* Posts by h4rm0ny

4617 posts • joined 26 Jul 2008

Apple Watch: Wait a minute! This puny wrist-puter costs 17 GRAND?!


Re: Waterproof?

>>"All the 'stuff' in a regular £20 watch takes up space equivalent to a pea (or less). An iWatch is probably chock-full of stuff, does that make it harder to find space for better water-proofing perhaps?"

I could be wrong, but I think the waterproofing goes on the outside.


Re: BBC thread

Some of the comments that I've seen before they are censored have to do with Apple avoiding tax, so some of the removals may be due to that. The BBC, I think, try to steer clear of content in the comments that they think might be litigious, maybe.


Re: BBC thread

You're right - I just had a look over there and about a third of the comments seem to be moderated out! I just put in my own comment just to see whether it would be censored or not. Even amongst the surviving posts though, this seems to be getting a largely negative reaction.

This is fascinating. Oddly enough, I pretty much NEVER criticize modern tech. I argue a fair bit on these forums but (and people can check if they don't believe me), it is almost always in defence of something rather than actively criticizing someone's hard work (which most technology is). About the only exception that comes to mind is systemd.

And yet this iWatch is a rare exception. Technologically, I guess it has its impressive aspects, but honestly, I find I just don't like it. I think it's badly misconceived and flawed.


I'm buying one! I'm going to wear it with my Google Glass and with the Zune clipped to my waist.

I will look so cool!

Obsolete – and IP-baring – Anon tool linked to feminist blog DDoS


Re: Self-victimization

>>"2. Launch a lame DDoS-like attack against your blog/service!"

Yes, because a feminist blog is not at all likely to attract idiot misogynists - we must look for another explanation!

Btw, LOIC isn't by itself a DDoS attack. It's not a botnet. I.e. to perform a DDoS attack, lots of people have to run it. That's why it was popular in the early days of Anonymous and 4chan - it was lots of people all downloading the software so they could do their part from their own machines. I always knew that I was both a feminist and a l33t hacker, but I never realised the two were causally linked! Clearly there is a conspiracy of feminist script kiddies out there all targetting feminist blogs so we can establish ourselves as "martyrs".

Microsoft chucks patent sueball at Kyocera over Android phones


Re: 1997

Well you can't directly tie it into cost of the research in any proportional way. Suppose I spend a few years with my team and several million pounds and come up with a slightly different take on asprin. It's not really any more effective but it's a new drug so it's patentable. If you factor the lifespan on cost, it would last a long time. Whereas suppose in a flash of brilliance one weekend I suddenly come up with a new encryption algorithm. Something brand new and five times harder to brute-force than AES. Based on cost, that would have very little lifespan but is (probably) vastly more valuable and not only that, it might be something that no-one else would have thought of.

That's why it needs to be determined by multiple factors. And on the basis of most important factor, rather than all additive. So in pseudo code something like this:

Lifespan = K * MAX(researchRequired, innovativenessRequired).

If it is something that would take a lot of research / testing to create, that counts. If it is a unique insight unlikely to arise as a natural extension, that can count instead. Both are extremely problematic of course. Note that I wrote Research Required, not Research Done. You don't want to reward inefficiencies nor allow people to pad things out by including irrelevancies. Similarly, many things that are genuinely innovative look obvious in retrospect.

Fundamentally, we have one great glaring problem in creating any working and fair patent system - you need to be an expert to judge a patent's merit and there are few to none independent experts.

Maybe we can re-purpose academia as patent consultants? Most academics are lousy at actually getting anything done but they're great at critiquing and understanding stuff. Perhaps that is the resource we should be exploiting for this.



We probably need to take a fresh look at patent terms in the modern age. Technology moves so quickly now that what was once a suitable time period to recoup one's investments and rewards can actually cross a whole generation of technology and into the next.

