Android-based smartphone shipments leapfrog Apple's iPhone - Page 9

Really? How do you know he isn't actually a close friend? Or maybe a coworker? Or maybe a neighbor? Or maybe your boss?

When you're on the internet, cloaked behind a random screen name, you can be whoever you want. As moral or immoral as you want.

The question I would ask is what made you judge/jury/executioner of morals? Did some Super Moral Diety come and appoint you to be better than all of us?

I think Steve or most any Apple exec would readily admit that the store and control is for Apple's benefit!

I have little problem when a company wants to exert some reasonable control on how its products are used-- to protect their brand, etc. The public has the choice to opt-in or opt-out to the ecosystem

I am less sanguine when a for-profit company works with another for-profit company and the government under the guise of defining whats good for "everyone". The public has no choice to opt-in or opt-out!

If the proposal has benefits to the parties involved, the parties should forthrightly state those benefits!

As a voter, corporate shareholder, and adherent of capitalism, I do not think that altruism is a believable or desirable corporate attribute.

Don't get me wrong, I believe that corporations should try to do good, improve the world and all that-- but their underlying motive is to make a profit.

Given that, Doing "well" by doing "good" is fine-- as long as everyone understands what "well" is!

.

When it comes to ethical behavior, you either choose to be ethical or not. Choosing to look the other way, because you think you can derive some benefits, and maybe the unethical behavior of others won't affect you, isn't being ethical. And complicity doesn't require you to work for Google, it's about looking the other way, and just letting it happen.

Your all companies do bad things from time to time, even if we accept it as true, is only true in the most trivial sense. The black and white aspect of your thinking is to say that all bad things are equally bad, thus, all those who do bad things share equal moral culpability, therefore, there is no moral difference between them, and one is justified to just ignore the moral question altogether. There's nothing ethical about living that sort of life.

Having nuance through a different experience (the net neutrality fight here in Canada) is not dodging the question. Guess you don't have the ability to interpret nuance. Fair enough. For you, I dodged the question. I am sure others are intelligent enough to understand my position perfectly.

And again, what evidence? Can you demonstrably prove that Google is wrong and that every wired ISP is practising net neutrality in the USA today?

What we went through in Canada was horrible. They were crippling VOIP or degrading its services (sucked for me since I was using Vonage) to compel you to use their VOIP offerings. They were throttling or even outright blocking torrents. All because we didn't have any rules at all. With no regulation at all in the US, that's the future you'll have very shortly. The Google deal is not perfect, but it's far better than having a crippled wired internet where you can't use Skype properly on your desktop. Something better than nothing. That's the point. Google can't any deals without compromising. That's reality. They wanted the wired domain protected and so they gave in on the wireless domain.

Now if you can show that there was sufficient support across the board for net neutrality in the wired and wireless domains, and that Google simply cut a weak deal, I'll buy your argument. But if that was the case, uyou wouldn't have had the deadlock in the first place and subsequently this agreement, right?

Ultimately there's only one perfect solution here: government mandated net neutrality. If you want absolute net neutrality, then you have to legislate it. That's the job of government. And if I were a resident/citizen of the USA, that's what I would be fighting for (across the board net neutrality legislation), regardless of whatever deal, whichever big name corporation was pushing.

What do any of your hypotheticals have to do with whether he is ethical or unethical? The only effect of discovering any of those in the affirmative would be to lose respect for that person, if I formerly had any. And, no, the anonymity of the internet does not absolve the person you are from moral obligation. While it might make you less uncomfortable about engaging in immoral behavior, it doesn't absolve you of it. No one made me the arbiter of morals. If you wish to defend your behavior as ethical, feel free to do so, and I'll feel free to express any disagreement I have.

BTW, I've learned a lot about you and your sense of morality today, whether you think I have or not.

Yeah mouse isn't reallly with it when it comes to stuff like that. I tend to think he lives in his moms basement based on some of the comments he makes. Out of 1600 posts I am sure I said something two years ago that he took out of context and is holding onto it for dear life.

False analogy. And, why do we need links when we have Google's and Verizon's own words about what they intend? It's all right there, and only the apologists are trying to spin it into something good for us.

Oh, I see, if companies are currently violating principles of net neutrality, that would justify abandoning the concept. There is no nuance of interpretation involved here, unless you are just trying to spin Google's 180 degree reversal of position here.

Again, it's your choice, but the ethical choice in this instance does not include supporting Google/Verizon.

Then I ask of you what is "ethical"? Is there some standard document that tells the world what ethical is or isn't? No. There's only general guidelines and can differ from person to person, company to company.

