone who wants to make an app buy a Mac!
The Google apps are not part of android, OEMs have to license them from google. The complaint is that google licenses the apps as a whole set instead of individually, and the license requires the OEM to put them on the main homepage. Now, if Android OEMs were making this complaint then it wouldn't seem so petty.
Before version 4.0 it was not possible to disable/remove apps which were preinstalled into a certain part of the phone's storage area (which I forget the name of). In version 4.0 Google added a feature that lets you disable preinstalled apps. They still exist on the phone but are not in the app drawer and do not run. They can't be removed, but removing them would not free up any usable space anyway.
Chrome lets you use Bing as the default search engine, Android lets you use a different app store, lets you download a different maps app and set it as a default, lets you download a different browser and set it as default, lets you download a different keyboard and set it as default, lets you download magazine store apps, lets you download book store apps which use a non-google payment system, lets you use netflix, lets you download a music player and set it as default, lets you use Skydrive, yahoo mail, hotmail...if this suit succeeds then Apple is in the sh*%.
And Android can be used without a Google account.
Re: XP users should say 'thanks' to the penguins
I had Win Me and I also tried linux back then. Win Me was not a disaster at all but linux on the desktop was a disaster in its own right. MS had and OS which worked for the masses; they were not competing with linux.
Re: Not Win8, not now or ever
You need to use the desktop, not the Metro interface. Both are available. As for the start menu, I've not used it in years. Hit the windows key and type - it's much quicker than reaching for mouse and scrolling, and can reveal settings without you having to navigate through the control panel. It's better, but it's different. Some people hate different so much they don't get to find out that its better.
Re: re. Feedly
You don't control the adverts, the creator of the feed controls the adverts. If they put "Buy more bread" into their feed then will tt-rss block the phrase for you?
The quip about not being able to show ads in reader makes no sense. They would scrap Maps, Sites, Docs, G+ and others if this was their policy. In any case, they did provide an RSS ad service until recently, which would have shown their own ads in reader if you subscribed to people who use google ads.
They wouldn't kill a service that was making decent money so why would the competition take the services on? If they wanted to slurp data they'd keep the services running.
Lucky for you, the official google blog says they're not getting rid of caldav. So you can keep all your google goodness.
Well said. My local takeaway closed down and I realised I'd come to rely on it. Google Reader is no different, it's just a product. Stopping it is certainly not evil as some are trying to make out.
Re: Don't be evil unless there's money to be made by being evil
If google wanted more money they'd charge people to use reader. That would set a precedent where people could be made to pay for other, or to have more than a basic service. Personally I think this would be a good thing as the assumption that things online should be free will eventually kill off more services than just Google Reader. So if they did love money then they'd not have done what they did. But what they would do instead, you'd call evil. You earned an epic fail badge.
End the FUD
Export as OPML is still there. First, create a "bundle". Then export the bundle.
Re: Truly pathetic.
They still have free services.
They don't harvest data with services that don't exist.
Re: Sarcasm right?
Take Out is a major thing for them; it's how they differentiate themselves from the likes of Facebook. So it won't go away, but Reader will die before next spring so get your data soon.
Re: First Notebook, now Reader...
Notebook was excellent. Docs is no replacement.
The cloud is fine, and makes life much easier for people who use multiple devices. We just need to start paying for the services we use.
I tried a lot of them and they're all terrible, but that's mostly because they use the ios design guidelines. Pocket Casts is less terrible now that it's had an almost-holo redesign, and it syncs across devices too. I stuck with Listen for ages because I could listen to podcasts on my laptop through Reader :-)
Re: <insert Googly NSFW expression here>
El Reg can put as much or as little content in their RSS feed as they choose, and that can include adverts. An RSS reader will only show what's in the feed.
Re: Sod Reader, they've killed CalDAV!
They've not killed CalDAV, they've whitelisted it. I'm sure you'll still be able to use it in Microsoft products.
Re: "concentrate on building great products that really help in their lives"
"too" digg. they're building one in time for the execution.
Newer versus better
Windows 8 is more recent than OSX. I rest my case.
Re: Fandroids or... Freetards?
"they shouldn't restrict users' rights over their own devices"
They don't stop you using your device in the way you want. They've prevented some app developers from selling apps which violate the polices of the store. You can sideload, they can use a different delivery system.
"On my phone, using my bandwidth"
You agreed to download an ad-supported app from their website using their bandwidth. If you don't want the ad-supported version then pay for the ad-free version. If there is no ad-free version then get the ads or don't download the app. Why is that so hard to understand?
ITV doesn't get this much abuse for showing adverts! The Google haters are ignorant of the following points:
1) Google has not banned you from installing this app.
That is all. It's understandable that they've removed it from the Play Store because when whiney El Presidente is FORCED [sic] to install an ad-supported app it's agreed that the developer gets paid by displaying adverts. How does it make any sense for the same store which provides er...FORCES...you with that app also to provide an easy way to circumvent that agreement? Even so, if you want to use it then go ahead. Just remember that nobody but you is doing anything evil.
