How about we acknowledge that big phones aren't as usable
And stick to <5" phones.
God bless you Sony, you're the only holdout.
217 posts • joined 13 Dec 2007
If you want to be able to reach the whole screen with your thumb without having to jiggle it about to reach across, a 4.5" screen is better
It's all well and good saying they all come in a range of sizes, but they don't anymore. Sony seem to be the only holdouts for a decent sub-5" screen
>Has any of those morons heard the story of the boy who cried wolf?
Doesn't matter, they seem to be winning over public opinion despite their hypocrisy.
"The people can always be brought to the bidding of the leaders. That is easy. All you have to do is tell them they are being attacked and denounce the pacifists for lack of patriotism and exposing the country to danger. It works the same way in any country." - Hermann Göring
Why can't we have a phone that has all these decent specs, but still small enough to hold in one hand?
The original Moto G was exactly this. The only decent sub-5" phone out now is the Moto E, but that's decidedly lacking.
It's a real shame, could've been perfect =/
>(It was originally an Orange San Francisco Mk1. Now it thinks it's a Jelly Bean ZTE Blade.)
Recently upgraded from my Blade (what an amazing little phone) to a Huawei G510.
I'd installed this when it was in beta (and therefore could sit alongside Opera Mobile). It worked, and speed was iffy but fine. The issue I had though was that it needed to sweep away about 6 of my biggest apps in order to fit. So yea, stick with Opera Mobile. You'll be better off in every respect.
That said, being a Blade owner, I know how much you'll be used to running the latest and greatest, and being amazed that you can!
WHATWG has determined that HTML5 is more "mature than any specification to date" and that it's senseless to keep calling it a draft. "The WHATWG HTML spec can now be considered a 'living standard'," said Googler Ian Hickson. WHATWG is also dropping the "5" from the spec and just calling it HTML.
Ian Hickson's stupidity and lack of foresight never fails to amaze me. He wants to release HTML5^W as a standard when it's untested and non-finalised. He bitches about the W3C's glacial pace, but it was there for a reason - not to get $CoolNewFeature out the door asap. It's arguably the world's most important format - it needs some planning and extended testing, not to mention futureproofness. Argh, why did they scrap XHTML
I think you misinterpreted the question. I suspect he was asking the same question as I was when I saw it.
Surely the "boring" reasons aren't boring to people who already go out of their way to understand these things? Not to say that you should add them to old articles, but that we want to to know why - curiosity etc etc.
We demand to know what the boring reasons are!
for you at least.
"if you're reasonably off, technichally able and you're NOT using an iPhone or a Blackberry, you're seen as a nerd, freak, Apple refusnik and/or friendless loser."
"The only demographic who MIGHT identify you as a fashion victim"
So, erm. If you don't have one you should get one, in order to fit with fashion? That makes you quite the fashion victim. Fail to you
"FF has a nonstandard ogg version that's about as much use as a chocolate teapot"
Oh an open standard? Like HTML itself? One that won't have the lawyers knocking on the door in five years' time? Yea I'll take ogg thanks.
Not that I intend to succumb to the joke that is HTML5 any time soon...
Hopefully with Firefox having the market share it does it'll have the power to stick up 2 fingers at YouTube/Google and then the subsequent pressure to make content deliverers switch. With Chrome supporting both codecs (and Chromium only ogg) Safari is the only reason to go with H.264. And if Google Docs are happy to not support Opera then YouTube can not support Safari.
On the larger issue that, as mentioned above, "HTML5 fails to unify the web as it was meant to", perhaps this is why the W3C moves at a glacial pace, as the WHATWG originally bitched about. When the decisions you make affect arguably the most important communications medium of our generation, things take time to work out, and to ensure that you dont fuck up the web. Maybe the WHATWG should've thought that before trying to fragment the W3C.
Anyone who comes near me is going to get hurt
"covers up a publicly listed company whose only goal is to make as much money as possible for its shareholders."
Zomg a company that exists to make money!
Yes, ads on street view are annoying. Yes it explains why they went to the expense of setting it all up. But evil? Because they serve ads to finance their free service? Hell, these ads could be *useful*.
Getting quite sick of the Google hate on El Reg
everyone's out to get him!
Seriously, don't you think if there's a need for control over data, the market will provide it? Your comments about being locked in come down to how businesses assess their options. If they fail to go with open standards - whatever that will mean in 2015 - then they deserve all they get.
Calm down for god sake...
I find it incredibly convenient that CNBC narrates over the 10 seconds before the "If you have something that you don't want anyone to know..." bit. Where's the context?
If he's talking about secrets from your wife/family/friend then you're right.
If on the other hand he's talking about the government, they couldn't give a toss that you like whips and chains/are having an affair/think your boss is a wanker
End this sensationalist crap and give us some context!
Biting the hand that feeds IT © 1998–2019