The Java patent in the above article was filed in 1997. About eighteen years ago. If you were the person who invented the lightbulb (I don't know who that is, I just suspect it wasn't Edison), then eighteen years is quite frankly probably too short a time to be properly rewarded for such a novel and useful creation. But whilst the Java patent was probably a clever little programming solution back in 1997 and maybe even novel and patent-worthy, we have seen an entire generation of technology rise and fall in that timespan and today such a patent seems merely to hold things back. It overlaps with too many other parallel approaches invented since then.

You can't make them too short - it can take years to bring a product to market: Hololens has things in it that are patented I'm sure and it's been in development for a long time. It would not be fair for all that research to expire just as the product was coming to market so that others could simply rip off all the hardwork and copy it for rival products that had no R&D costs to recoup. But equally you can't make them too long. And there will never be a one size fits all perfect value.

Probably we need a more sophisticated approach that considers what is actually being patented and calculates a period based on time to market, level of research required to produce and the level of innovation.

Each one of these things is dangerous because it starts to bring in subjectivity. What is the "level of innovation" on a scale of 1-5? Some things are likely to be invented over and over again. The Java patent might well be clever. But when it's "steam engine time" (i.e. the conditions are right) someone else would have come up with it in the intervening 18 years in one form or another. Whereas something else such as a new encryption algorithm or some of the things going on in materials science are things that would have a very good chance of nobody else coming up with them in the same time period, because they're very distinct ideas.

The first thing to do with patent timescales is to acknowledge that whatever you set is going to be an approximation. Only then can you start to work out a more nuanced approach. Whatever we come up with is not going to be fair, that we know. But this does not stop it being an improvement on an absolute and arbitrary value.

Is there a cure for cancer sitting at the back of the medicine cabinet already?


Re: the market doesn't always work

>>"Of course big pharma and right wing economists will scream about market distortions and unfair competition"

Only the extremists. I don't judge all on the Left wing by the Socialist Worker's Party, nor are all on the Right wing unfeeling monsters. I'm fairly Right wing and I am very much in favour of the occasional government intervention in cases like this where we're trapped in a local minima.

All highly complex systems, even well-designed ones, benefit from the occasional nudge.

Grab your pitchforks: Ubuntu to switch to systemd on Monday


Re: oh well

I'm just going to leave this here:



Re: read around...

>>call anything to do with Linux "GNU/Linux",



>>"Secondly Poettering and co. seem to have taken a liking to the Windows registry and are hell bent on imposing that way of working. i.e. the binary logs and so on."

Ha! It's far worse than that. What systemd does is create an inferior version of the Windows registry. Top that for a bad idea! :D

MS have had two decades to hammer the registry into something serviceable. It ties into Windows ACLs for security and it's also optional for developers as .NET applications have an XML format for their configuration that is (I think) preferred. Poettering is trying to create a Windows XP version of the registry! Think about that for a moment and feel afraid.

To me it's like Saruman looking across to Mordor in envy and trying to create his own little dark tower in emulation. The only difference being one continues to wear the white robes of Open Source whilst they lock everything down and breed orcs. "One startup process to rule them all, one startup process to find them..."


>>"How does this change affect users like me who aren't likely to be overly concerned about what's going on in the background as long as it does what it's supposed to?"

It may well not affect you directly as an end-user (though it would make debugging your system yourself much more tricky). But it drags everything in that it touches making itself a requirement for more and more every month. It's now pretty much reached the point where it's a core and unremovable component. And that's dangerous. I forsee it becoming a big and ugly tangle that does GNU/Linux considerable harm in the long-run.

Shove off, ugly folk, says site for people who love themselves


Re: Tawnie Lynn (pictured)

>>"The horribly grey area involving bigotry / discrimination legislation, IMO. If they specialise in interests or activities then fair enough, but when they specialise purely in physical characteristics, it does start to skirt dangerously close to existing discrimination legislation"

No it doesn't. Not unless the government has started to mandate who we are attracted to. (They haven't, have they?)


Re: That's Life.