Re: When the S3 was anounced last year
There is a wireless charger for the S3. Google it.
BEST - warmist?
It's not the worst case of bias in the article, but BEST was started by a denier - they even got funding from the Kochs and a good write up from Anthony Watts! The BEST project analyzed as much data as it possibly could and concluded that there was no global conspiracy and the scientists got it right. Even the "zealots" are correct. They are not "warmists" they are scientists.
Your ignorance does not change what they do and does not make it evil.
They don't sell your data, they sell advertising space based on their analysis of the data you give them. You must be the only person on the planet who thinks copyright laws may ever be weakened.
I found a way to bash Apple!
It's obviously a publicity stunt if they don't also ban people from using cameraphones. In the stripclubs near me...so I'm told...you get approached by a bouncer the second you take the phone from your pocket. That doesn't happen in bars.
Anyhow, it occurred to me whilst reading this that Google could create a way to have certain functionality of the devices turned off based on location. Then I remembered Apple's got a patent on this sort of thing. So it's another point to the patent trolls in their battle against innovation!
Sorry for that interlude. The google-bashing may now continue.
Re: you'd think a chromebook only allowed access to google websites
In terms of what you can do on a chromebook, the number of sites using Google scripts and services is irrelevant.
Chrome has offline apps (it's a feature of HTML5 - the future) and drive syncs files not just links. For Docs files it only syncs a link, but you can make the document available offline from within the app. So with Drive you can work wherever you are. When the net comes back up everything syncs up and you can carry on.
An expensive mac won't let post cr@p online without an internet connection either.
Re: So let me get this straight
The way some people put it, you'd think a chromebook only allowed access to google websites. El Reg commentards love to hate google, but I prefer they hate within the bounds of reality.
You'd have a better screen and £600 in your pocket.
Re: Perhaps only a marketing ploy?
My internet has been down for about 4 days in the last 6 years - I work from home and it's just not an issue. And there's practically nothing I do on a computer which doesn't already require a connection. A Chromebook is pretty close to being all I need for a 2nd laptop, plus it allows for offline editing of docs and has offline apps too.
Re: I suspect...
NAS can be used and USB2.0 is faster than an internet connection I call BS on conspiracy theories.
Re: So let me get this straight
A Chromebook gives you access to the WHOLE FRIKKIN INTERNET. That's not a "restrictive ecosystem".
Re: Who needs...
It's the perfect way to let everyone know you have an apple product. They'll all be doing it.
You'll be OK using the likes of Google and Facebook for logins then, because you enter your details on their sites instead. Conversely, the credit card companies came up with something which involved inputting your details on an iframe within a retailer's website. The domain of the iframe was something like "securesuite.com" instead of your own bank's site, but you wouldn't know that unless you hack the html. It's like they're training people to get robbed!
Re: "...forcing Google account holders to have a presence on the site....."
You're not forced to have a presence on the site. Google is a better source of information on Google than the register is... https://plus.google.com/u/0/downgrade/
Re: Still enforcing "real names"?
There was a time before you needed a passport to enter a different country. You can't escape the passport system if you want to enjoy the whole planet but you don't have to login to Google in order to enjoy the whole web.
And a G+ public profile is STILL not a requirement for using gmail or YouTube but the register STILL says it is. El Reg will never understand G+.
HTC phones know when they're in a pocket; Galaxy S3 knows when you close your eyes. Htc's invention might be included in the deal they made with Apple recently, but Samsung will be in trouble for this copying.
Re: Too little, too late
Cookies are for tracking in the same way chainsaws are for massacring Texans.
Re: GURGLE will not stand for this
For google and facebook this is less strict than the current system where users can uncheck the "accept 3rd party cookies" option. By default, firefox users will have google as their homepage, so any google 3rd party cookie will be allowed. Facebook only shows ads on facebook, so if you are ever likely to see their ads then you've visited the domain voluntarily so their 3rd party cookies will not be blocked.
Those "greedy" people own Apple and its hoard of cash. It's theirs, not Tim Cook's. They should be allowed to ask for it back, and he should not be allowed to hold onto it unless he can show that he knows better how to spend it than they do. The last few years show he doesn't know what to do with it at all.
How many products and patent lawsuits do they have in development which means they require $137000000000 petty cash? Is their cash flow under so much pressure that they need to pay wages from cash reserves? Or is the Apple board just greedy? I suspect their pen1s size is somehow related to the market cap, which would take a large hit if they gave shareholders their money back.
Re: This is worth a patent?
The tech will be made by samsung et al. But the patent courts will hand the market to apple.
Re: In Redmond Microsoft fire the photo copiers up.
How would you know that a windows watch is a copy of apple's watch and not influenced by the many existing smart watches apple copied?
- Does Apple's iOS 7 make you physically SICK? Try swallowing version 7.1
- Fee fie Firefox: Mozilla's lawyers probe Dell over browser install charge
- Pics Indestructible Death Stars blow up planets with glowing KILL RAY
- Video Snowden: You can't trust SPOOKS with your DATA
- Hands on Satisfy my scroll: El Reg gets claws on Windows 8.1 spring update