We treat killing a person as clearly unethical. However, if the death of the person saves the lives of millions more, then which is the more ethical choice there? As you see, there is no clear line between ethical and unethical. It's what we make it to be given the circumstance.

As for my so-called black and white thinking, I don't think you're in a place to tell me what my though processes are unless you are me. I don't believe all companies have the same level of "evils". I'll take BP and Google for example. BP made the oil spill in the Gulf and dragged their feet in getting it contained. This led to a multi-billion dollar cleanup that is just now happening and who knows how much damage to the ecosystem. Google, on the other hand, tried to move a stagnant net neutrality issue forward. For all we know, they could have been preventing something much worse from happening. And their whole privacy issue with the WiFi data? They came clean that they inadvertantly collected the data and in turn, handed it over to the proper authorities. I see both as "evils" done by the respective companies. But I place BP's "evil" much further above Google's.

As many of us have pointed out, what have you done to not "look the other way"? All we've seen is you ranting and rave on an internet forum about the "evils". Have you written letters, started a petition or spoke with your legistators of the issue? If not, then you're "looking the other way" too. You have no right to judge others unless you have judged yourself with the same standards.

I'm also interested in Jetz's question about where your anger was before Google/Verizon started this chain of events. If you could be passionate then about creating net neutrality laws as you are now about bashing Google, then this all might not have taken place.

I'm glad you think you've learned a great deal of my morality. I hope we meet some day in person so we can discuss it. Oops, but you'll never know it was me!

Fair enough. I'm a bad, bad person because I don't absolutely 100% disagree with everything Google does.

You're right. You should fight against the deal. Go back to deadlock and then get torrents, VOIPs and pretty much everything your ISP doesn't approve of throttled in a few months. I am sure you'll love the carrier 'curated' internet that lands in your home soon.

Think I am exaggerating and building up a strawman? If only you lived in Canada and had to deal with Bell and Rogers a few years ago....

I am not a fan of the idea that Google isn't protecting the wireless domain. But I do recognize that it is possible they were forced into an untenable position that did require choosing between a rock and a hard place. And I recognize that the only way out is to take the choice out of the hands of industry and legislate net neutrality across the board, instead of compelling companies like Google to negotiate with the deck stacked against them (ISPs running wired and wireless and content delivery businesses). Interestingly, Google is only pushing this compromise in the USA. I wonder why.

Personally, I am all for having internet be a public infrastructure like the hydro/electricity or water company. I don't buy the argument that nobody would invest in the infrastructure if if were a public sector operation. But we are where we are and its private entities which have content businesses as well, that control the pipes to the internet.

What really confuses us outsiders is why telcos and Google or anybody else are negotiating in the first place. That's what I want to know. Is your government that weak, that industry writes legislation on its own. Why should Google have to negotiate anything in the first place? Why isn't the FCC laying the smackdown on the telcos and finishing the matter?

By the way, you seem ready to attack Google. Where's your venom for the telcos who actually want to mess with your content? They seem to be a far greater threat to me than Google.

Sure we will, with all your personal information being leaked and stolen off the internet you are easy to find.....lol. Google is watching.

You do know that with the bolded part, you're proving my analogy true?

All I've read are articles that guess to what they think Google/Verizon have said in those meetings.

All we're asking for is a link to some documents or articles with those "own words". It's a simple request. If it's as evident as you make it out to be, then you should have no trouble finding them.

Black and white world views with little understanding of the issues in play but yet thinks he's absolutely right. However, absolutely unwilling to do anything more than talk about the issues. And only cares about them when they land in the media (search his post history for net neutrality prior to this story). Would make an excellent politician. Solid teabagger potential.

For starters, he knows I might be Asian. And might be named Bob. Should be simple enough to find with all that leaked information!

I'm sure with all of Google's Big Brother-ness that they know I shower naked.

You really have a warped sense of morality if you think it comes down to some, 'general guidelines' or a 'standard document'? That's an absurd idea of morality.

At its very basis moral behavior encompasses the concept of not causing harm to others, and I would extend that to the more active concept of extending help to others when they are in need and you are able. Choosing a course of action that benefits oneself, but causes harm to others as a consequence is unethical.

Whether one causes harm is not generally that subjective a concept in practice, and Google's selling out of net neutrality for its business purposes clearly crosses that line, as does directly supporting Google in its efforts to subvert net neutrality. If supporting Google in other areas helps them indirectly, or emboldens them in their efforts to, undermine net neutrality, and I think it does, then that also is unethical behavior.