>>"The post I replied to was from an AC.....Did you click the box by mistake? Otherwise how am I to know the post was from a highly ennobled, Rt Hon siver badge winner? *tugs forelock respectably*"

I had the page sorted by Newest First and mistakenly thought your post was a reply to my own. So consider the rest of my post to be valid but the part about opinions only to apply to me. I don't post as an AC. I did once years ago, for a joke where someone said they were posting AC in case their wife read their comment and I posted an AC reply pretending to be that wife posting AC in case my husband read it... Hmmm, one of those had to be there. ;)

>>"Otherwise how am I to know the post was from a highly ennobled, Rt Hon siver badge winner? *tugs forelock respectably*"

I keep waiting for my gold badge, but none appears. :(

>>"Other than that, agree to differ! Have a great day!"

Agree to differ is fine. A good day to you, also.


Re: Tawnie Lynn (pictured)

>>"You didn't realise the * was for the footnote?"

That is correct. When I see a regular expression with an asterisk on the end, I read it as part of the expression. Natural enough, I would have thought. Anyway, my mistake I suppose. I tend to put regex's on their own line in a post. Or use delimiters.

>>** Apologies for the insult but as you'd said it already, I couldn't resist. I only mean it in jest, I am sure your a nice person really and not a [Mp]uppet***

No offense intended. And I did use the term first so it is fair to return it to me. Not sure about the nice person or not (I seem to provoke extreme opinions on the subject) but I do admit when I am wrong. ;)

I'm going to maintain that putting an asterisk on the end of a regular expression is darn silly, however! ;)


Re: That's Life.

>>"So, you are happy to accept that the 'hive mind' of this website can select people for you?"

To some extent, yes. It's not as if all the members conform to some precise look and type - people can look very different to each other but still both be hot. But this site weeds out a lot of those that I wouldn't find hot and that saves time. Furthermore, the staff actually reach out to people and check that the photos are of them, that they're up to date and not heavily photoshopped. You can't say that of most dating sites. So sure - it's a useful service to verify and gather people one might want to date. And it's not as if this is the only way one can meet potential partners. Being a member doesn't mean that you wont meet that one colleague / friend of a friend / etc. but it also gives you somewhere to go where you will meet the type of people you want to date. (You meaning someone who signs up to the site). For people who have difficult work lives, that's a major boon.

>>"Do you have no opinions of your own?"

I think anyone who has read my frequent posts on El Reg's forums can confirm that I very definitely have opinions of my own. They kick in as stage two when I (or the other person) start looking through the candidates. You seem to be presenting this as the site coming to your house and saying: "here is your date. You will like them". It's not, it's a service that provides people you might like and weeds out the ones you probably wont. And if in the ones that were weeded out is someone you might have got on with, you probably would have wanted them as a friend instead anyway.

>>"Are you insecure enough to think that, if this site's moderators dont think that a person is hot enough for you, you shouldn't be subjected to their photo? "

Not sure how insecurity follows from others deciding an applicant isn't "hot enough" for me. But no, either way.

>>"Would an image of someone who doesn't meet some kind of accepted attractiveness criteria offend you?

It would detract from the value of the site, much the same way it wastes my time when someone turns up for an interview who isn't qualified for the job. It would also waste their time as a member of the site is likely only to want to date people who are generally regarded as physically attractive.

>>"Are you that easily led / stupid?"

Again, not sure how not seeing an image of someone unattractive leads to meaning someone is stupid, but again, no.

>>"Happy to have the occasional story about this site, as it provides the opportunity for the minging like myself to point and laugh at 'hotties' who are the gullible, stupid, shallow, insecure, narcisistic and therefore totally unnatractive people who'd want to be a member of such a site."

I find your attitude far more aggressive, insulting and generally filled with preconceived stereotypes than people simply voluntarily signing up to a service where they meet attractive potential partners. Evidence that people who use the service are more gullible? Or insecure? Or are you just bringing the assumptions into play that support your worldview?


Re: Tawnie Lynn (pictured)

>>You were trying to add a footnote to your regular expression weren't you? Except you actually turned your regular expression into a different one! Muppet! I should have realized what you meant.