There is no real ethical dilemma here for Google. By siding with Verizon, they are throwing net neutrality under the bus and causing harm to millions. They are not in any way preserving net neutrality by abandoning it, nor are they in any way mitigating the damage to it by making their pact with Verizon. It's a gutting, pure and simple. It's the abandonment of everything Google said they stood for for years. It's a betrayal of everyone who supported them because they said they supported net neutrality. Their ethical course, which might hinder their business aspirations, but would minimize the harm they cause, would be to stand by the principles they espoused.

Is Bob a common name in Asia?

So you're hurt and care enough to divert this discussion with volumes of posts on the issue, because you supported Google for years?

Clearly you misread my intent. Of course there is no book of general guidelines. What you're doing is trying to force what you believe to be moral/immoral onto the rest of us. And saying "shame on you, you evil heathans" if you don't share my views. That was my point.


Again, I point to the example I stated in my post. If you were stuck with the decision of killing another person in order to save thousands of others because their bodies contains a cure to a bacteria infection, which one's the ethical choice? According to you, killing the person is unethical, so you have to spare him to be ethical. But then the other thousands will die, so makes you unethical. If you kill him, you save the other thousands, but in an act of being ethical to the thousands, you do something that's unethical to the single one. The lines aren't so clear are they?


See my example above. It clearly can be subjective.


What line? The one you decided? Seems like extreme, Jetz, and myself disagree with you. By definition, that makes ethics here subjective.


And you know this to be complete fact based on what hard evidence? All I see are your own opinions.

A friend of a friend once told me he read an article that linked to another site while searching Google that said Asian guys named Bob who showered naked had suspect morals. Is that true? Of course assuming that your name really is Bob that you are Asian and you do indeed shower naked.

Hey Extreme, can I jump in here? I can relate to your remark regarding not having anything interesting online, as that is the same with me. But what about those people who do their income taxes online ? .... shouldn't we do everything possible to protect their privacy? .... what about banking online ? .... what about an innocent picture of a grandchild taking a bath sent to grandpa and grandma .... what if it was easy for a child molester to get that image and make it part of a worldwide porn site. The thing is, imho, privacy lost is the most valuable thing we have .... we have to protect it at all costs. Once it's gone, it's gone forever.

I agree. But that isn't what mouse is talking about. He is all about morals and net neutrality we aren't really taking about using secure servers or data protection which everyone that uses a computer should take very seriously.

But I also look at it this way I have a better chance of some kid making 7.00 an hour stealing my credit card at a store then I do having it stolen online.

In any case we could post 300 more posts on internet security thats a huge topic.

And in that period how many of that 8m phones Apple sold had those features. You seem to ignore the fact that the second quarter results contain zero iPhone 4 sales.

Hey, that would be a record anyway ..... 600 some odd posts .... who says quantity doesn't trump quality ...hahaha

oh reeeeeally?

Toyota sells different cars, all have 4 wheels, steering wheels, and are, just cars. Just like android phones are all, phones, they all just look a little different and a few different features. Your own analogy backfired on you.

Are you a relative of Tomi's?

I wish I were. Would be more wealthy and possibly more influental.

Only relation is the same lastname, country of birth and general field of work (mobile telecoms).

Regs, Jarkko

Apple's iPhone is seventh in units sold with 2.7 percent of the market share, and iOS is fourth with 14.2 percent of the market. So with that why are the U.S. DOJ and European Union targeting Apple for having a monopoly?

The government needs to put a stop to Apple monopolizing mindshare. It should be illegal for any one company to have it's devices compared to and talked about constantly, especially when they don't have the highest unit sales. Why no talk of a Blackberry Killer or Symbian OS Killer, only iPhone Killers, despite the iPhone having much less than either of these. Apple is clearly using subliminal advertising to trick users. Down with mindshare monopolies I say!

If I had to make a guess, I'd say it's because the USA appears to be one of the easiest countries in the world where it's possible to "buy favorable legislation". ... One look at the financial industries clout over government policy over the last few decades should be enough to arrive at that conclusion. .... and which tech company is right up there with political donations. Here's a clue .... it's not Apple.

P.S. .. I haven't made up my mind yet about the Google/Verizon proposal because I haven't done enough research yet to reach an informed opinion .... but when I do I'll share it.

HeHe ... I can only hope that everybody gets this post, because otherwise .... we're in for a long day.

I was referring to the bluetooth hardware and the bluez library. For some reason, Samsung broke bluez so apps like the wiimote input app no longer works. There are some HTC phones that have a similar problem and point to HTC Sense as the culprit. I've combed over the bluez source for the galaxy phones and can't find anything that would break it (it's the same as the one used in ubuntu 9) so it must be a kernel level break.