But really, didn't it occur to you that you'd just written a completely different expression by putting an asterisk on the end? It's not like anyone wouldn't have known what you meant! :D


Re: Tawnie Lynn (pictured)

>>"I rather think that anyone who puts their head above this particular parapet is fair game for gettting shot at."

Why? They didn't ask to be featured on an international IT news website.


Re: Tawnie Lynn (pictured)

>>"h4rm0ny, so which bit of not wanting to share a lift with someone because they may not be as perfect as you and your friends think they are do you find not to be shallow or rather dumb."

I don't see that it relates to intelligence at all. I have been stuck on a plane next to some large and unpleasant people and not liked it but my dislike has not stemmed from intelligence or lack of. It's a matter of preference uninformed by that. As to shallow, no, I don't think that's true either. Shallow would be if I only cared about that criteria. Having it as a criteria amongst others does not make one shallow.

What one is attracted to or seeks in a romantic partner is not all that defines somebody. There are a lot of interesting or complicated people who have a wide range of talents, interests or work that makes them fascinating. If I find that a writer or director or scientist who's work I find fascinating or has interesting views on things happens to like physical qualities X or Y in their sexual partners, I don't immediately call that person shallow. Nor should you. But that is what you are doing here, if you think about it.


Re: Tawnie Lynn (pictured)

>>"I know my regex, S?[Hh]e's not going to slip one past me."

Unfortunately for you, it's rather too late as you already attempted to be clever with your first regex and messed it up (a very simple Mrs / Miss / Ms) that included an infinite set of false positives. Normally it's not that important but given that this thread is mainly people making unsupported statements about the intelligence of people they don't know, I figured I might as well point out some of the flaws.

As to "pre-emptive disparagement". Not really convinced. People are making lots of insults of the intelligence, personality and looks of people they've never even met and you're attempting to say she started it by being a member of a club. Has she come here and made personal attacks such as people here are doing? Has she turned down any of the posters here and said they're not good enough to be members? I don't think either is true and I don't see being a member of a specialist dating site constitutes attacks on people here who may or may not be members. It's not like El. Reg has been targeted and told we're not good enough for the club.


Re: Tawnie Lynn (pictured)

>>And here's me thinking M[rs] * Lynn disparaged first. * Regex.

How so? I haven't seen her disparaging the looks of anybody here. Claiming some sort of first strike from her seems unsupported. Also, your regex will lead to a lot of false positives. Try the far less exciting but accurate "Mrs|Miss|Ms".


Re: @h4rm0ny

>>"But this is a site offering only other "beautiful people", and that alone suggests they are not looking for those missing Joe Averages who are average looking but underneath really a decent and interesting blokes."

True, but I was responding simply to someone's argument that if these people were attractive they would not find a dating site useful. It's a rebuttal to someone arguing how the patrons can't be attractive because they use the site.

It is quite clear that the site is used by people who also want to prioritize looks in their partner(s).


>>"Interesting. Exactly how are they checking members' beauty once you're a member?"

There are periodic reviews and your photo gets voted on by the general membership. Also, from time to time a site admin will require you to have a video call with them so they can check your photos really do look like you.


Re: Tawnie Lynn (pictured)

And here come the usual parade of people needing to disparage the looks of someone who is generally considered attractive to make themselves sound superior. Or if it is not possible to disparage their looks, to make unsupported claims about how they must be shallow or dumb. Because as we all know, you only get a couple of good qualities when you're born and if you choose looks or popularity, you must also be stupid or shallow.

Don't like the site, don't join. Don't like that they turn away people who don't meet their standards? Same is true when I interview someone for a job (or am interviewed). Different people want different things from a partner. What is wrong with specialist dating sites in principle?


Because just because you're physically beautiful. doesn't mean you necessarily have more opportunities to meet people or that you will necessarily get approached by people you like. People do not automatically approach a girl because she is beautiful (or turn out to be single when they do). Indeed, many men will be more likely to approach a girl who is plain or dresses so, on the basis they think that girl is more likely to like them.

Boffins say Mars had ocean covering 20 per cent of planet


Where did it go?

See subject.

FREAKing hell: ALL Windows versions vulnerable to SSL snoop

Paris Hilton

>>"Micro$oft really should get a wiggle on rebuilding the entire OS from the ground up."

Would love to see you on a software project:

Project Lead: "We've found that one of the old protocols we support just isn't safe these days, we need to disable it."

Chozo: "Re-write the OS!"

VMware sued, accused of ripping off Linux kernel source code


Re: Case..

>>".. Is patently (no pun intended) absurd. Open Source has real issues, legal and otherwise, be nice if ambulance chasers did something useful."

Sure, because you with your better knowledge of the law than the legal departments of all these corporations have spotted that the GPL has legal flaws that no-one else has been able to pin down.

£280k Kickstarter camera trigger campaign crashes and burns


Re: Risk?

>>"The difference between the stock market and Kickstarter is over a long period you will get a decent return on investment, whereas kickstarter you just seem to get a load of 1st gen beta products in gold with a pretty certificate."

This is false. It is very easy to lose your money permanently on the Stock market. Companies go under every day. Not everything is an endless cycle of falling and rising.

I think it's perfectly possible to be sympathetic to both the investors and the company. My contempt is reserved for those who deliberately defrauded or hogged all the cash. Looking at the breakdown and reading about this, it's apparent that this was a good faith attempt that failed. Big projects are hard, I know.

It sucks to be an investor and I feel for them, but that doesn't mean I want to tar and feather those behind the kickstarter, either.

Samsung-Microsoft deal will bundle Office 365 with Android Knox


So much hate, here.

It's breathtaking, it really is.

Mummy, what's the point of Evgeny Morozov's tedious columns?


Re: I do not think it means what you think it means...

>>"Wealth inequality is a nonsense. I'm one of the poorest people on the planet according to my wealth, but in actuality I have extremely high levels of comfort to go along with my high net debt."

Wealth != Money. I can own a house, a computer and all sorts of goodies yet have zero or negative money. I would still rank extremely high in terms of wealth on the world scale.

>>"The fastest way to reduce wealth inequality would be to forbid people to take out mortgages"

Well no, it wouldn't. That would just mean that only the rich could afford to buy property and many who currently buy be forced into perpetually renting from those rich. No idea how you believe the above.


Re: Evgeny Who?

>>"Hoo, boy, I really am going to have to sort out my writing style, aren't I?"

I shouldn't worry. I think the only possible way they could have reached that conclusion is by not reading your article in the first place.

Or I suppose not knowing what both Socialist and Marxist mean.


Re: @ IT Hack

Isn't Whatboutery (lovely word) just the inverse of another fallacy? Namely "Yes, yes, inequality in houses is growing but what about parity in Internet access?"

Basically, fallacy either way - just depends whether you want to say things are good or bad. The only way you make it not a fallacy is to start working out ways of comparing the different whatabouts. Does equality of internet access between Bill Gates and you compensate for or outweigh the difference in your house values, for example.

Without a basis for such comparison, whataboutery in either direction is essentially the speaker's take on half-full / half-empty.


Re: Evgeny Who?

>>"Perhaps Worstall has some other motivation."

Worstall is a true believer - promulgation of views is a reward in itself.

The odd thing is that I'm pretty Right-Wing myself and have only a vague awareness of this Morozov person and the Guardian, but I have found myself pointing out flaws in both of Worstall's recent opinion pieces.


I do not think it means what you think it means...

>>"Think about how absurd Morozov's argument actually is. Because tech doesn't reduce housing inequality, we should ignore the way that it doesn't reduce communications inequality?"

I didn't see anything in the part you quoted that actually said what you say he said. He made a supportable point that consumption equality in one area isn't reducing other significant areas of inequality. I mean if there is a part immediately after what you quote that then goes "AND EVERYTHING OTHER THAN HOUSING IS IRRELEVANT", then it is legitimate to make your criticism. But does the person you're quoting actually say that or are they just, as I think they are, arguing that one cannot use Consumption Equality in one area as a rebuttal of criticism of rising wealth inequality (something which is real right now)? If the latter, then you're basically strawmanning.

$250K: That's what Lenovo earned to rat you out with Superfish


Re: Heads will roll?

Actually, I'd be pretty bloody certain that someone's head WILL roll for this. This is going to cost Lenovo a lot more than £250K and the one thing the heads of a company don't like, is seeing someone's fuckup hit their bottom line. The only people who get a pass are the people at the very top and I seriously doubt that it was the CEO who contemplated the ramifications of installing a new root certificate and intercepting all HTTPS traffic. Somewhere below them will be the person who actually understood what they were doing and that person will not be having a fun time right now.

Nokia boss smashes net neutrality activists


Yeah, a lot of this is loaded. It sounds great on paper - ambulances should have priority over other users. Well fine, but how much bandwidth does an ambulance need? Are we currently seeing a failure of our ambulances due to too many people watching YouTube? If so, how specifically. If not, isn't this just rhetoric?

Google reveals bug Microsoft says is mere gnat


Re: Good cop, bad cop?

>>"I'm questioning how Google can get to reverse engineer Microsoft code without the DoJ coming down hard on Google employees for doing so..."

It's legitimate security research to examine code and see if you can find flaws in it. That's how many flaws are found. Now if Google were doing that for purposes of copying their code for their own products then in certain circumstances that would be illegal (but not all). However, that wont be happening. The code bases of their products are very different and outside some very specific cases, examining someone else's code wont benefit you. It's mainly done for purposes of cracking software or finding vulnerabilities.

We don't need to invoke conspiracy theories for this, tbh. This is basically Google running a PR exercise to set themselves up as the IT police and make their competitor look bad. Google have no interest in helping their competitors produce a better product and it plainly isn't about protecting their own users because (a) it's not like their users are going to stop using the Internet because of these flaws and (b) publicizing unpatched vulnerabilities increases active exploitation. If it doesn't appear to be PR, that's because it's good PR.


Re: I'm reminded of zero-tolerance policies

All well and good except you are having to make up your own wording on Microsoft's behalf here. Point me to where they said "it doesn't matter". What they said is that it is not a security bulletin. When a security bulletin is issued there are actions that follow from that which are not without cost. Thus you issue them when appropriate. It is this trivialization of cost that leads to absurd government and council health and safety arguments and all such things - the idea that if something matters it must have equal priority with everything else.

This is Google playing a PR game just as when they publicized vulnerabilities days before the actual fix was available (and they knew this). It makes Google look far worse than Microsoft, imo. I do not like them using my security as a PR stick to beat their competitors with.

Microsoft opens kimono on Windows 10 Universal App Platform


You have very odd priorities.

The car in front has Kaspersky deep inside


Re: Please remain stationary while we do an update.

>>"Thank you for using Kaspersky Norton."



Kapersky are based in Russia and we all know the direction that government has been heading in. But on the other hand, Kapersky do actual security research - they're very good. Kapersky are the ones that unearthed the Equation Group amongst other interesting things. Year on year, Trend Micro is typically the only one that beats them for malware coverage in their anti-virus products (and it's a close call).

As devices get more sophisticated this sort of thing is going to become necessary. I'm not surprised to find Kapersky at the forefront of this.

[b]EDIT:[/b] I realize the above sounds like a puff-piece. I have no affiliation with them. I just finished doing a review of anti-malware solutions for an assessment and Kapersky came out top alongside Trend Micro so they're on my mind right now.

C'mon! Greece isn't really bust and it can pay its debts


Re: There was never a need for a combined currency all over Europe

>>"The European Council (aka the Council of the European Union) is an EU body. The Council of Europe, which manages the human rights act, is a much wider body. Includes Russia for example (about the only non-member in anything like Europe is Belarus)."

Yes, that's all what I said too. The important part is the bit you admit in the last paragraph: "True, you must be a member of the Council of Europe to be a member of the EU ". Any new member that wishes to join the EU must sign up to the convention of human rights, the treaty of Lisbon makes it part of EU law and the EU court accedes to it. As I pointed out before you, they are separate bodies but linked in these basic ways. US president is not the same thing as US Citizen, but to apply to be the former one must fall into the second group.


Re: There was never a need for a combined currency all over Europe

>>"European Human Rights act Is NOTHING TO DO WITH THE EU."

You are mistaken. The European Council and the European Union are separate bodies, which is where you are coming from. But the EU court (part of the EU) is expected to accede to the Convention on Human Rights (what we're talking about) and the Treaty of Lisbon includes binding by the European Council's court. They are meant to work together though as I stated, the UK is trying to be an exception to this rule. Signing the European Convention on Human Rights is now a condition of membership to the EU, even though they are separate bodies. One can sign up to the act without being a member of the EU, but the reverse is not the case anymore.


Re: There was never a need for a combined currency all over Europe

>>"If anything the imposition of so many foreign laws through out the EU is upsetting people"

Not me. The European laws are better than the UK laws on human rights, data protection, food standards, farming practices... The UK government would sell us as chattel if they could.

If the UK laws on human rights were more comprehensive than the EU ones, why would our government be trying to back out of the European Human Rights act? And using boiler-plate patriotism about "restore sovereignty to the UK" to try and whip up public support for something which, in every practical sense, reduces their protection from state abuse.

No-one can argue with a straight-face that the UK government has our best interests as its primary goal.


Re: There was never a need for a combined currency all over Europe

@TheAxe. You just argued that the EU made things worse because it "didn't allow" wars to be started by politicians and led to people staring them themselves. Evidence? Because my knowledge of history is that it is the leaders who commonly start wars and the people who have to die for them who are usually most reluctant.

Acer enters Windows Phone fray with cheap Liquid M220 mobe


Re: Seriously? Still on about apps?

>>"Google does seem pretty determined to kill Windows Phone."

Apple has always, obviously, been Android's big competition but Apple only competes at the high-end of the market meaning that Google has pretty much had the medium to low-end as its own private playground. Hence the phenomenal proliferation of Android devices. The issue with WP is that whilst it does high-end devices like the 1020, it also performs exceptionally well at the low-end. That makes it a major threat. Hence all the efforts to kill it in the cradle asap.


Re: Seriously? Still on about apps?

>>"Most people have a niche requirement that is served only by iPhone or Android. In my case it is the App for my local bus service. Most people in the UK for example, don't live in London, but that is the only city that has enough Windows Phone users for a local transport app."

Well London is the only city in the UK where driving yourself is considered a form of cruel and unusual punishment under the law, but anyway - there is a Transit app for WP called "Here Transit" and it serves the whole of the UK as far as I'm aware and pretty nice it is too. Next apps-based criticism, please?


Seriously? Still on about apps?

>>"The claim falls far short of reality though, with fewer apps available, and often worse implementations of apps that are on the market"

The first part is meaningless once your needs are met. I don't care about having thirty different apps for maps, I care about having a single good one. Furthermore, apps took off because phones didn't have fully capable web browsers back then. My WP has such a browser. My need for apps is minimal. Like a huge number of people all that I want is to send txts, occasionally make calls, possibly get some emails and definitely good maps / directions. WP has all of this built in. Other people also want to be able to do Facebook, Twitter and various social apps. Some want fitness and food apps. WP also has all of this and handles them fine. At this point, we have covered the majority of the non-technophile userbase.

I've yet to hear any non-niche app requirement that WP doesn't meet. The absolute numbers matter very little compared to that. As to "often worse implementations", sounds nicely vague to me. I really can't believe people are still attacking WP over this. It's like their last best hope to attack it for something. :/

Biting the hand that feeds IT © 1998–2019